Committee Transcript 1991-Aug-29 | 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

City of Sault Ste Marie

Board of governors of Exhibition Place

Committee for Fair Shopping

Thriftys

Canadian Federation of Independent Business

Fairness for Families

Shoppers Drug Mart

Ontario Discount Drug Association

Town and Country

Ontario Automobile Dealers Association; Toronto Automobile Dealers Association

Rexdale Business Association

Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Suzy Shier

Subcommittee report

Gerrit De Boer

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Chair: White, Drummond (Durham Centre NDP)

Vice-Chair: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East NDP)

Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)

Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West L)

Fletcher, Derek (Guelph NDP)

Gigantes, Evelyn (Ottawa Centre NDP)

Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)

Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex NDP)

Mills, Gordon (Durham East NDP)

Poirier, Jean (Prescott and Russell L)

Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)

Winninger, David (London South NDP)

Substitutions:

Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L) for Mr Poirier

Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L) for Mr Chiarelli

Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold NDP) for Mr Gigantes

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

McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East PC) for Mr Harnick

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

Also taking part: Cunningham, Dianne E. (London North PC)

Clerk: Freedman, Lisa

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

The committee met at 0904 in committee room 1.

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

Resuming consideration of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act in respect of the opening of retail business establishments and employment in them.

Reprise de l'étude du projet de loi 115, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail et la Loi sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui concerne l'ouverture des établissements de commerce de détail et l'emploi dans ces établissements.

CITY OF SAULT STE MARIE

The Chair: Our first presenter is Mayor Joe Fratesi, the mayor of Sault Ste Marie.

I believe the committee members have already received a copy of your correspondence in regard to your wish that we appear in your city. Unfortunately we were not able to change schedule because people were not able to be contacted in July, but I think I speak for all of us in saying that I wish we had been able to, sir. You have approximately half an hour. The committee members, I am sure, will have many questions for you, so if you could leave time after your comments for those questions I am sure it would be appreciated.

Mr Fratesi: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just at the outset, let me thank you for the opportunity of addressing you this morning but, having said that, reiterate and reconfirm what I have said in my letter to the committee of July 10 expressing not only my personal disappointment but the disappointment of my total city council as well as the citizenry of Sault Ste Marie, regardless of their point of view on the issue, at the fact that this committee chose not to hold hearings in Sault Ste Marie as it travelled about the province.

This issue is one which has had major play and consideration over the last four or five years in my city, and there is little question that the committee, if it is generally interested in finding the best legislation and not just propping up or supporting what has been proposed, would have benefited from coming to a community which would have had many people talk about what in fact has been the case as opposed to what might be or what might have been.

I appreciate that this issue is a delicate one for this government, as it was for the last government, but it is hoped that legislation can be passed ultimately which will meet the needs of all parts of Ontario, not necessarily legislation that might solve a problem in Metropolitan Toronto. I think all other parts of the province really have had quite enough of having to take the medicine every time Metropolitan Toronto has a cold.

Sault Ste Marie had a lot to say about this issue, and in spite of a specific request to have hearings, the committee passed on Sault Ste Marie. The advertisement for committee hearings throughout the province followed assurances from my member, Tony Martin, that the legislation that was coming should not prevent Sault Ste Marie from carrying on what had successfully worked over a four-year period of time. The advertisement for hearings in other parts of the province followed assurances from my member that the announced legislation was only in proposed form and that a travelling committee would listen to arguments of why places like the Sault should not be prevented from carrying on.

The Solicitor General and the committee were told and must have read how things worked and worked well in Sault Ste Marie, yet the committee chose not to attend in the city in Ontario that probably had the most and perhaps even the best advice based on experience to pass on. So it should not surprise anyone that I was shocked and disappointed to hear that a government which was talking about the importance of new working relationships with municipal governments and talking about the value of input from the people it serves would not ensure that a city like Sault Ste Marie, given the experience with this issue, would not be visited after it had gone through what I remember almost seemed like the Third World War dealing with the issue four or five years ago. I can only guess that the committee perhaps did not want to hear what we had to say. Hopefully I am wrong, and maybe that will be corrected as a result of today's attendance.

After reading the advertisement, I immediately contacted Tony Martin and expressed my disappointment. I was told that the committee wanted to stay away from cities where the cross-border shopping issue might get mixed in. I could not understand that, because I saw Windsor, Thunder Bay and Kingston as cities that were being visited, and certainly the city of Windsor has as much of a cross-border shopping problem and issue to solve as does the city of Sault Ste Marie.

I also contacted the committee clerk and asked why the Sault was overlooked and I was advised how the decisions were made with respect to locations. I was also advised that when consulted in the Sault, organized labour, through the labour council, suggested that the Sault should be passed over because members were split. I would suspect that perhaps is the case throughout the whole of Ontario. I was also advised that the president of the Sault Ste Marie labour council indicated that there was really no need to upset the apple cart in Sault Ste Marie. The president was advised that border cities would not be visited because the committee did not want the two issues intermingled and the issue clouded.

I wrote to the committee. You have a copy of my letter of July 10 that expresses that disappointment. I immediately contacted the president of the labour council, and when I shared the ad with her and pointed to Windsor, Thunder Bay and Kingston as locations, she almost went through the roof, because that was not her understanding of the committee's locations.

I have a copy of her letter to the committee, dated August 19, where she complains of the lack of hearings in the Sault and requests a special date to be set. The letter, which I am sure you all have, is indeed a very interesting one because it comes from organized labour, which was very vocal against Sunday shopping in my community and I suspect very vocal against Sunday shopping in any community that considers it and which has been pushing for the legislation that protects workers against working on Sunday when they do not want to; the common pause day concept.

0910

I would like to quote from Sharon Graham's letter to the committee, on page 2, the second paragraph: "My initial response to not having it" -- the committee -- "come here was the fact that our community had already dealt with the matter and it would appear to be to the approval of most citizens, with the hours that they currently are. Many of the proponents against this a few years ago have assimilated into the practice; there are a few of us committed against Sunday shopping who have not succumbed, but we are truly in the minority."

The last paragraph of her letter is especially worth quoting: "When you review the input from communities you have chosen and gather the data, would it not be appropriate to consider a special day's hearing for Sault Ste Marie? This would be an opportunity to collectively review the realities of a practice that has been voted on by the citizens and in practice for almost three years" Actually, it is over four years. This is what I referred to: coming to a community where we can talk about what has been, as opposed to listening to communities who talk about what might be or what might have been.

I continue to quote: "I eagerly await your comments and more importantly the potential ramifications from your hearings and the possible changes to a system which `seems' liveable here in the Sault."

Sharon's last comment is really the nub of Sault Ste Marie's presentation to this committee and what the Sault has been trying to say with respect to the proposals that you are considering and why we are so disappointed and even angry that you decided not to come to our city to hear us and to see for yourself how a local government has taken what was a political hot potato and come up with an arrangement which is workable, or as Sharon says in her letter to you, liveable.

I want to congratulate the government on its commitment to a common pause day for those who wish it. We applaud the amendments to the Employment Standards Act which protects workers who do not want to work on Sunday. Some day, I guess, all of us would hope that this protection could be extended to all workers, but that may be an impossibility, especially in a city like my own where industry, the hospitality and service businesses and health care operate as important parts of our community seven days a week.

We fully support what the government has before it and what is being considered to protect the worker who wants Sunday as a common pause day. I can tell you that in the Sault in the last four or five years the only people who have worked on Sunday in the retail business are those who wanted to work and who welcomed the work. The amendments will simply formalize that and for that we offer our support.

It is the rest of the proposed legislation which creates the problem because what it does is really take away from us an important feature of our community, an economic feature of our community that we want to retain.

Let me give you a brief history of the issue in the city of Sault Ste Marie. Since September 1, 1987, the city of Sault Ste Marie has had in effect a bylaw, passed under the Retail Business Holidays Act, which permits retail business establishments in the city to remain open on Sundays. The first bylaw was passed for a one-year trial period. When it expired on August 31, 1988, city council passed another bylaw to the same effect which extended to January 16, 1989, so as to continue the experiment until after the municipal election in the fall of 1988.

As part of the municipal election in 1988, city council authorized a question to be put on the municipal ballot regarding Sunday shopping. The question was worded as follows: Are you in favour of city council passing a bylaw which would allow stores to remain open on Sundays? Yes or no. The result of that ballot, and you had 35,200 people voting on it, was about 19,700 people voting yes and about 15,500 people voting no -- about a 60-40 split back then. I can assure you that if it were put on the ballot and the election was to be held in the next two months, the numbers would probably be 95% in favour of continuing Sunday shopping and 5% opposed.

I think the fact that it was on a ballot in a community like Sault Ste Marie, as far as the Sault is concerned, is going to give you a better handle or a better statistic than something like a Gallup poll might do, given the fact that this many people came out and expressed their opinions.

At its first regular council meeting in 1989, the new council passed the bylaw which is in force today. That bylaw allows retail business establishments to remain open on Sundays between 1 pm and 5 pm. These hours were purposely chosen to make it a worthwhile permission to the retailers, but also to ensure that there would be no interference with traditional Sunday worship and the importance that families place on Sundays, Sunday dinners, family outings and the likes of that. I can tell you that this has worked in our community.

The bylaw does not deal with other holidays as defined in the act. It was passed under the tourist enhancement provisions of the legislation, and the bylaw contains a section that requires the retail business establishments to remain closed on certain Sundays, such as Easter Sunday, New Year's Day, Canada Day, Christmas Day, or Boxing Day if it should fall on a Sunday.

All three bylaws that the city council passed were city-wide and applied to all retail business establishments. Therefore, large retail business establishments as well as small ones are permitted to stay open on Sundays. Prior to the first bylaw being passed, city council held its series of meetings inviting public input, at which it received submissions from individuals and persons representing groups for and against the bylaw. The presentations were extensive, they were comprehensive and certainly all points of view were expressed. If you want to talk about the good, the bad and the ugly, all of that came out during those hearings.

So there was, without question, the opportunity for public input prior to the passing of the bylaws in our community and, as indicated, following the input process the matter was placed on a trial period, and following the trial period, it was placed on a municipal ballot so that the folks could be consulted.

City council, in a very strongly worded resolution only months ago, recently reconfirmed its position that after four successful years with absolutely no problems in our community, we would not want legislation passed that would alter our ability to deal with the issue on a continuing basis.

In Sault Ste Marie, those who want to stay open, stay open. Those who want to close, close. Those who want to work, work and those who do not want to work, do not work. We would like to see that the ultimate legislation will not interfere with what has worked so successfully in my community.

The problems with the bill that you are considering obviously talk about sizes, square footage of store. Anyone over 7,500 square feet or having eight employees or more would be affected. Department stores and grocery stores and many of the other retail businesses, the K marts and the Canadian Tires, which do so well not only because of locals but because of shoppers visiting our community, would all be affected in my city. Basically the legislation would kill any experience with Sunday shopping.

There is no apparent rationale or justification for the limit being placed on 7,500 square feet or eight employees or more, at least in cities like Sault Ste Marie. Under the draft regulations, stores selling exactly the same products could be treated very differently and that different treatment would be based solely on the size of a store or the number of employees. Certainly that would be unfair.

Subsection 4(2) of the proposed act states that a principle that should guide council is that holidays should be maintained as common pause days. How is that principle enhanced by the artificial, arbitrary limits on square footage or the number of floors? We simply cannot understand that. The intent of the act is to maintain or to develop tourism when it deals with exceptions; then the regulations and the exemptions should apply regardless of the size of the store or the number of employees.

The act is treating the larger retail establishments differently from the smaller establishments and is putting the larger retail really at a competitive disadvantage. Very few of the larger retail business establishments will be able to satisfy the criteria set out in 2(2)(c) of the regulation unless a very broad interpretation is given to paragraph 4.

Even if the four criteria in (c) are satisfied, how is the retailer going to satisfy 2(2)(b), which requires its services to be provided primarily for tourists? Do we expect that someone will stand at the door and check to see whether you are a tourist or a local when you come in the door? It makes it an unworkable situation.

0920

The legislation as drafted will encourage retailers to try to find ways around its provisions. Artificial and arbitrary limitations should be eliminated completely from the proposed legislation.

There is another reason why the Retail Business Holidays Act should not be amended. The existing legislation has been the subject of numerous court rulings and court challenges. We are now at a point where the existing legislation is starting to become clear, it is starting to be interpreted by the different levels of court to put a greater understanding, and it has taken a long time to arrive at the kind of understanding. Introducing further amendments will bring about further court challenges and further confusion and no doubt the whole ball will start rolling again. There will be more uncertainty introduced as retailers challenge different provisions in the proposed legislation.

Only peripherally mentioned earlier in my presentation was the cross-border shopping problem in the province, especially in communities like Sault Ste Marie. The Ontario retailer in border cities is facing major challenges. I think all of us know that. It is difficult enough keeping the Ontario shopper at home. It will be even more difficult to do so if the large retailers in border city shopping centres are closed. Often these large retailers in shopping centres are the major draws for the shopper and if they are closed, the shopper will choose to shop in the United States, where he or she can shop at large retail stores just as easily as at the small ones.

We are not arguing that what is right for us in Sault Ste Marie is necessarily right for another city, Toronto or Sudbury, and I guess your hearings in Sudbury pointed that out to you very vividly, where you had two different communities, two different chambers of commerce, and maybe even two different labour groups giving to you two very different points of view. What we are saying is that the local option which has been in the previous legislation should be allowed to continue.

In summary, the position of the city of Sault Ste Marie is that there should be no distinction between retail business establishments based on square footage or number of employees. It should be left to the discretion of the local municipalities whether to pass a bylaw under the act, and that decision should not be encumbered by such an artificial requirement as tourist enhancement. Obviously any council in this province can bring itself within at least two of the categories which are set out in subsection 1(2) of the proposed regulations.

Again, the amendments to the Employment Standards Act are good. They should be used to ensure that any employee who wishes to have a common pause day in fact is protected by new legislation, but as far as everything else is concerned, in those places where things work well, and they have worked well in Sault Ste Marie, please make sure that the legislation, as it ultimately is determined, allows for us to continue with what works in my community. I guess there is an old adage that certainly applies from our point of view: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That certainly applies to what is happening in Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or any of the committee members may have with respect to this issue, and we can speak from experience in our community.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mayor Fratesi. I am sure many members will have questions.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you very much for coming to Toronto to present your case. I will have to let the government members of the committee defend themselves with regard to the decision not to go to Sault Ste Marie. I think the opposition parties tried their best to include your city in those hearings. However, we were not successful, as obviously we do not have the majority on this committee.

I would like to ask you a couple of questions. First of all, based on your experience, what has been the proportion of stores that opened versus those that closed? Also, what has been the experience with the malls? We have heard the arguments very often that if one store opens, the other one is forced to open as well; if, in a mall, Sears opens, everybody else will have to open. Also, because of the lease arrangements with the mall owner, individual retailers, even though they would like to stay closed, would be forced to open. What has been your experience in that regard?

Mr Fratesi: As far as the downtown area is concerned, most stores chose not to open and they are not complaining, believe it or not, that the stores in the malls are opening. In the malls, most stores have chosen to remain open. Not all; the mall owners have not taken a hard and fast position with anyone who wanted to remain closed.

You will go into either of the two major malls -- one of the malls is 450,000 square feet and the other is 300,000 square feet -- and you will find that some of the stores are closed and most of the stores are open, but it has been self-policed. It has not been a problem. Malls have not forced the smaller stores, whether they be the nationals or the locals, to open. Again, that is what we think is truly good about the scenario. Those who want to do so open, those who want to stay closed remain closed. Those who want to work are working, and those who do not want to work have not been asked to work or forced to work.

Mr Daigeler: We also have, of course, very often heard the argument that despite the best labour legislation to protect people who do not want to work on Sunday there would be this indirect pressure. Possibly you would be passed over for extra hours at a later date, or promotion, or whatever it is that you cannot really put your finger on but could possibly be put in connection with your refusal to work on Sunday.

Do you have any evidence in that regard, Sault Ste Marie being a town that is very much, I think, shaped by labour and the union movement? If anywhere, we should hear something there if that occurred.

Mr Fratesi: I can only make this observation. As the mayor, I can tell you I have had no problem, not one single problem brought to my attention, and I would think that I would have.

I make the observation also that the position of labour, as it now appears to be from Sault Ste Marie, is vastly different than it was when this issue was first talked about four or five years ago. I would venture to guess that if there were one single problem with people being directly or indirectly coerced into working on a Sunday when they did not want to, our labour council or its various unions would have brought that to my attention and certainly would have brought it to the attention of this committee.

Having said that, we have no problem with that being formalized, the indirect or the direct coercion that might be out there in the absence of any legislation to protect workers for a common pause day, but only those workers who want that protection, only those workers who want a common pause day. It has worked in the Sault and there has been no problem whatsoever.

Mr Daigeler: As a Liberal, I am of course pleased that you say, "What's not broken, don't try and fix it." In fact, we heard that several times across the province, that the municipal option that was instituted by our government has worked well and that many people in fact acknowledged that they had changed their minds on that. They were very sceptical about this beforehand, but given the experience, it seems to have worked. The domino effect that many people feared did not occur. Certainly Sault Ste Marie is not the only city that has changed its mind on it, so I am pleased that you confirm that position. However, it does not seem very likely that the current government is going to follow that. I think both the past Solicitor General and the new one very firmly indicated that the principle of the bill is going to stay.

In the light of that, how do you feel about these tourism exemptions? Yesterday in Hamilton, somewhat to my surprise, a lot of people, including municipal representatives, argued that the province rather than the municipality should decide what is a tourism area and what is not. They argued very strongly for a provincial board to which Sault Ste Marie or anybody else would have to make application, and it would then decide for your area. How do you feel about that?

Mr Fratesi: I think it would be difficult for the province to do that. It might be easier when you have various boroughs or townships in a metropolitan area coming up with something that would be standard, but I think it would be difficult for you to determine what would be important in selling tourism for Sault Ste Marie. We are much different from Sudbury, we are much different from Thunder Bay, and we are 400 miles away from one city and 200 from the other.

We would hope that, first of all, you accept that tourism is an important part of the economy of Sault Ste Marie. If you accept that, you accept that the activity that comes with a Sunday opening is important to the economic life of the community.

Last, whether we like it or not, the cross-border shopping issue is very much at play. If the stores are not open on Sunday in Sault Ste Marie, the folks will have yet another reason to shop in Sault Ste Marie, Michigan. If the K marts and the Canadian Tires and those large stores are not open, they will go to the K marts and the Meyers in the Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, area. It is 75 cents away, it is lawful and it is 10 minutes away. It is one bridge three miles away. So the cross-border shopping issue does have something at play; you are talking about keeping people in your community and inviting people from the smaller areas outside the city into your community on a Sunday afternoon. Shopping has become probably very close to the number one family activity. I know my wife has me tag along with my kids, and we go out and we spend several hours shopping.

0930

So would I want the province to set up standards? I made the comment earlier that too often the provincial government -- and I have expressed this concern throughout my term as mayor, six years -- sets the standard for the whole of the province to solve a problem that may be peculiar to one area -- Metropolitan Toronto, for example. We have courthouse security, for example, in Sault Ste Marie that is costing us a fortune because of problems in the larger areas, and that was one particular issue where I came before a committee like this and saw many others like me come before a committee like this. It sounded like the arguments were good ones and sounded like folks were listening, but nothing changed in that legislation.

I am hoping this committee does not operate that way. I am hoping that every community will be looked at differently, the dynamics differently; what is tourism, and what might be considered enhancement of tourism differently; and what might work in one community might not work in another. I am hoping that the legislation ultimately recognizes that and allows, as it often does in other areas, local government to take care of an issue which might be controversial. But again, we did not shy away from this one. We did not say to our folks, "We'll wait to see what the province decides." We took on the issue. We had the hearings, and we decided what we thought was best within the existing legislation for our city, and it has worked well.

I think every city should have that opportunity, and if they decide that it should not be in their city, that is fine. I accept that. But please, please do not take away something that has really become a way of life in my community and the absence of which really is going to create even more problems, and you folks already know the problems we have.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much, mayor. I too wanted to just point out that both the opposition parties fought long and hard to come to the Sault. I had a particular interest. It eventually came to a vote and you guys won and that is the fact.

Mr Fratesi: I know Peter Kormos wanted to come.

Mr Carr: I am sure he did.

Mr Fratesi: Good morning, Peter.

Mr Kormos: How are you doing, your worship?

Mr Carr: In fact, having travelled to the Sault many times when I played for the Toronto Marlboros, we went up there to play the Greyhounds many times, so it would have been a good chance to go back there.

You mentioned the fact that if a vote were held now, approximately 95% of the people would want it. I was wondering what the numbers would be of workers, because, as you may know, this government has said that if you ask people if they want Sunday shopping, they say yes. If you ask people if they want to work Sundays, a larger percentage would say no. What is your feeling about the people now working in the industry? It would be a bit of a guess. How do they feel about it?

Mr Fratesi: I would think the percentage would even be higher than 95%.

As I indicated, there has not been a problem in my community. You have the letter from organized labour in my community, and I assume Sharon knew it would be published, it would be circulated, it would be looked at by opposition members. I am sure she chose her words, and even having chosen her words, there is a clear indication that labour's position in my community, and I suspect throughout most of the province, has changed greatly on this. There are people who are part of labour, who are working on Sunday, who welcome the work. There are people who are adamantly opposed to Sunday openings, store owners as well as employees, who now welcome it. And I suspect there are a lot of people who belong to the labour movement, at least in Sault Ste Marie, who would be down at Queen's Park screaming and hollering at their members because they have had something taken away from them that they really enjoy, think they need and know is working well in a community. Organized labour in my community would not understand why this government would take away something that has worked in Sault Ste Marie for four years.

Mr Carr: How much of that do you think would be a part of the tough economic circumstances? I know your community, unfortunately, has been going through probably worse than anybody or certainly very difficult times, and there may be a lot of people who are saying, "Well, if everything was going fairly well, we wouldn't want it," but because of some of the problems, do you see it as being sort of an offshoot of some of the tough economic times?

Mr Fratesi: I do not think so. I think even if we wound the clock back to three years ago or even four years ago when we first put it in place and people started to use it that people would very feel very much as they do now, that it is ours and please do not take it from us. Tough economic times, as I indicated, and the cross-border shopping problem would just compound the effect it has in our community, but I do not think the feelings of people would alter significantly.

Mr Carr: There are large sections of this province that are going to open. Windsor has voted for it. Sarnia the other night did, yourselves, Kenora and so on. A lot of them are saying: "Thank you very much, province. You have given us this tourism exemption." It is so broad we have gone from driving a car to a truck to a plane through. They are extremely broad, and a lot of municipalities are saying: "Thank you very much. We will take it." Because really, what it means is any part of this province can classify under those tourism exemptions, and rather than handing it to the municipalities and saying, "What do you want to do?" there has been this loophole. They have said, "No, we're going to have the common pause day, but you can take these tourism exemptions."

There have been a lot of groups that have come before this committee that said we should toughen it, which, therefore, would make it a lot tougher. Looking at this bill and this piece of legislation, do you think the tourism exemptions are broad enough?

Mr Fratesi: Absolutely not. This legislation, if passed ultimately in the present form, would kill Sunday shopping in Sault Ste Marie. It would be over, without question. The size of store, the number of employees and some of the other criteria in there would kill it in my community, and I can tell you that is not what organized labour or anyone wants in Sault Ste Marie. But that is effectively what it would do. We are not that kind of small community that has quaint little shops that attract the tourists. We have people come into our community who want to shop, and if a tourist coming into my community is like myself and perhaps my wife, when we go travelling the first thing we do is hit the department stores to see what is different in that city. Very often when you go to, say, a waterfront setting, you may want to find a souvenir shop, but you do not shop all day for souvenirs. Or, at least, I do not find most people do.

Mr Carr: Right. You know, the tourism exemptions are such that the Sault would classify, because you meet probably all the criteria, if not one or two. That is what municipalities are doing.

One of the concerns is, by the province not taking the responsibility, we have really taken the fight back to the municipalities, and maybe you could just explain some of the fights you went through, because they are pitting shop owners against shop owners side by each, side by side. What are some of the experiences you had in the fights that went on during this period of time at the local level?

Mr Fratesi: We had what I described as the Third World War; the good, the bad, the ugly. We had people from the various religious groups come out and suggest to us that churches would be emptied, that we would be taking away from God's time on a Sunday morning, and we said: "Fine, we accept that as a concern. We will make sure that our hours are altered." We had people from all of the different social services say that Sunday shopping would tear at the family fabric, and that certainly did not happen. As a matter of fact, we think we have given another event for folks to do as a family on Sunday, and we made sure that the hours were tailored so that Sunday dinner was not interfered with.

We had labour come out against business, and labour and business are singing out of the same hymn book now. But labour and business were pitted against each other on the issue at length, and it was a very emotional issue on both sides, and we said, "We'll try it, and at the end of trial period, we will test to see whether all of these negative things materialize." And they did not. At the end of the test period, we said, "Okay, fine, we'll go back to the folks and we'll ask them for their advice." We put it on the ballot and the folks wanted it.

It has been in place for four years, and I would bet my last dollar that the ballot would come back 95 to 5 to keep it going, in spite of all the emotion that was expressed on both sides of the issue when we went through it. We are one municipality that says: "Fine, give us the hot potato. We'll deal with it." We did. Now we are saying: "Don't take it away from us. We've dealt with it." We went through a heck of a lot to get to where we are, and we have put it in a form that is workable. I applaud the government for its principle of a common pause day for those who want it, and that part of the legislation is great, but it is the rest of the legislation that will create the problem.

0940

Mr Lessard: Thank you very much for your presentation. You certainly put in a different perspective for members of the committee. I should tell you, as well, that I was not a member of this committee at the time the decision was made not to go to Sault Ste Marie. I may have argued to go there, had I been a member. However, I cannot really say. I think an argument that could be made is that we would be concerned, as a committee, to go to communities that have not been able to deal with this issue in the same way as the Sault, and that may have been a consideration.

You talked about legislation that is passed by the provincial government that has application throughout the province, and that is our mandate here, to do that. Sometimes that may have an effect on communities which may feel that they are different from Toronto, and people around the province are different as well. I can tell you that my experience when I am a tourist is not to go see what is different in shopping centres or department stores in different cities. I think something that we may perceive as a problem is that department stores are the same when you go to different communities, if they are all the same store, and we would like to try to encourage some uniqueness in the province.

I guess the problem we are faced with is, how do we deal with a city like the Sault that has been able to deal with this issue, and seems to have been able to deal with it fairly effectively, and still be able to satisfy our mandate to pass legislation that is going to have uniform application throughout the province and try to meet our commitment to have a common pause day for as many retail workers as possible? You mentioned that you like that part of the legislation, but if you follow the rest of your submission, the number of people who would be able to take advantage of a common pause day would be fairly diminished. It would almost disappear, I would think, for most people, even with the protections under the act.

You talked about legislation that you can live with. I want to know what changes we can make to this bill that you can live with, but still apply to other cities in the province which, quite frankly, said: "Look, we don't want this. This is a provincial responsibility. Why don't you deal with it?" How do we satisfy all of those people?

Mr Fratesi: There are a couple of points, I suppose, that I should make. First of all, you may have already in place the old legislation that allows that, and maybe some minor adjustment would solve your concerns.

Dealing with the point where you indicated that you, as a provincial government, have a responsibility to uniformly make laws for the province, I do not disagree with that, but there are many pieces of legislation where you have a working relationship between the provincial and municipal governments, where you share that kind of responsibility: the Planning Act, for example, where you do not say in provincial legislation that Sault Ste Marie must plan its downtown area like Sudbury's or like Metropolitan Toronto's. You give to local government the authority to make decisions that have a local flavour and make sense locally.

You have the Municipal Act, which gives that kind of authority to municipalities to pass bylaws that might be different from one community to another. But there is an overriding principle in each of those pieces of legislation that is uniform. I am saying to you, this piece of legislation probably falls into that same category.

The overriding principle of the government's desire to give protection to the worker who wants a common pause day is okay: no problem, put that in there. But if he does not want a common pause day, or if he wants to work and a community wants to have, for whatever reason, Sunday opening in a way that works for it and does not create problems, I would hope that you, as a provincial government, say, "That's the kind of legislation where a good working relationship between the provincial government and the municipality can work out."

You do not have to make the Sault the same as Toronto or Sudbury for this kind of circumstance, just as you did not for zoning laws or for other things, bylaws and the like. I am hoping this legislation can confine whatever is required to allow that to happen. You will have problems in communities, and there should be the protection for local government to invoke whatever the provincial government wants to offer as protection, but you can accomplish both end results. You can with a piece of legislation.

Mr Lessard: I hope so.

Mr Fratesi: This piece does not really do that. It certainly does not do it for my community.

Mr Morrow: I am going to really try to be very brief so hopefully Mr Fletcher can get on. I just want to clear up a couple of comments and then ask you a really quick question. You have an awfully fine member in the Sault with Tony Martin. Tony and I had a meeting and he expressed your exact concerns to me about not meeting in the Sault, and I really appreciate Tony doing that. I explained to Tony that we had an awfully hectic schedule this summer. We visited 11 cities. That is a really rough schedule.

You also talked about the labour council -- I do not have your exact quote -- saying that it advised us or we advised it that no, we would not be attending. I can tell you, as a person who was directly involved in that, no, that never happened.

You said if you had a plebiscite today, 95% of the people would be in favour of Sunday shopping. I propose to you that if you put another question on that plebiscite, "Do you want to work on Sunday?" you would probably have the same response -- 95% of the people would not want to work on Sunday. What are your comments on that?

Mr Fratesi: First of all, I agree with you, Tony Martin is an effective member and he did try to talk the committee into coming to the community for the reasons that I have expressed.

On your second point, you are incorrect when you talk about the labour council, because in the letter to the committee of August 19, Sharon says to the committee members that she was contacted and she did indicate that her feeling, on behalf of labour, was that you should pass on the Sault: "Don't upset the apple cart."

Mr Carr: Do we have that letter?

Mr Fratesi: You do have this letter; at least it is addressed to the standing committee. Has that been circulated, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: No. Maybe Lisa can make copies.

Mr Fratesi: I have my copy. The things I referred to in so far as her having been consulted about whether the committee should come to the Sault she acknowledges in that letter to the committee. I thought you had the letter. There is little question in my mind that the committee asked whether it should come to the Sault and labour said, "Don't come because things are working okay."

Interjection.

Mr Fratesi: I am just reading from the letter, sir.

On the last part, if you were to put the question on the ballot -- I do not care how you word it -- the feelings of the community would come out clearly.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mayor Fratesi.

Mr Fratesi: Thank you for the opportunity.

The Chair: It is a very interesting and certainly very probing challenge for our committee.

Mr Fratesi: Hopefully the committee has not made its mind up and is going to listen to --

Mr Daigeler: There is a difference between the committee and the government.

0950

BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF EXHIBITION PLACE

The Chair: We now have a presentation from the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, Mr John Sillers and Mr Peter Moore. Mr Moore is with Exhibition Place, is that correct?

Mr Moore: Yes, sir. I am Peter Moore. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear here this morning. Our presentation will be very brief. I would like to point out quite early that the issue about which the board of governors of Exhibition Place wishes to make its representation this morning deals with a procedural issue rather than the substance of the legislation which you are considering.

Specifically, what the board of governors of Exhibition Place is requesting is that an amendment be made to the legislation which allows a local board of an upper-tier municipality to make direct application to its council to allow shopping to take place on its premises.

There is a significant number of changes anticipated at Exhibition Place in Toronto, specifically on the east end of our grounds. We are currently reviewing and investigating the establishment of a trade centre on those grounds. We have received proposals for development on the west end of the grounds of Exhibition Place, primarily oriented towards greater use of our buildings and greater use of our land in the style of festivals and events similar to the style we have been having the past the few years, such as the CHIN picnic, the Caribana festival, etc.

The nature of our application is that we are a local board of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto; we are owned by the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. We would like to be able to make direct application for exemption to the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto rather than making application to the city of Toronto, which would then make application on our behalf to Metro council, which in effect is our owner. To some degree we are seeking relief much in the form of a collection or an association of retailers who can make application directly to Metro council.

In conclusion, to reiterate, our request is that the legislation be amended procedurally to allow a local board constituted of an upper-tier municipal authority, to make direct application to that authority rather than through the lower tier.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Sillers, do you have anything to add, sir?

Mr Sillers: Just to explain, Mr Chairman, I am a solicitor employed by Metropolitan Toronto. I am also the solicitor for the board of management. As Mr Moore has indicated, the request we are making here does not go to the substance, if you will, or intent of the legislation, but to the process. I think Mr Moore has covered it. The request is framed in a general manner in that it would relate to all upper-tier municipalities and their local boards.

If the committee should favour our request, I would be happy to assist in drafting any legislation. We did not put the request in the form to single out the board of management at Exhibition Place, rather to put it in the form of a general amendment. I think Mr Moore has covered all the other points.

The Chair: I am almost dumfounded with such a succinct request, Mr Sillers, because more typically our presentations are long perambulations and this is a very specific, very detailed request. I am sure you are open for questions on this particular thing, to elucidate it. Mr Daigeler.

Mr Daigeler: With regard to the specific request, legal counsel, I presume, will take that under advisement and when we look at clause-by-clause will inform us what would be the implications of this. I think it probably would be useful if you phrase it in the form of an amendment so that we can properly discuss it when we come back in the middle of September to look at clause-by-clause.

However, I am a little bit disappointed, quite frankly -- in fact, more than a little bit disappointed -- that the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, given the importance of it, would not have more to say on the legislation itself. Of course, when I saw Chairman Alan Tonks on the agenda I expected something substantive to come forward. I am just wondering whether you are prepared to give us something on that. I do not know whether you were here earlier when Mayor Fratesi spoke. We have had very strong opinions on both sides of the issue and obviously we are here to get not only the specific interests of a relatively particular concern, but the broad policy issues that are at stake here. I am just wondering, are you prepared to speak to that at all.

Mr Sillers: If I may, sir, I have no specific instruction from the Metropolitan Toronto council to speak to the broader issues that you have mentioned, but I can tell you that in June of this year a report went forward to council written by the Metro solicitor outlining generally, explaining, if you will, the amendments that you have before you. That report was merely received, so there was no specific instruction, apart from the point we are here addressing. There is no specific instruction from council, nor is there any recommendation or position on the legislation.

Mr Daigeler: You are not a politician and you are --

Mr Sillers: I am not a politician.

Mr Daigeler: Just, I guess, the solicitor. I do not want to phrase this pejoratively in any way. I do not think it would be fair for me to, as it were, put you on the spot and ask you how the whole thing has worked in the Metropolitan Toronto area, because I think to a fair degree it is a political question and not a legal one. So in the light of that, I think I have to pass on.

Mr Sillers: I can make one comment, if I may, Mr Chairman. Last June -- by "last June" I mean of 1990 -- there was a report from the Metro task force on Sunday shopping, and one of the many recommendations that was approved by council in June of 1990 was to endorse the concept, if you will, of the common pause day. That is the position of Metro council, but that was in the context of the legislation as it stood at that time. It was not in response to the amendments that this committee is considering. So I really cannot take it beyond that, sir.

Mr Daigeler: I hear there is an effort under way to put something on the ballot. Is that by Metro council?

Mr Sillers: I can only say that I do not know any more about that than what I read in the newspaper.

Mr Carr: The lawyers who come before us are always the ones who stick strictly on the line, and I appreciate you have to do that. You cannot speak for the council.

However, going around the province we have heard very clearly from municipalities that they are going to take the tourism exemptions and take entire communities and open them up. We have heard that in Windsor, Sarnia, the Sault, some of the other places in this province.

Notwithstanding the fact the Premier of this province said there would be a common pause day, municipalities have said, "As we see this legislation, we can take the entire community and open up based on the tourism criteria that you have laid out." I know there has been some debate between the mayor and the chairman and the Premier that I have read about, as you have, in the paper; differences of opinion. But as a lawyer, strictly speaking, looking at this legislation, if the municipality of Toronto wants to open up, can it declare the entire Metropolitan Toronto area a tourist area and open up? I am saying that from a legal standpoint.

Mr Sillers: As you said, you promised -- I am sorry, perhaps it was the former member -- not to put me on the spot.

Mr Carr: That was just your legal opinion on the tourism exemptions.

Mr Sillers: I have the greatest respect for the legal opinion that the various ministries of the government get in this area. I can only say that perhaps there is some doubt as to the way in which the regulation is presently framed. I think it would be improper for me, as a solicitor for Metropolitan Toronto, to advise this committee as to how the courts might ultimately interpret the legislation that you have before you or how the municipalities may use or abuse it, if that is the purport of the question.

Mr Carr: I respect the fact that the opinion you give will be confidential to your --

Mr Sillers: Right. I may have an opinion, but I prefer not to give it because my mission -- and I say it with respect, Mr Chairman, I am here primarily on behalf of the board of management of Exhibition Place. I would be quite prepared, to the extent that I can, to tell you the position that Metro council has taken with respect to this legislation historically, but I would certainly prefer not to give my legal opinion on the legislation and whether it might be used, abused or otherwise.

The Chair: Inasmuch as Mr Sillers has made that point on several occasions, perhaps we could --

Mr Carr: I do not mean to make it uncomfortable for you personally, but you can understand where we are coming from.

1000

Mr Sillers: I appreciate that.

Mr Carr: We do not want to do that. I appreciate that the recommendations you will make sometimes will be confidential, so that was not my intent. The problem we have, as you know, sitting back and watching this debate in the media between the Premier and the Metro people, is that we are the ones who have to make the recommendations, and you have a difference of opinion. Presumably, it is because the Premier says, "This is what I am getting, my legal opinion is you can open," and presumably Metro Toronto is saying, "This is the legal opinion we are getting." Some of the other communities, as we go around this province, are saying very clearly, "As we interpret these tourism exemptions, the ball is now in our court."

I guess ultimately it will not be the Premier or the chairman of Metro that will decide it. It will probably be the courts. I guess that is one of the concerns we have. Maybe you could comment on that aspect of it. Again, I am not trying to put you on the spot, but because of the difference of opinion on this, do you see this debate going to the courts? Will it be ultimately decided by the courts rather than elected officials, in your opinion?

Mr Siller: I would say yes. My answer to that question would be yes.

Mr Carr: Maybe you could just fill me in. I had assumed it was going to be the chairman who was coming today. I wondered why that had changed.

Mr Sillers: The Metro chairman?

Mr Carr: Yes. We had it listed as Chairman Alan Tonks from Metro coming in today. That is why you have to forgive us a little bit. I was expecting to come in and have the chairman here to be able to really debate it. I do not know if there is some clarification.

Mr Sillers: We are very sorry to disappoint you.

Mr Daigeler: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: It would be useful for the committee if perhaps the clerk could indicate to us what happened here, because we are really confused. I think the presentation here is on behalf of Exhibition Place whereas we expected a presentation on behalf of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. So if the clerk would advise us as to what has happened here.

The Chair: I think all committee members are equally surprised.

Clerk of the Committee: Originally I think, and on the original agenda you have, it shows Alan Tonks as appearing, which was what I was informed from his office. The agenda you have today does not show him appearing because I was informed by his office about two days ago that there would be a change in presenters.

Mr Carr: -- some of the opinion from the Chairman. We were hoping today to clarify some of the debate that has been going on between the two groups. Of course, the Chairman and Mr Rae have had a good chance to debate on many occasions. As a matter of fact, as I was reflecting today, if it had been a 700-vote difference in 1987, the Premier might not be sitting here today, so you will have to forgive us.

Just on those amendments then, if we could clarify that, with regard to what you would like to see, if this legislation remains the same, could not Exhibition Place, as an example, meet the criteria that were listed and be able to go to the municipality and say: "Here we are. These are the criteria. We meet them. We would like to stay open. We are a tourist area." Could that be done through the existing Bill 115?

Mr Sillers: As Mr Moore has indicated, and I apologize for not having had the brief submitted in advance so that you may have had a chance to look at it, as I read the legislation and the proposed regulation, to answer your question, no, the board could not go directly to the municipality that is going to grant the exemption. That is what we are asking; that is the very nature of the amendment we are seeking which, as Mr Moore has indicated, does not go to the substance or the intent of the legislation but rather the process as to how it comes about meeting, of course, the criteria. Otherwise, of course, the exemption could not be given.

Mr Morrow: I really want to thank you for being here today. You have a fine place. I use it as often as I can. As a matter of fact, I am there this evening watching a concert. I do not really have any questions for you. I just want to thank you for being here. We will take this when we do clause-by-clause, and I hope the ministry will review this the best it can.

Mr Kormos: I do not think we will have to take it anywhere. There are so many Solicitor General and whip's people and bureaucrats in here today that I think they will take it right with them directly. Thank you very much. Good point.

Mr Daigeler: If I may be permitted, I guess you got the feeling already from us, at least from this side of the committee, that we were disappointed that no one from the political level from the Metro council came to speak to us on what is, after all, a pretty important issue. If you want to bring that back to the council you serve, I think I would like to mention this.

Mr Carr: It might be that one of the reasons Metro may not have -- maybe you and the solicitor know this. As you know, councillors are not allowed to come and speak as individuals. They like to have the mandate. Is it because council has not had the chance to formulate something, in terms of a vote on what its position is?

Mr Sillers: The only response I can give to that, and perhaps I should have expanded: There was a report that went to council -- I am sorry, I do not have the exact date; it was early -- in response to the legislation you have before you. The council, that is, the political body, did not come to a conclusion on the legislation, or say yes, no or whatever. It may well be that the arrangements for this meeting with your committee were made in anticipation of such a position.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Moore and Mr Sillers.

COMMITTEE FOR FAIR SHOPPING

The Chair: Our next presenter is Mr John Laskin from the Committee for Fair Shopping. I believe there will be a video portion of your presentation. We have approximately half an hour.

Mr Laskin: As the Chair has already indicated, my name is John Laskin. I am here today on behalf of the Committee for Fair Shopping. The committee is of course appreciative of this opportunity to appear before you to again outline its views on the issue of Sunday shopping, an issue that has occupied a great deal of time and resulted in the expenditure of a great deal of energy over the last few years.

I do understand that the committee has already heard on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week from National Grocers, one of the two members of the committee. The concerns and the frustrations which, as I understand it, were reflected in the National Grocers' presentation are the very same concerns and frustrations which underlie the presentation that has been submitted in written form to this committee, as well as the presentation which you are about to see and hear on behalf of the Committee for Fair Shopping as a whole.

The Committee for Fair Shopping is also aware, of course, that members of this legislative committee have spent a great deal of time in public hearings around the province. You have, I hope, already had a chance to review the brief which the committee has submitted.

1010

What I propose to do, therefore, this morning is not to repeat what you already have in written form, but to begin the presentation with the playing of a five-minute video. The video is intended to highlight both the recent history of Sunday shopping and the problems with the existing act from the committee's perspective as well as the position of the Committee for Fair Shopping itself.

What I then propose to do after the playing of the video is to comment on one or two other aspects of the proposed legislation that are of concern to the committee. Then I would be pleased to respond to any questions that members of the committee might have.

[Video presentation]

1017

Mr Laskin: We have copies of the video available for members of the committee, should they wish. I understand they will be provided to the clerk of the committee.

The video refers to a number of the concerns that the Committee for Fair Shopping has. Others of those concerns are already addressed in our brief, and I will try not to repeat what is already set out there in writing.

There is one concern not expressed in the brief or in the video that I did want to address briefly. I understand it is one that others have made in presentations to the committee. It is this, that what in many ways are the guts of this legislation, the tourism criteria, are not to be spelled out in the legislation itself but rather to be left to be dealt with in regulations. Again, I will try not to repeat what others have no doubt urged on the members of this committee, but the tourism criteria are at the heart of the legislation. They are an attempt, it appears, to resolve what has been an important issue of public policy in this province for a great many years, and to leave them to be dealt with by regulation so that they can be implemented and changed without any guarantee of public scrutiny or debate is, I say with respect, contrary not only to our parliamentary traditions but contrary to good governmental practice today. The Committee for Fair Shopping's view certainly is that it is highly inappropriate.

There is one final matter I want to address, subject, of course, to any questions that members might have, which is not dealt with in our brief. It seems to me appropriate to provide the committee with an update on the status of the current legal challenges to the current act, in part because the legal challenge may well have a very important impact, not only on the act as it currently stands but also on the act as it would be amended if these amendments were adopted as law.

As members of the committee will know, in legal proceedings in which the Committee for Fair Shopping was involved, an order was made last summer by the Supreme Court of Ontario striking down the current act. An appeal by the province was allowed and the act in effect restored by the Ontario Court of Appeal in a decision rendered in March. Members of the Committee for Fair Shopping have sought leave to appeal from that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that application is pending. So the legal issues concerning the validity of the current act, which may well have an important bearing on the validity of the act as it would be amended, are very much live legal issues.

It is important, in the view of the Committee for Fair Shopping, that members of this committee be aware of that fact and be aware of the current position, which is that the legal validity of the current law is still a very much unsettled question. When the Supreme Court of Canada will decide the application for leave to appeal remains uncertain. That timetable is up to the court.

That concludes the presentation that I have to make this morning, Mr Chair, subject to questions from members of the committee.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you for appearing before us. First of all, let me be clear: What is the difference between your committee and the National Grocers?

Mr Laskin: National Grocers is, in effect, one of the members of the Committee for Fair Shopping. The Committee for Fair Shopping also now includes the Oshawa Group Ltd.

Mr Daigeler: That is the only other partner in it?

Mr Laskin: Currently, that is the case, yes.

Mr Daigeler: National Grocers was quite clear in its presentation yesterday in Hamilton and the day before in London that it really feels that basically stores should be closed on Sundays. If it has to be open, then there ought to be fairness, but their clear preference was to be closed. You are not saying this here. What is your own proposal for the legislation? Should there be no legislation at all and business should decide on its own or should there be some legislation?

Mr Laskin: As I hope the brief has made clear, what we attempted to do, on behalf of both members of the committee, is express some pretty serious concerns, the same concerns as I mentioned earlier, that National Grocers may have expressed on its own the other day. We have not proposed a road map for new legislation; we have not gotten into the drafting process. But the concerns are those that emerge from the current law and from these amendments, and those are concerns about fairness, about a level playing field. Those are the concerns we wish to bring to this committee's attention in as clear a way as we could.

Mr Daigeler: You feel there should be legislation? Many people have appeared and said there should not be any legislation, leave it up to the marketplace.

Mr Laskin: I am perhaps repeating myself, just to say that if there is to be legislation, these are the concerns that ought to be reflected in it.

Mr Daigeler: In other words, you are not taking a stand on that question. You just want to say if there is legislation, then it ought to be fair, which is a position.

Mr Laskin: Yes.

Mr Daigeler: I am a little bit surprised to hear, actually, that under the current municipal option -- that is what you are referring to in your video that there should be this kind of unevenness. Most of the people who have come to us said it is really working quite well. In fact, Mayor Fratesi just this morning said if it is not broken -- and he said it is not broken -- do not fix it, leave it the way it is. If a municipality or a region wants to stay open, fine; if not, let them be closed. You are actually the first one who is saying that from a business perspective it is not working. Why are you saying that?

Mr Laskin: The situation described in the video results from a combination of features of the current legislation. It results from not only the municipal option but also the patchwork of exemptions for pharmacies, for convenience stores, for fruit markets, that sort of thing. What that results in when combined with the municipal option is the problem that the video is an attempt to depict. That is, for stores selling similar goods, some can be open, some cannot be open. Some are on one side of the street, they can be open; those on the other side of the street cannot. It is really a combination of the municipal option plus the variety of other exemptions that the legislation includes.

Mr Daigeler: Have your partners been involved at all in approaching city councils or regional councils to declare that particular area open?

Mr Laskin: There have been attempts, yes.

Mr Daigeler: Could you indicate where that was and how successful that was, whether that worked or did not work, what the difficulties were.

Mr Laskin: There were representations, as I recall, and I do not have a recall of all of them, but I can certainly recall representations made to Peel, to York region, I believe to Niagara as well.

Mr Daigeler: For general opening?

Mr Laskin: For exemptions, for openings that would at least deal with the kinds of problems that are illustrated in the video. Those requests were not favourably received by the municipalities. The period I am referring to and that I am aware of is the period just about the time the legal challenges were also taking place, so they date back more than a year now.

Mr Carr: Just so you know, we have gone around the province, and what a lot of municipalities have said is they are going to take tourism exemptions and open up. We have heard from Windsor, Sarnia, Thunder Bay, the Sault, Kenora. They said, based on the tourism exemptions, "Thank you very much, Mr Premier, notwithstanding your statement about a common pause day, we are going to take these exemptions, and we are going to be open, and there isn't anything you can do about it."

I agree with you on the regulations, that by putting in the regulations they can be changed at a later date. In fact, that is how we got the elimination of the oath to the Queen; it was put in the regulations, nobody knew about it, no debate, wham, it is gone. But what some of the groups have said is that because it comes down to the tourism criteria we should get a group of stakeholders, union, business, everybody related to this, the tourism people, and they should sit down and be able to hammer out the criteria. I suspect that is what the government will do. They will say that because of the fact we are not going to be able to have the common pause day, and two years from now people are going to be able to say, "You made this promise, but we are now shopping." I think that is what will happen. They will get the groups together, the unions, the various groups that I have mentioned. Do you favour that type of co-operation, where all the groups involved get together and try to hammer out the regulations with the tourism exemptions?

Mr Laskin: I guess what I have to say is that is not an issue on which the Committee for Fair Shopping as a committee has a view. I would say this, though, that having stakeholders involved does not necessarily deal with the problem of its being in the regulations, that is, no matter how the definition is arrived at, it ought to be available for public debate through the legislative process.

Mr Carr: I agree. The other area of concern, as you know, is the square footage. People have said that because you have left it up to municipalities, there will be a tremendous amount of court challenges because people will say, "Windsor opened; it is no different from my community, but my municipality decided not to open, therefore it is unfair." As a result, the people have said, what we are going to see is a checkerboard in this province, and we are going to have a certain percentage open, a certain percentage of municipalities that will not, for whatever reason, not based on tourism criteria but because the municipality for whatever reason said it did not want to open. As a result, they say there will be unfairness and court challenges. If that happens, will your group be taking legal action on this particular issue, on the issue of fairness about one municipality opening and the other not?

Mr Laskin: I think it is really premature for me to answer that question.

Mr Carr: You better start thinking, because that is what is going to happen.

Mr Laskin: So much turns on just how it evolves, and I think the members of the committee will have to reserve their options to take whatever legal challenges seem appropriate. But it is really premature for me to answer that now.

Mr Carr: Thank you. Al has a quick question.

Mr McLean: I have one last question from our side. On page 5, under the "Rights of Retail Workers," I believe your concern with that is covered in Bill 70, the labour bill that was dealt with here last week in clause-by-clause. The concerns you have with that are contained within that.

We had a lot of discussion -- I have not had the opportunity to be on the committee full-time but part-time -- as I hear, last fall about the common pause day. Every time we stopped, common pause day was going to be established in Ontario. Do you believe the Premier lied to the people of the province last fall?

Mr Laskin: I do not think I can really answer that question. I am not sure it is appropriate for me on behalf of the Committee for Fair Shopping to answer that question. With respect to the rights of retail workers, though, what I can say is this, that the concern you have highlighted in the brief on page 5 is really a concern that the current legislation drives employment towards less-protected, smaller operations, and that there is nothing in these amendments that would cure that problem in the current act.

Mr Carr: As you know, National Grocers got together with the United Food and Commercial Workers and made a presentation. The only area where they disagreed, I think -- and somebody can correct me if I am wrong, and I made this point yesterday -- was on the square footage. They said: "We need to stay open, but we would like to stay closed. But if we are going to be fair, we don't need to have restrictions because somebody under 7,500 will open."

You talked about fairness. What are your thoughts? Would you like to see 7,500 square feet? Because as you know, what will have to happen is that you will have to go to the municipality separately if you have stores bigger than that. Would you like to see that part of the legislation taken out, the square footage portion?

1030

Mr Laskin: I did not have an opportunity to hear the nature of the disagreement to which you have referred. I do not believe that is an issue that the Committee for Fair Shopping has addressed so I am unfortunately not in a position to respond.

Mr Carr: You cannot speak on it?

Mr Laskin: No, I cannot.

Mr Kormos: I have some concerns about municipal option. It seems virtually every group that has appeared before us other than the few exceptions, when asked if they had their druthers, have indicated that municipal option is not the course they would like to see taken because of the frailties in that design that you speak of. What would you envision as the appropriate body or process if there were an option to municipal option, where in fact the province had uniform application of guidelines or regulations? What type of body would you envision doing that at a provincial level?

Mr Laskin: Again, I have to say that the Committee for Fair Shopping's concern is with what has emerged from the municipal option, and with the essential problems which it sees this proposed legislation leaving undisturbed or complicating. The Committee for Fair Shopping has not itself gone beyond that into a drafting process to point out alternatives. No doubt this committee has heard and is considering other alternatives, but our task today is simply to convey the concern about the current operation of the municipal option and what we see would result from these amendments.

Mr Kormos: I appreciate that. Just briefly before Mr Fletcher talks to you, there is a phenomenon of drugstore supermarkets -- interesting retail businesses. Some have suggested that they have designed their structure to circumvent the law. Some people have said that. What do you say to that phenomenon of drugstore supermarket?

Mr Laskin: The phenomenon is one of the aspects of the problems of fairness that we have identified. I really cannot speak to what has motivated the companies that operate drugstore supermarkets as to how they have designed their operations and what lies behind it, but it is certainly part of the problem with fairness that we see.

Mr Kormos: And the governmental response should be? Make a recommendation.

Mr Carr: Come on. Go out on a limb.

Mr Laskin: On behalf the committee, I cannot propose a specific response other than that the problem has to be dealt with by you gentlemen.

Mr Kormos: Everybody in this room is reading your mind right now; we know.

Mr Laskin: That is probably a fruitless exercise.

Mr Fletcher: On the matter of enforcement, you quoted from the police department that the law is difficult to enforce. Yesterday in Hamilton and the other day in London the UFCW and National Grocers came together with a unified presentation; it just blew me away that the two groups that represent the largest number of workers would do that. They came together and both said that as far as enforcement is concerned, a fine for the first offence should be around $10,000 and the second offence $20,000. Would that be a deterrent? If you were a retail owner paying out that first $10,000, would that act as a deterrent? Or do the enforcement problems arise in that the officers have to go to the stores?

Mr Laskin: The enforcement problem that has been referred to in our presentation is the problem, again illustrated by the video, of stores without exemption simply opening.

Mr Fletcher: Yes, I saw Mr Kormos buying a ham, and I was worried about that.

Mr Laskin: And charges not being laid, let alone being pursued to the point of conviction. The Metro police expressed some of their reasons why that results. It results, in part, from the very nature of the law and the manner in which the law has been written and would still be written, we say, under these proposed amendments. Whether a particular level of fine would amount to a deterrent, I am not sure there is a magic number, but again that is not a point on which this committee, the Committee for Fair Shopping, in any event has a definite view.

Mr Fletcher: I am going back to National Grocers and UFCW; the two people who were part of the presentation are here. They were saying also, why not have a committee of stakeholders set up -- it goes along with what Mr Carr was talking about -- and get people from the unions, the retail people and also municipal governments, and set some real, viable tourist criteria for the province. Your response to that was a little hazy. National Grocers is also saying that as far as it is concerned, that could create a form of level playing field. They are a little worried about it still.

Mr Laskin: I did not intend my response to be hazy. What I intended it to say was that as a member of the --

Mr Fletcher: Maybe it was the question that was hazy and you just answered it hazily.

Mr Laskin: I appreciate that there are a number of issues that this committee is considering that our committee may not have come to grips with as a committee and may not be in a position to assist on, but this is one on which the Committee for Fair Shopping has not formed a view. I do understand what submissions were made by National Grocers and others on the point.

Mr O'Connor: I realize that the Committee for Fair Shopping has been active in this and has been following us quite regularly as we proceed with these hearings. When the legislation was introduced it was something we were very committed to because last September we said we were looking for a common pause day. When the whole thing has gone out for public hearings, we have added the regulations so that we can try to get some input into the regulations. I agree with you they should not be part of the legislation, but in all fairness I think they should be open for discussion as we travel the province, and that is something we have done.

The UFCW -- which has been alluded to and spoken about quite a bit here -- and National Grocers, which is part of your committee, support the common pause day portion of the legislation and support for the worker. We are glad about that. Does your committee have anything it would like to say about store size that could help us perhaps in the regulations, the tourist criteria? Store sizes and your views, please.

Mr Laskin: I do not really think I can add any specific comments with respect to store size. The store size feature of the current legislation has certainly produced part of the unfairness about which we are very concerned, but I think that is as far as I can go with dealing with that specific aspect of ensuring there is a level playing field.

Mr O'Connor: So you are concerned about that. One thing that was proposed by the mayor of London and many other people who came before us was taking a look at the tourist criteria in bringing together a committee of stakeholders so we can maybe take a look at that whole issue. Do you feel that could be a viable way of taking a look at this before we get any further into it?

Mr Laskin: As I mentioned in response to an earlier question, the Committee for Fair Shopping does not have a committee view on the stakeholders idea. There are no doubt a number of ways of ensuring that if there is to be a law it is going to be a fair law. Listening to people who are affected is certainly a potential one, but beyond that we do not have a committee view on that solution.

Mr O'Connor: Thank you and thank you for sticking with us.

1040

Mr Daigeler: Mr Chairman, while we are waiting for the next presenters, just so that we have the parliamentary assistant working hard for us, we got an answer from Janet Scarfone in response to the question asked by my colleague regarding the definition of "common pause day." The answer states, "The legislation achieves the purpose of ensuring a common pause day by requiring most retail stores to close on enumerated holidays." Is there any provision in the legislation at the present time that requires most retail stores to close?

The Chair: I believe that is a question for you, Mr Mills.

Mr Mills: I think in fairness to the legal adviser, who is not sitting here just at this moment, we should wait and get her answer to it, since she wrote the answer to the question that you posed. It would be not quite correct for me to comment on a legal opinion, but I am sure she would be glad to answer it when she comes back.

The Chair: Perhaps you could request that she do so as soon as she is able to get a note of the question.

The clerk has distributed responses from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and the Ministry of the Solicitor General, four questions that were posed and also a very thick file of written responses.

THRIFTYS

The Chair: Our next presenters are Mickey Maklin and Louise Lecours from Thriftys. We have approximately half an hour.

Mr Maklin: My name is Mickey Maklin. I am the senior vice-president and general manager of Thriftys. Louise Lecours is our manager of human resources. Louise and I have chosen to appear before this committee today to discuss with you some of the major issues facing Ontario's retail industry and to provide input on Bill 115.

I would like to start by telling you a little bit about Thriftys. Thriftys was founded right here in Toronto in 1942. Its first store was located at the corner of Queen and Church. In the 1960s, when the denim blue jean first became popular in the United States, Thriftys was one of the first retailers to import them into Ontario. Since then, our reputation has been built on the success of the blue jeans industry.

Thriftys is also a major employer of young men and women in Ontario. In this province, Thriftys employs over 550 people at its 57 stores, and over 75% of our employees are women. In addition, the average age of our employees is about 19 years old and the average age of our store managers is about 25 years old.

Some men and women still come to shop at Thriftys for just jeans, but now more Ontarians of all ages come to Thriftys for full casual dress. Today, Thriftys caters to families interested in casual and leisure wear fashions from top manufacturers of jeans, corduroys, blouses, shirts, sweaters, jackets and accessories. If there was such a person as an average Ontarian, I believe that he or she would be wearing clothes purchased at Thriftys.

I want you to know I believe it is laudable that the Ontario government has provided the people of Ontario with a forum to let our views and concerns be known. I understand this committee has spoken to a great many Ontarians over the last month as it travelled across the province hearing submissions concerning the proposed amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act. I also realize this is your last day of hearings. I hope you are all not too tired to listen to one more presentation before you take a collective common pause from these hearings.

I realize that the communication process works two ways. What are the messages that the business community has received from the Ontario government? We have heard Solicitor General Pilkey say that this government wants to work in partnership with business. We have heard Premier Rae say that this government is interested in consulting with the business community. We have also heard Premier Rae say that this government could either bicker with business interests over the coming years or we could face the external challenges together.

Sunday shopping is one of those issues which we Ontarians have been inwardly looking at and bickering about for the past 15 years. Since the debate has begun, the Berlin Wall has fallen, trade barriers with the United States have opened up, Europe has joined as one community and the Soviet government has fallen and risen again. And that has just been over the last few years. Is it not time that we Ontarians solved the Sunday shopping issue to everyone's satisfaction?

Now let's look at the competing interests involved. On one hand, it has been made clear to the business community that this government is committed to a common pause day so that people can spend time with their families. On the other hand, it has been made clear to this committee that the retail industry in Ontario is seriously threatened by such factors as cross-border shopping, the growing arrival of US competition and high taxation from all levels of government. It is also clear that a sizeable percentage of Ontarians wants to shop on Sundays. The long lineups at the borders to Buffalo attest to that fact.

Most members of the retail business community have let it be known that by allowing our stores to open on Sundays, it would provide a grain of sorely needed support and relief. How do I know this? I would now like to tell you about Thriftys' experience with Sunday shopping for the brief period during the past year when the practice was condoned by our Ontario courts.

During the period that our stores were legally open, our sales on Sunday accounted for about 18% of our weekly sales. Overall, Thriftys' weekly sales rose by an average of 2.6% during the time that we had Sunday shopping. This rise is especially remarkable in light of the fact that it occurred during the worst part of Ontario's recession.

In addition, during the time Sunday shopping was permissible in Ontario, we opened our stores only between the hours of 12 noon and 5 pm. Although Thriftys' full-time staff and management staff worked only five-hour shifts on these Sundays, they were paid for eight hours. All of our employees worked on a voluntary basis on Sundays. Thriftys actually hired part-time staff just for Sundays. The full-time staff that worked on Sunday also received one Saturday off per month and were not scheduled to work both the Saturday and the Sunday.

I believe that Thriftys' experience demonstrably shows that a retail business can be trusted to treat its employees fairly and favourably if Sunday shopping is permitted. Further, I will state unequivocally that Thriftys fully supports the provisions of the Employment Standards Act providing employees with the absolute right to refuse to work on Sundays if that is their choice, providing that we receive at least 48 hours of notice in advance of the event that they refuse to work.

There is some other information about our experience with Sunday shopping that I would like to share with you. We have heard that the issue of Sunday shoppping is completely separate from cross-border shopping. Our experience with Sunday shopping has turned up some interesting revelations. We monitored sales on a daily basis, and for the brief time that Sunday shopping was allowed in Ontario, we found that business increased only marginally in our stores adjacent to the United States border. However, sales at Thriftys stores in areas that were not merely within a few kilometres of the border rose markedly when Sunday shopping was not restricted.

Now, why would Sunday shopping force residents of Toronto or Hamilton to stay in Ontario, but not those people living in border communities? The most plausible explanation for this anomaly is that Ontario residents on the border have already become accustomed to shopping in the United States on Sunday. They have been doing it for years. People who live in border communities know that they can simply jump into their cars and in a matter of minutes could be spending their valuable Canadian dollars on inexpensive bargains in Niagara Falls, Detroit or Buffalo.

It seems that Sunday shopping made the biggest difference for Ontarians living far enough from the United States border that they would rather stay in their own Ontario communities, and pay higher prices, perhaps, than spend the time and money needed to drive to the United States.

I can give you an example of how Ontarians pay more than their American counterparts. The August edition of Canadian Business magazine gave an example of how a Canadian resident could simply get a copy of a US mail-order catalogue, and: "choose a pair of jeans in the style and size you want and place an order on a toll-free line that operates seven days a week, 24 hours a day. A pair of high-quality men's jeans in L. L. Bean's summer catalogue cost US $22 or about $25 Canadian. A similar pair of jeans in Canada would sell for $45 or more." For a Canadian retailer that sells blue jeans, this type of news is very disconcerting. In short, it is difficult to compete with cross-border shopping when American retailers are selling merchandise for a price which is less than the wholesale cost in Canada.

1050

Now that I have given you a brief overview of some of the issues facing Thriftys, I would like to recommend an amendment to Bill 115 to deal with the realities facing the retail industry. I recommend that if there is to be a common pause day in Ontario, retail stores be allowed to remain open from the Sunday prior to Thanksgiving until the end of the year.

I believe that by allowing stores to remain open on Sundays during this time period, it would allow Ontarians to shop at home for the holiday season, rather than migrating to retail stores across the border. It would maintain the sanctity of the common pause day, with a short recess during the busiest time for shoppers to buy goods for their holiday season. It would provide needed help to the business community and would tangibly show that this government is listening to business.

In conclusion, I am presenting an amendment to Bill 115 that provides a compromise that allows only a few months of Sunday shopping. The common pause day will be left unharmed for the remainder of the year. If this government does indeed want to show that it is not disregarding the business community, to amend Bill 115 so that Sunday shopping is permitted between the Sunday prior to Thanksgiving Day until the end of the year would be a good first step which will satisfy the concerns of the greatest number of Ontarians. I thank you.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you for what I think is a very well-prepared and well-researched presentation, and also for coming forward with a new idea. After some four weeks of hearings, it is rather rare to get something that we had not heard of before. So you should be congratulated on that as well. What I am referring to is, of course, this idea of allowing stores to be open a certain time period before Christmas. That is a very interesting idea.

I know that in Germany, for example, where they are very strict with regard to their Sunday closings -- in fact, Saturday closings as well -- they do have that provision. They do have the Sundays before Christmas, at least four Sundays, open. Apparently they do a lot of business then. So I think that is certainly something that is very worth while to look at, and I am just wondering whether the government will be open to consider this. We will certainly put that forward when we are looking at the amendments that will be presented in some two weeks.

You said that you certainly support the right of the workers to not work on Sunday. You specifically indicated that when you were open on Sundays, you made sure that your workers were able to choose. There has been one argument put forward by the unions, which I think is quite a good one: "Okay, there may be workers out there who want to work on Sundays, but it is basically just part-time. What you are creating here in terms of new jobs is really not full-time with full benefits and everything else, but just part-time with very low benefits. Therefore, you are not really doing a great benefit to the economy." I am just wondering whether you would have any reaction to this argument?

Mr Maklin: Actually, au contraire, as they say. First of all, let me state that, during the brief period of Sunday shopping in Ontario, at no time on any one of the Sundays did all of our stores open. We have never had the full number open, due to certain employees saying they could not make it that Sunday, and we did not open the stores. We also added approximately 44,000 hours of labour during the months that Sunday shopping was there. That is equivalent to 20 new employees, equivalent full-time employees. Most of these employees actually approached us during the Sunday shopping.

As I said in my presentation, our employees are between the ages of 19 and 30 years on average. Most of them who worked the Sunday and evenings are university students who find it difficult to get employment based on their personal schedules. Retail allows them and affords them this opportunity, so they can stay in university or do their studies or add to their income, whatever it may be at the time. I think it is a major contribution to the people of this province.

Mr Daigeler: We have also had retail store managers, as employees, who said: "Okay, perhaps for the employees it will be fine. They can choose. But in the end, if I cannot find an employee, I, as the manager, have to fill in." What has been the experience with the managers of your stores?

Mr Maklin: Not once did we have that complaint to us. I can recall on one occasion, two occasions actually, when the manager was scheduled to work on Saturday, which is normally the busiest day in the retail industry on the weekly cycle. On one occasion, the staff that was scheduled to come in on Sunday could not, for whatever reason, and the store did not open. On the other occasion, the manager actually volunteered to get his assistant manager, who did not work the previous Saturday, to show up. Their income and their opportunity for additional income is based on sales, it is based on customer service, and they look for that opportunity to work and generate more sales.

Mr Cleary: You mentioned the long lineups at Buffalo. I can assure you there are long lineups in many areas. I come from the eastern part of the province and it is very difficult to get across and back to a new mall in Massena. But you also say that you support this amendment to Bill 115. You also said that when the former law was in place, and you were open on Sundays for four or five hours, that your business was up. Would you prefer your amendment to the former law, the option that was in place before?

Mr Maklin: It is certainly preferable to not being open at all, so I would prefer that. I would prefer less legislation on hours. As a country and as a world, we are going to globalization. Free trade will probably take place with Mexico. We have to be forced to be more competitive in certain industries. Other industries will fall by the wayside. Perhaps we should not have our hands tied on how to be competitive in the world of retailing or manufacturing, or in fact for most businesses. But, yes, I would prefer to go back to the 12 to 5.

1100

Mr Carr: The question I had was to your manager of human resources because, as you know, the government has said the reason it brought in this legislation was to have a common pause day for workers. You may be aware of what some of the municipalities have said as we have gone across, that they are going to take the tourism exemption and they are going to be open if the law is not changed. How have you handled it in the past, and how do you intend to handle it in those communities that will be open, the situation of having to force people to work on Sundays? You mentioned, "We do not open, we do not close." I suspect that in the long term you are going to have to come up with a little bit better strategy than that, and I was wondering if you have been able to formulate. By all means, either can answer this. What do you see as your strategy to handle the workers?

Ms Lecours: In terms of the present bill, the way I understand it, we cannot force employees to work. So our strategies would be to continue with that and, as Mr Maklin stated, if employees refused to work we would not open the store, as we have done throughout the period where Sunday shopping was available last year.

Mr Carr: One of the concerns is that you will get some new workers who will come in and force old workers out. You said, I believe, that there were 44,000 new hours created. The feeling has been that they take hours away from other employees who do not want to work. If Sunday shopping was allowed, would there be extra hours and how would it affect those who say, "I am sorry, I do not want to work on Sunday"? Would they lose out in hours or be shifted or whatever?

Ms Lecours: I would have to say, from an employee relations standpoint, that would not be our approach with our employees. If it is their right to refuse, we certainly would not be looking to punish them or discipline them in that way by removing man-hours from them. With 60% to 75%, representing part-time staff, now interested in working Sundays, I do not believe we would have that problem, to be honest with you.

Mr Maklin: We currently have 42 stores in the west that are open seven days a week. Sunday is still a voluntary day in the west. When people are hired, whether part-time, full-time, temporary help, on our application we ask them how many hours a week they would be willing to work, whether from 4, 8, 12, or 16.

Mr Carr: Not Sunday, but how many hours?

Mr Maklin: How many hours, and whether they want to work on Sunday, because in the west it is a regular retail day from 12 until 5.

Mr Carr: My other question is along the same lines. We heard going way back in this very room from some of the small retailer operators, and I believe it was the Beaches, that said they are the same way: They do not force people to work; they have long lists. I think she said she had about 200 people.

Ms Lecours: People who are willing?

Mr Carr: People who are willing to work on Sundays, and if they go through and one person says he is not, there are plenty of people who are. What has been your experience? Maybe you could just comment, in light of the tough economic situation. Do you see it always being that way, that there are a lot of people who want to work? Or is it only because now, when things are a little bit tight for jobs, but it might evaporate? How do you see that? Are there enough people who want to work?

Ms Lecours: From my experience, having worked for two retailers within the period when Sunday shopping was allowed, I have to state quite honestly that I did not come across any problems with employees not wanting to work. With Thriftys specifically, we have a hotline -- we call it a support line -- and employees can call in. We have an open-door policy. We have, I think, some wonderful employee relations policies that our employees do regularly exercise. I am at the receiving end of those supports and I have not heard of one complaint from an employee working Sunday. In fact, to answer your question, we have so many university students who are willing to work I do not see it as a problem.

Mr Carr: One of the concerns is for skilled workers. Sometimes you can get people to serve people in the clothing industry because you can get university people and there is not as much training. For example, some of the United Food and Commercial Workers said that when it comes to their business you have butchers that are highly skilled. Maybe you could just comment on the skill levels, how you train somebody new. Is that the reason you can get people, because there is not as much skilled, or is there a lot? I do not know this, having never worked there. Is it a lot of skill you need and training you do for your employees?

Ms Lecours: No, I would have to agree with you, there probably is less skill required than that of a butcher. However, as Mr Maklin has already stated, the large majority of our employees is made up of the university students who are willing to work. The fact that the work is in a fun fashion environment that they enjoy I believe is probably why we have so many people willing to work for us, and less required skills.

Mr O'Connor: Thank you for coming. We are fast approaching the 300 mark on briefs presented and you found something new to put in for us to consider, and I congratulate you on that again. As you talked about increased jobs, you talked about increased part-time jobs, and I have some concern over that when I witness on the news a national strike by the postal workers and we have a corporation helicoptering in workers because of the part-time issue.

I think our economy needs more full-time jobs, not more part-time jobs. I have some concern over that. You have increased hours, but we had a presentation by National Grocers who said it merely rescheduled hours: "We never actually created any more jobs, we just rescheduled them." You have increased some jobs and I guess you must have worked that out really well with your employees, so I guess you need some congratulations on that.

British Columbia has had wide-open Sunday shopping for some time now, and this recession and the imposition of the new GST seem to have exacerbated the problem of cross-border shopping. Do you have stores in British Columbia?

Mr Maklin: Yes.

Mr O'Connor: Has your experience been increased or decreased sales in British Columbia during the period from January until now?

Mr Maklin: Actually, at this time British Columbia is the strongest province across Canada from a retail point of view for Thriftys. We are up 17%.

Mr O'Connor: Terrific. It seems to be decreasing, so you must have terrific marketing.

We are really looking at the tourist criteria here because we are committed to a common pause day. Do you feel tourists are perhaps the people who would be coming to shop in your stores if you were allowed Sunday store opening?

Mr Maklin: No. We really are not the type of retail outlet designed for tourists; we are an everyday distributor of casual wear clothing. The tourists who come here, certainly if they are from the United States -- the product price points are lower in the United States than here right now. Labels are identical to some of the products they can find in the United States. Should they be walking through the Eaton Centre or where we have a location that is predominantly a high-tourist area, yes, undoubtedly there will be some shopping from tourists, but we do not rely on the tourist trade.

Mr O'Connor: I am glad you support the provision for the employment standards. Where do you think the new money you got during wide-open Sunday shopping came from? Was it market share or was it new money?

Mr Maklin: I think it was a little of both. There are a lot of people who find it a lot more convenient to shop on Sunday. First of all, our stores cater to a broad age group, from young teens all the way up to 35-plus. The parents do not always have the time during the week to shop with their teenagers to choose clothing, and we found a higher portion of families shopping in our stores than during the week.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Maklin and Ms Lecours, for a very interesting presentation.

1110

CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS

The Chair: Our next presentation is from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Ms Ganong, you are quite experienced in these endeavours. In fact, I believe you appeared on Bill 17 before --

Ms Ganong: We are always here.

The Chair: So you are familiar not only with making these presentations but even with this very committee. Please feel free to start when you are ready. And of course there will be many questions the committee members will have for you.

Ms Ganong: Mr Chairman, we are starting a bit late. Can you tell me how much time we actually have?

The Chair: Half an hour.

Ms Ganong: Great, thanks. We do not have a brief this time, we have something even briefer; a statement which I will basically read into the record and intersperse with a few comments as we go.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is a non-partisan political action organization representing some 88,000 small- and medium-sized independent Canadian-owned and -operated businesses across Canada. We have nearly 40,000 members in Ontario and they come from all sectors and industries in the province. They represent a variety of firm sizes and ages. About one third of them are located in rural areas, one third in smaller urban centres and one third in big metropolitan areas. CFIB data reflect the concerns not only of CFIB members but of Ontario's independent business community as a whole. About one of every eight Ontario small firms is a CFIB member, and retailers constitute some 25% to 30% of our Ontario membership.

Besides highlighting some of the concerns we see the proposed bill posing for small retailers, we want to share with you our latest research results on a variety of issues relating to the Sunday shopping issues, taken from a recent survey of a sample of about 500 retail members in every region of Ontario.

Before I get into the recent research, I would just like to give you a little background. Historically, our members have been split on the Sunday opening issue, as I am sure have the witnesses who have been appearing before you throughout the course of these hearings. We asked our members nationally in 1988 whether they favoured the then municipal option of regulating Sunday shopping which was being presented by the Liberal government at that time, and 55% were opposed to it, a bare majority. We think it was because they were afraid of the domino affect, that if you let municipalities govern it would just create pressure for Sunday openings everywhere. So there was a slight majority at that time favouring Sunday closings. That was a bit of a weakening of opposition to Sunday closings from our previous mandate vote of 1983 where 58% were opposed to it.

There has been a half-and-half split and the opposition has been getting a little weaker as time goes on. We do not have national results on a mandate question to bring before you today. What we have is some research that we did with a sample of our Ontario retail members. We have also noticed that there tends to be a little bit of an urban/rural split, that retailers in urban centres closer to the border are perhaps a little bit more in favour of Sunday openings than the ones in the more far-flung reaches of the province. And also the retailers themselves tend to be coming down more on the side of Sunday closing than are other members who are consumers just like the rest of us and see the convenience of Sunday shopping.

We really have a very split vote. We cannot take a strong position on one side or the other before you today, we can just give you what we found. We asked our retail members a number of questions in relation to the Sunday-shopping issue, and of the ones who came down on the side of being opposed to Sunday opening, over half said the main reason for their opposition was that Sunday was a day of rest. For a small retailer who has perhaps four employees in his or her store, Sunday opening means working seven days a week, and wanting a day of rest is the major reason those retailers would want Sunday closings. Only about a quarter felt the common pause day aspect was important.

Another 15% wanted Sunday closings for commercial reasons. They felt there was insufficient demand on Sundays to warrant their stores being open. They felt that the costs were not justified or that they were at a disadvantage being open on Sundays vis-à-vis large firms, that large firms would benefit more from being open Sundays. However, the vast majority of those members opposed to Sunday openings do not favour a completely shut-down Sunday. Most feel that certain kinds of stores should be allowed to stay open regardless. Notably, tourist attractions: 87% of members opposed to Sunday openings still favour openings of tourist attractions; convenience stores, 88% are in favour; and drugstores, 71% are in favour. The vote is split on whether all stores in designated tourist areas should be allowed to remain open. There is no majority there. It is really very split, with a very large undecided component of about 13%. The vote is also split with regard to bookstore and news-stands being allowed to remain open: Just over 50% would want them to be closed; still, over a third favours them being open and, again, a very substantial undecided vote.

There was no majority position that emerged on the effects that staying closed would have on members if Sunday closings were the rule except for the restaurant members, who were very sharp in their divergence from the other segments by saying that they were much more likely to experience lost sales opportunities, dissatisfied employees, dissatisfied customers if they were forced to close on Sundays. We were trying to get at what would happen to them economically if Sunday closings were the rule and they stayed closed.

Members were virtually unanimous on the importance of choice: 97% of the members surveyed said that all businesses, including tenants of shopping malls, should have the option to stay closed on Sunday if they choose, even if Sunday shopping is permitted. That is an important issue, particularly for the tenants of malls. When the law was struck down earlier and Sunday openings basically became permitted, small stores in malls were not always given the freedom of choice to stay closed if they wanted to. The mall owner said, "You agreed to be open when the mall is open. We're going to open the mall on Sunday. You have to be open too," whether or not it benefited them. That freedom of choice is extremely important to our members. So if a group of stores applied for the tourist exemption and were granted it, any stores that were within that area would still have the freedom to be closed if they wanted to.

No clear consensus emerged on the effect that staying open on Sundays would have on members if Sunday openings were permitted. Again, this lack of consensus undoubtedly reflects the variety of situations within which small retailers find themselves. Just over half are clear that Sunday openings would mean longer hours. That is just obviously true. However, the number of members who feel that Sunday openings would represent a loss in revenues and profits to them are just about in balance with those members who think that it would represent a gain. It is pretty evenly split. Again, the restaurant segment is strikingly more likely to see the benefits of being open on Sundays than other segments of the industry.

There is no doubt that the cross-border shopping issue does have an impact on the Sunday shopping issue. Over one in three members in this retail survey reported that cross-border shopping affected his or her business and nearly the same percentage cited Sunday closings in Canada as a reason for the increasing Canadian consumer shopping in the United States. Clearly, it is not the only reason. Cheaper prices in the States were cited by almost everybody, but there is still a significant proportion that does see it as a reason and these issues do need to be addressed.

In terms of the bill itself, what small business is always looking for in legislation is that it be simple, straightforward, not take any extra time or expertise to understand and not impose any additional costs. They do not have sophisticated lawyers and staff on hand to work through these bills and be able to understand them. It is up to the owner to figure it out. So we are asking you to please take a good, hard look at this bill and test its provisions against this standard of simplicity, straightforwardness and no additional expense, time or expertise needed. We see it wanting in several respects. The tourism criteria are vague and poorly defined and they just make a confused situation even worse. What this does is create uncertainty, and uncertainty is always expensive and time-consuming for business, because they need to sort it out. They cannot just take a look at it and say, "Okay, this is the law."

It concerns us that the bugs in the bill are going to be worked out on the backs of the business community, that the problems in the bill are going to unfold and create problems for individual retailers who are having to cope with them. We have suggested the government take the time to develop the package into a clear, concise, simple, straightforward bill that the people in businesses expect and deserve from their government.

1120

We also want to register our objection on principle to the trend that we are seeing more and more within government to use regulatory authority in a way that we think is quite improper. Regulatory authority is there to allow government to deal with the detail of administration and not burden the Legislature with matters on which there is really no debate. It should not be there to deal with issues of weighty public policy behind closed doors and not subject to public scrutiny. To put the tourist definitions in the regulations means that any changes to them will not be subject to full public debate, and the public deserves the accountability of all of its elected MPPs on this issue.

I reiterate the point that retailers in areas that receive a tourist designation need to have freedom of choice to close if they want to, even if the other stores in the area are permitted to be open. That individual choice is really important.

In terms of the amendments that are proposed to the Employment Standards Act, I am sure that every retail organization that has appeared before you has been telling you the same thing, which is that their employees are the nuts and bolts of their business, that if they do not have satisfied employees they are not going to be successful in retail. Service is key here. Human considerations rank especially high in small retail operations because the employees tend to be the friends, the family members, the neighbours, the sons and daughters of acquaintances of the owner himself. They have already got a human relationship there beyond even the productivity aspects, so small business retail owners are very well aware of the need to make sure that their employees are taken care of and are working when they want to work and not being forced to work when they do not want to work.

I just want to draw your attention to some recent research that we did conduct through the Angus Reid public opinion polling organization that reveals that employees in small, non-unionized establishments tend to be more satisfied with their jobs and their working conditions than workers in large, unionized workplaces. There is obviously a variety of reasons for this, but one that came through quite clearly was that employees felt their problems were addressed more effectively in an informal, less structured workplace where they could just go in and talk to the owner about the problem, sort it out, come to a mutual agreement and get on with things, where there was a great deal of mutual trust and respect. Small businesses are very clear about the importance of having good working relationships with their employees, and they strive to make those work. That is their only competitive advantage, good service. They cannot compete on volume. Sometimes they cannot compete on price. If they cannot compete on service, they are not going to make it, and they understand the importance of happy, productive workers to that aspect of their competition.

When we asked our members what measures they thought should be in place to protect employees if Sunday shopping is permitted, over 80% agreed that workers should be able to refuse Sunday work. They do not have a problem with that. They do not want people working if they do not want to work. Over three quarters thought employees should have a guaranteed right to at least a day off in seven. These survey results were obtained before Bill 115 was unveiled, so they did not know the provisions of the law at that time.

There is little support for premium pay for Sunday work and this again reflects the reality of the small retail situation. They are operating under very tight margins. They do not have a lot of extra money to give away for premium pay and they would have incredible difficulty operating if all their employees had the same day off.

This is not to say that giving workers the right to refuse Sunday work is easy or cost-free for small retailers. Over 62% said that they, the owner, would have to work longer hours if their employees could refuse Sunday work. That again is based on the fact that they do not have a huge pool of employees. If you are in a small establishment with two or three employees and they say they do not want to work Sundays, it is up to you as the owner to carry the load.

However, some of the costs that small employers would bear they understand will be productive to the economy and help spur on their recovery. Thirty-eight per cent reported that the workers who are willing to work would work increased hours on Sunday and therefore would have more take-home pay in their own pockets, and 35% indicated that they would need to hire additional staff for Sunday work. Given the number of small retail establishments in the province, even if each of the 35% took on just one more employee, this would mean over 14,000 new jobs to aid in Ontario's economic recovery. It may be a part-time job or it may be a full-time job, but a job is a job. It is still income, it is still flowing into pockets of people who would then be spending it and aiding in the recovery.

Small firms play fair with their employees and they want their employees to play fair with them. They do whatever they can to honour an employee's preference not to work on Sundays and even to waive an employee's prior agreement to work a particular Sunday if good reasons prevail. The name of the game is responsible mutual relations between owner and workers. The government should take a good, hard, long look at the Sunday refusal provisions in Bill 115 to ensure that they encourage responsibility on the part of the employees, as well as the employers. The revolving door of workplace relations does not swing only one way.

An employee who is encouraged by law to breach his or her agreement to work on Sunday for no good reason, merely by giving 48 hours' notice, especially when that employee was hired specifically to work on Sundays, is not an employee who is going to contribute to our recovery from this recession or to any kind of sustainable prosperity in Ontario.

If there are bad apple employers out there, they should be dealt with under the Employment Standards Act through fines, prosecutions, the way we deal with the bad apple employers as it is right now. The solution to bad apples is not to encourage all employees to hold their work agreements cheaply.

Just a final word: Part of the distress out there is being caused by the fact that the situation is so unstable. We did not have Sunday shopping, then the Sunday shopping law was struck down, then we had wide-open Sunday shopping and people adjusted to that, and now the law is back in place and people have to readjust. That does not instil confidence in the business community. It is an unequal, unbalanced situation, and so what we need here is some stability, certainty. Let's smooth this out and find something that everybody can understand and work with and not create more uncertainty and more instability in an already difficult situation.

Thanks very much, and I am happy to entertain your questions.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you very much for a very well-researched brief, as always, from your organization. We get a lot of facts and figures that reflect very careful work and attention to making sure that your statements are backed up with what your members in fact feel. I thank you for this.

On page 4 of your brief, at the bottom, you are referring to leases that individual retailers may have signed with the mall owners, and then you are saying these leases may have been signed before Sunday openings were at all contemplated, yet mall owners enforce them to the letter. What do you mean by that? Are you saying that mall owners force the retailers to stay open against their wishes?

Ms Ganong: In some cases that has happened. The lease does not talk about Sunday openings per se. The lease basically says, "I, as a store owner, agree to be open whenever the mall is open." So when the Sunday shopping law was struck down and Sunday openings became permissible and malls wanted to be open on Sunday, mall owners could then hold small business owners to the terms of the lease and say: "You said you were going to be open when the mall is open. The mall is now open on Sunday. You need to be open on Sunday."

Mr Daigeler: I am aware of that. Your testimony seems to go in a different direction than what we heard here. We have asked that several times, where people said that despite that lease provision no one forced the retailers in the malls to stay open, and in fact many of them closed. In fact, Mayor Fratesi this morning was one of them.

Ms Ganong: It may be that the mall owners who were doing that did not come to appear before the committee. We did have some complaints from our members about those situations.

Mr Daigeler: Is there anything you can provide us with, or is it just individual --

Ms Ganong: When our members complain to us, they usually do so on a confidential basis. Now that the law is back in place, it is not prevailing any more, but it is just something to be aware of, that the choice element is really important. With the new law, under the tourist area designations, that is where it would come into play. Suppose the Beaches were designated a tourist area; the small stores in the Beaches area would still have the right to remain closed if they wanted to, even if the whole Beaches could be open.

Mr Daigeler: I do want to leave a little bit of time for my colleague here, so just a very quick question: Several people have argued that it should be the province or a provincial body that should decide what is and what is not a tourism area. Do you have any views on that? In particular, that a committee be established with representatives from labour, business and so on, that would decide on that. Do you have any thoughts on this idea?

Ms Ganong: The problem is always one of certainty; the less certainty you have, the more difficult it is for small businesses. They basically do not have a lot of time to mount legal challenges or to appear before different bodies or whatever. So the more certainty you can create the better. We cannot really comment on whether it should be the province or the municipality or what. But you basically need to have a system that creates certainty so that small businesses know what the law is and what they can and cannot do.

1130

Mr Cleary: I know you do not have an easy job either, dealing with the number of people you deal with. What was the date of your last survey?

Ms Ganong: This survey? These results came out in June.

Mr Cleary: And in brief, what do you recommend?

Ms Ganong: We cannot really make any firm recommendations given that we do have this split in our membership vote. We cannot recommend in favour of Sunday opening, Sunday closings, municipal options versus provincial options. We only take positions based on our members' views, and when our members' views are this split we just cannot take a position. All we can do is basically present what they think to you.

Again, all I can reiterate is that the law needs to be clear, certain, straightforward, not expensive for small businesses to cope with, and some of the provisions with regard to protecting retail workers need to be relooked at so they are not going to be encouraging capricious abuse, basically, of the power to review Sunday work, but are looking at making employee-employer relations work better.

Mr Cleary: Your group could have made it a lot easier for this committee if you were to come out with a recommendation, but you cannot.

Ms Ganong: I am sorry, we cannot. Without a strong member position in favour one way or the other, we just cannot. We do not make it up. We only go with what our members say.

Mr Carr: The problem you are facing is the same as the population, because you know the polls. We got some from our fine researcher that were done by, I guess it was the NDP who watched the first six months, who basically said the same thing and broke it down by all areas, and it split. When you look, they even asked, "What party did you vote for?" and NDP split and so on. All parties are split. So it is a very difficult question.

But in getting to numbers, I know there are a lot of them. I want to say I appreciate that and I appreciate all the information I receive and I hope that continues, so do not strike Gary Carr off the list, because I really do appreciate it and read it. But the numbers you are looking at, what are they again: 55-45, what is it?

Ms Ganong: That was the 1988 vote and it was a national vote of members from all sectors, sizes, ages, all across Canada. At that time what the members were looking at was the municipal option which the Ontario government was then considering. So we asked them if they favoured the municipal option for regulating Sunday openings, and 55% of them said they opposed it. So again, it is not a strong vote pro-con either way.

Mr Carr: And when it is outdated like that, a lot of people as we have gone around have said that a lot of things have changed in that period of time.

Ms Ganong: That is right.

Mr Carr: As you know though, what this has come down to has been a municipal option. In spite of the fact the government has set the common pause day when they put the tourism exemptions that you know are so broad they sort of throw it back in the ballpark of municipalities. You may have been here when I said as we have gone around the provinces significant portions have said, "Thank you very much. We are going to take it and we are going to open," in Windsor, Sarnia and so on; you can go through the list. As a result, the fight has really gone back to municipalities. A lot of people are saying, "That's great, but the province has handed off so we are now going to gear up for that fight."

Are the business community or your organizations to the best of your knowledge going to be able to participate in that fight? I know you said most of them are small, and Lord knows it is tough enough to survive, but do you see your members now having to go to the big fight that will be going on in Toronto and North Bay and everything else? Is that where your members will now have to focus their attention?

Ms Ganong: In terms of going before municipalities?

Mr Carr: Yes, before municipalities and so on.

Ms Ganong: The truth with our members is they are putting all their focus into just getting through, making it --

Mr Carr: Surviving.

Ms Ganong: Not laying people off. Retail is not a really healthy environment right now. We are hoping it has turned the corner, but it certainly has been a very difficult year. Part of the problem with having to apply to municipalities and going through administrative hoops is just that small businesses cannot cope with that sort of administrative apparatus. If the owner is not in the store, there is nobody running the store. Big firms can cope because they can send the vice-president of this or the manager of that to make their representations and business goes on. But for a small owner with just a few employees, if he or she is not there nobody is running the store.

Mr Carr: I agree they should be in the store making money rather than appearing before municipal councils, but one of the things that does come up is in some of the tourism areas. Just so you know, when we have had chambers come they have said the same thing. They have tried to break it down to retail, and there is a big battle in the chambers non-retail versus retail, and you can break it down further. But there are some communities, for example in Collingwood, where they said: "We need to have a tourism exemption. We do not see people spending any more money, but what we do see is that somebody who comes up here on the weekend" -- as you know, many people from Toronto have cottages up in that area -- "they might not spend any more, but they will spend it in Collingwood rather than coming back to Toronto." So, as a result, they have taken the tourism exemption to try to get the money in their area.

One of the concerns is that what this legislation will do is pit members against each other. I can see a retailer in one area who happens to be open, and next door in a municipality that is closed a retailer who is not open because the municipality chose not to take that option. That would create a lot of problems. Do you see that as being a big concern for your members, this patchwork?

Ms Ganong: That, we think, was one of the reasons we got that 55% vote against the municipal option in the first place; the members saw that sort of domino effect that would be created, the pressure that would be created among the different municipalities.

Mr Carr: As you may be aware, a lot of the people have said these tourism exemptions have been criticized by both sides of the issue, because you can take them any way you want. They are fairly broad. What a lot of groups have called for is that we get the group of stakeholders together and try to iron out a tourism exemption. You get the unions and you get the small business and you get the tourism people.

I was just wondering what your best guess is, as you have dealt with all these people and know the political process very well. Do you think, because the argument has been made and the government had, I suspect, a tremendous time coming up with the tourism exemptions, if everybody puts their heads together that some type of agreement could be hammered out that would be reasonably acceptable to everybody on the tourism exemptions?

Ms Ganong: I do think that is possible. The main thing that a process like that really needs to guard for is that small businesses are properly represented. Again, it is the same resource problem. You need to be able to free up somebody who can sit on the advisory group, or the committee, or the task force or whatever it is that is struck, and bring forward the concerns of small business.

Again, large businesses have the resources to be able to do that. The problem we see with any of the advisory groups or bodies or committees that are struck around this government to consult, is that large businesses can free people up and they can get their point across and it is not a problem. But the interests are not always the same as those of small businesses. It is very difficult for small businesses to let someone be away from the business in order to participate. It is a great concept. It just needs to be done very carefully to make sure that small businesses can truly participate and be a part of it and get their viewpoint across.

Mr Fletcher: Linda, how are you? It is good to see you again.

Ms Ganong: It is good to see you too.

Mr Fletcher: I have half a question; I had a whole bunch. Every time Linda is in front of us I want to ask more questions.

Your statement on page 4 is, "The regulation-making power is not intended to be an escape hatch to allow government to change important matters of public policy behind closed doors." This is one of the few times that you will ever find regulations going out for public debate along with the legislation, and we are proud of that. We think that is open, upfront, something we said we were going to do, something we promised to do during the election, and that is what we are trying to do, be open and up front. But I do understand your concerns.

Do you think the regulations themselves should be part of the legislation or can we have regulations where, if there is going to be a change, we get to the stakeholders, as Mr Carr was saying, who are the people making the criteria? They are the people who, if there are changes, if things happen, recommend changes, rather than coming from the bureaucracy or from the government. There is a way to work that in, is there not?

Ms Ganong: The basic problem with this particular bill is that this issue is very polarized. There is a lot of public opinion on it. Everybody has very strong feelings about it and it needs to be as open and up front as possible. I think it is great that the regulations are open for debate and open to be commented on in this committee, but once they are passed and they are in regulation form, then the changes can be made to them without having this kind of public process again.

That is what we are objecting to on principle: Matters of important public policy should always be in the Legislature, and regulations are really to deal with the little nitty-gritty things that nobody really has a problem with, that there is no real debate about. Matters of public policy where there is debate should always be part of the legislation. I know it is slower and it is more time-consuming, but it is democracy.

Mr Fletcher: That is right, I agree with you.

1140

Mr O'Connor: I appreciate your openness and honesty in saying that your group did not come up with a consensus and that it is very hard to speak with an unqualified consensus when you do not have one. Your poll is probably more reflective because it did not include the recession at that time. So I might argue the point that it is probably more reflective although exacerbated by the cross-border shopping and those retailers in those areas.

Ms Ganong: The retailers are not out of the recession yet.

Mr O'Connor: I know that. That is why I am saying the poll reflected a different set of circumstances, and when we come out of that, it may reflect more like that.

On page 6 of your brief you said more hours and more jobs are being created. National Grocers and a number of different retailers who came before us said there were not actually more hours, it was a matter of rescheduling those hours. I would just like you to comment on that.

Ms Ganong: What these members were talking about was if their staff had the right to refuse Sunday work, how would they cope with it? What effect would it have? Some of them said they would be the ones who would have to work longer hours, they would be the ones filling in. If the staff were not there, they would be there. Others said that if the staff refused to work Sundays, then the ones who were willing to work on Sundays would be working longer hours. Perhaps they were part-time during the week and they would carry over extra part-time hours on to Sunday. Those existing staff would work longer hours to cover for the staff who did not want to work Sunday, and 35% said they would have to hire fresh staff because they would not be able to cover with what they had.

Mr Lessard: There are a lot of things you have said in your brief that I agree with and I just want to make sure I have them. You have mentioned you would like to see the tourist criteria in the bill itself. That sounds like a good idea. You mentioned the protection for tenants in malls. I think what you would like to see is a provision in the legislation that says that even if a mall is determined to have a tourist exemption, individual stores within the mall still have the right not to open.

Ms Ganong: Right. Even if it is not a mall, even if it is just an area, say for instance the Beaches, whatever area gets a tourist exemption, those individual retailers still have the freedom of choice within that area to be closed.

Mr Lessard: In the Beaches, they would not have the same provision in their leases as a mall would.

Ms Ganong: No, there would not be leases. It would just be a question of are they bound by the tourist designation when it is given by the municipality for all of them to be open or do each of them still have individual choice? That is just not clear.

Mr Lessard: The other thing you would like is some provision that says if a person is hired to work specifically on Sundays, they do not afterwards exercise their right to refuse within 48 hours.

Ms Ganong: In a capricious way. Obviously, if they are sick or there is a family emergency -- I mean, for good reason -- clearly, anybody can say: "I just can't come in this Sunday. This and this is going on. Can we reschedule it?" But not to just say, "I've got the right under the law, so I can call you up with 48 hours' notice and just say, `Screw you, I'm not coming in.'" We are concerned that this not happen.

Mr Lessard: Would you want to distinguish between employees who were hired specifically to work on Sundays and employees who have already been employed when this law comes into force?

Ms Ganong: Certainly --

The Acting Chair (Mr Kormos): That question is well put, Mr Lessard.

Ms Ganong: Do I get to answer it? If an employee has been taken on specifically with the understanding that he or she is going to work Sundays and has agreed, "Yes, Sunday is my day of work," to be able to say, "No, I'm not coming in on Sunday with 48 hours notice, and I don't even have to tell you why," certainly seems like an abuse.

The Acting Chair: All of us thank you for the interest of your organization in this issue and the effort and consideration you have put into your submission. I am confident I speak for everybody here when I tell you it has been a valuable exchange.

Ms Ganong: Thank you, Mr Acting Chair.

The Acting Chair: I have been acting just about everything, and it may be that way for a long time yet.

FAIRNESS FOR FAMILIES

The Acting Chair: Next is Mr Vandezande from Fairness for Families, whose brief has been distributed, and the brief is rather lengthy. We have half an hour. I am hoping, because I know there is going to be a lot of interest in some of the recommendations, that you might highlight the brief so we can get down to discussion, and try to save perhaps 15 minutes for discussion, because that might well be a more valuable part of the process this morning.

Mr Vandezande: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I appreciate your comment. I have given two documents. One is the extensive brief. In addition to that, there is a seven-minute opening statement which summarizes our position. I would welcome lots of questions and I am prepared to run overtime at no pay. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee. I should mention I am slightly deaf so if the members of the committee could speak up, I would appreciate it. I shall do the same.

The Acting Chair: Usually that quality is attributed to the government.

Mr Vandezande: That is why I addressed it to you, Mr Chair. The members and associates of Fairness for Families are listed on page 4. Please note that includes all of the churches in Ontario, half a dozen major retailers' associations, key business enterprises, such as Sears, as well as the trade unions and other groupings. So it is a large coalition.

As I mentioned earlier, the detailed recommendations are in our brief. I will make a couple of specific additional recommendations in the opening statement. A month ago, you began public hearings. In two weeks, you will begin the clause-by-clause review. Soon you must decide on one basic issue and one only: Will you or will you not implement the principle that holidays should be maintained as common pause days?

Your vote in favour of an effective common pause day law will be a major contribution to the social wellbeing of our communities. Your public support will also be greatly appreciated and long remembered by hundreds of thousands of retailers, retail employees, their families, friends and neighbours. They do not want to work on Sundays or any other holidays. They do not want wide-open Sunday and holiday shopping. They know from experience that Sunday shopping and holiday shopping means Sunday working and holiday working, and that a seven-day-a-week rat race makes neither economic nor social sense. That was again confirmed yesterday by National Grocers, this morning by the Committee for Fair Shopping, as well as by the individual experience of the many retailers associated with our coalition through their retailers' associations.

In order to ensure province-wide consistency in the interpretation and the implementation of the new law, we recommend that the Legislature adopt amendments that will at least do the following: (1) establish once and for all that the act's paramount purpose is the principle that holidays should be maintained as common pause days; (2) clarify that the maintenance or development of tourism in Bill 115 must be subordinate to this basic purpose, not paramount or correlative.

In this connection, we appreciated testimony that was presented on August 15 by Mr Pilkey, who said that the principle of a common pause day is not up for negotiation and that the primary goal of this legislation is to provide a weekly common pause day. We think the act should be amended accordingly and that the confusion which now reigns in this bill should be cleared up, so that the Legislature, the public, the consumer and the retailer know exactly what kind of law and what kind of principle they must abide by, and so that the police will know how to enforce the law.

In keeping with that goal we recommend that subsection 4(1) be changed to read that the purpose of the act is to establish the principle that holidays should be maintained as common pause days.

If the Legislature insists that the municipal option stays -- and, as is clear from our lengthier submission to you, we do not want the municipal option -- we are recommending that the council of a municipality must maintain the principle that holidays are common pause days. The council may by bylaw then permit retail establishments in the municipality to be open on holidays for the maintenance or enhancement of tourism, in strict compliance with the tourism criteria regulation made under the act.

Furthermore, if the municipal option stays, in order to provide province-wide consistency in the application and the enforcement of the law, we recommend that the Legislature adopt amendments that provide for a provincial appeal process and an expeditious, independent, non-partisan review mechanism which ensures two things: (1) the intent of the act, namely, that holidays are common pause days, and (2) that the tourism criteria under the act are strictly observed by all municipalities.

1150

During recent months, there has been enormous debate about the issue of cross-national-border shopping. All of us oppose it. We are saying to you, do not introduce cross-municipal-border shopping. You can prevent cross-municipal-border shopping by insisting that municipalities all behave in the same way and that there be a provincial appeal process and review mechanism that ensures that there is no unfair competition between municipalities and between merchants in different municipalities. Our position is, let's prevent a mishmash of municipal bylaws which ultimately will result in wide-open Sunday shopping. Let's have a uniform pattern, and let's prevent a domino effect and the checkerboard pattern that will only cause confusion and conflict.

In order to prevent abuse of the tourism criteria as they now read, and to permit bona fide tourism exemptions, the criteria that must be met before a municipality or a merchant seeks a bylaw must be clarified, and they should be subject to public participation and public scrutiny.

These criteria should include at least the following. The section of a municipality to be exempted for tourism purposes must be restricted to close proximity to the tourism attractions and activities described in the regulation under the act. Second, retail business establishments in a section of a municipality may be exempted only if the section in the municipality has traditional tourism characteristics such as cultural, educational, historical, natural or outdoor recreational attractions, and if the section predominantly provides for shopping activities which feature a unified concept or theme, such as farmers' markets, the sale of heritage, handicraft or other items that are unique to the locale. Finally, an exemption may be granted in connection with fairs, such as the Stratford Festival, or other special-event attractions, provided the exemption is limited to the location and the duration of the event.

Finally -- and I watched with much interest the presentation made this morning by the Committee for Fair Shopping, and read the brief made by National Grocers yesterday -- the Legislature must ensure that the supermarket-size drugstores, which continue to masquerade as pharmacies but really are not, no longer have an obviously unfair competitive advantage over grocery stores and other retailers which respect the law. Under the guise of sundries, certain drugstores -- and some will be appearing this afternoon, I am sure -- sell food, clothing, hardware and other non-pharmacy items on Sundays and other holidays when their competitors selling the same products must be closed.

In the past, and still today, municipal and provincial governments' inexcusable failure to enforce the law promptly and strictly caused and causes widespread violations of the law and useless appeals to the courts. That nonsense must be stopped. You have the opportunity to put a halt to that practice.

As has been repeatedly pointed out by others, the Legislature is duty-bound to provide a level playing field. Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature amend subsection 3(2) of the act so that on holidays a pharmacy size is restricted to 5,000 square feet, its staff composition to four employees, its product mix to pharmaceutical and related products, and delete the word "sundries," which has caused innumerable problems and court appeals.

In a separate document, we have included other detailed proposals that I will not go into. I am simply saying, in conclusion, that simplicity should be the rule. Consistency, equity and enforceability should be the guidelines that shape the legislation, so that you have something that is practical, that is workable and that is fair to all. I am open to your questions.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, sir. I should indicate, in view of the fact that there is a one-hour gap between 12 and 1 -- it is redundant to say that, but it was designed as a lunch break. The next presentation is not scheduled until 1 o'clock. I am prepared, subject to what people here tell me, to extend the time beyond 30 minutes, in view of Mr Vandezande's willingness to participate, in any event.

Mr Daigeler: I am not quite sure what you said.

The Acting Chair: I can understand that, but that is not the point. Please start asking your questions now, because time is fleeting.

Mr Vandezande: I understand that my time runs till 12:15.

Mr Daigeler: How much time do we have according to the usual 30-minute criterion?

The Acting Chair: Please let's not waste time arguing about that. Talk to Mr Vandezande.

Mr Vandezande: I can even sit right through lunch.

Mr Daigeler: I do have a luncheon appointment, so I certainly will not be able to stay here too long.

The Acting Chair: Well, hurry up and ask your question.

Mr Daigeler: You certainly have presented very useful, detailed amendments. We will want to take a careful look at what they mean in this broader document here before we come back to look at the detailed amendments that the opposition parties will be putting forward and that the government will be putting forward. In view of the position you have taken and that the government has taken, to promote a common pause day as much as possible, I think your amendments are probably the most appropriate. It is going to be very interesting to see whether the government will support them, given its avowed commitment to the idea of a common pause day. It is going to be very interesting.

Mr Vandezande: And I hope you would support them.

Mr Daigeler: I am, of course, wondering how you would react to someone like Mayor Fratesi; I think you were here this morning when he made his presentation. What would be your response to someone like him, and like the many others who came, who spoke in a similar vein?

Mr Vandezande: I think you should keep in mind that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario generally does not favour the municipal option. It has in the past, and still today, consistently argued that the municipal option causes all kinds of problems. There are only a few municipalities, like Sault Ste Marie, that have favoured it for their own reasons, without thinking through the negative consequences that a municipal option presents.

I am sure the mayor of Sault Ste Marie and other mayors favouring the municipal option would not want the responsibility or the freedom to amend other kinds of provincial legislation that provides for provincial standards, and be able to do whatever they wish in their own municipality. If we are going to have meaningful government that is fair and equitable across the board, in education, in health and in welfare, you need consistency and you need equity.

So when it comes to the question of the municipal option, as we have argued with Bill 113 and will argue again with this bill, you have to have province-wide standards that are equally applicable to all municipalities and all merchants. I think that can be done by giving the municipalities through AMO, and the other stakeholders, a real say through a provincial review mechanism in the decisions that must be made with respect to the interpretation of the tourism criteria and the enforcement of same. Such a provincial board can then do justice to the peculiar interests of Sault Ste Marie, or any other tourist area. So I think the mayor would agree that you do not want a mishmash of municipal bylaws that cause conflict and confusion between municipalities, because that would break the solidarity across this province. It would only cause more damage than do good.

Mr Daigeler: More as an aside, I think the mayor has indicated that even in other areas he would wish more municipal option rather than less.

Mr Vandezande: But that is the kind of separatism we do not want.

Mr Daigeler: Anyway, it is an approach. I think it is an approach to public policy that a lot of people support. I for one am inclined to support smaller groupings rather than having it imposed from the Big Brother upstairs.

Mr Vandezande: I agree with that.

Mr Daigeler: So there are different approaches and I think we have to respect that, and the mayor --

Mr Vandezande: But the problem is, Mr Daigeler, the municipal option --

Mr Daigeler: I think I have the floor right now.

The Acting Chair: One minute. He is responding.

Mr Vandezande: I am responding to you.

Mr Daigeler: No, no. I have not --

The Acting Chair: I said he is responding to you. Please let the man speak.

Mr Vandezande: You see, the municipal --

Mr Daigeler: Who is speaking at the moment?

The Acting Chair: Mr Vandezande is responding to you. Please let him do that.

Mr Daigeler: Mr Chairman --

Mr Vandezande: Okay. Go ahead, Mr Daigeler. Go ahead.

Mr Daigeler: Mr Chairman, I had the microphone. You gave me the --

The Acting Chair: Mr Daigeler, one moment please. I am doing my very best to permit as much time for each caucus to engage in dialogue with Mr Vandezande. Mr Vandezande is responding to an issue that you put to him. If you do not want him to respond to that issue, I recognize that. But, please, if we are going to pose a matter to a presenter, let's let that presenter respond. There is lots of time. Let's let that person respond. We are trying to have some sort of dialogue here. We are trying to do it in an orderly way. Please, go ahead.

1200

Mr Daigeler: Mr Chairman, the orderly way is that the person who has the floor finishes his remarks. I had the floor, assigned by you, and I was interrupted by the witness, so if I can finish my remarks and my questions --

Mr Vandezande: Sure, go right ahead.

Mrs Cunningham: Go ahead and do it.

Mr Daigeler: I will go ahead. Thank you.

You then, from your position, favour the province to decide what should be tourist areas and what should not.

Mr Vandezande: That is correct. Pardon me for having interrupted you. I thought you were finished with your question. When we say a province-wide standard, we do not mean Big Brother attitudes. What we mean is participation in a province-wide, representative, non-partisan board or mechanism on which the municipalities are represented, trade unions, the tourism industry and others, so that you indeed have representatives from the different local communities participating in the interpretation, the application of the law.

I have been at a couple of dozen municipal hearings during the last few months. It is clear that municipalities are either in the dark or confused and do not know what to do with the municipal option; abuse it left, right and centre. What we need now is some consistency and equity and simplicity in the approach to tourism, and clearly the municipalities currently are not capable of it. I think it would help the situation across the board if the representative tribunal, perhaps as part of the Ontario Municipal Board, would consistently interpret the criteria in a fair way so that justice is done to all the local communities.

I participated in the hearings in Windsor, in Niagara, in Kingston, in a number of other communities. You see the craziest interpretations of the law. You see a developer getting permission to develop a piece of property for tourism purposes when the retailers are not even known, and that is done in an in camera session without there being any public participation in the discussion at that point. I say we need to prevent local politicians from being subjected to illegitimate pressures by developers and others, and let them have the benefit of impartial, independent assessments made by representative provincial boards that have to abide by province-wide criteria fairly established by the Legislature.

Mr Cleary: First of all I would like to thank you for your brief. I just cannot agree with everything you said because I was a municipal politician for many years before I came here and I have attended the AMO conference for over 20 years now. I do know that I know many of those people there. They have always been critical of every government that has been in power for not letting them make their own decisions.

Mr Vandezande: But on this issue -- and AMO was a part of our coalition -- they said, "We don't want the municipal option."

Mr Cleary: It was not unanimous.

Mr Vandezande: No, that is true.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, this is not, of course, the first time that we have heard Mr Vandezande on this issue, but I will say to the government representatives that over the three to four years that I have been involved in this issue, there has been, I think, significant movement in the recommendations that your group has made with a view to the practical realities of society today. I certainly appreciate that.

I think it is the kind of movement we need to see on behalf of government if we are looking for a compromise position. We will either stand up and say we are going to have a common pause day and do it, so that the province is responsible for it, or open it up, as I feel Bill 115 does. It does not have any status at all, in my view, with regard to a common pause day.

So on two points where you have made, I think, significant change, where you talk about a provincial appeal process and where your editorial comments that are not in print said, "Just in case this government chooses the municipal option," both of those positions make me a bit nervous, because it makes me nervous to think that they would not stand up for what they believe in and have a board. They have had that recommendation before.

I happen to know from listening to the responses from individual members that they are very nervous of the board, because they feel it is going to be very expensive. So I would like you to respond to that, and if you do not, I will certainly let them know how I feel about that.

Second, interestingly, I have not had the opportunity to ask this question before, but barring everything, there has been a lot of representation to all of us about the size of stores, not just pharmacies, but other stores as well. They are talking about limiting the size, in this view, and also talking about the numbers of employees. You talk about this in the case of drugstores. I am just telling you there have been other presentations that have said all stores.

One of the pieces of strong advice we had from the Liberal government -- and one of the reasons I feel they are not here right now is because they listened too much to their bureaucrats instead of their own common sense -- was that one could not in fact enforce four employees. So two questions.

Mr Vandezande: Thank you. With respect to the expense, the experience of municipalities now is, if you talk in terms of expense to the taxpayer, it is enormously costly to conduct public hearings, to have delegations appear before municipal councils. It took, in Niagara alone, over 100 hours to deal with one simple application, which should have been turned down to begin with. Thirty councillors listened to that application. Had there been clear criteria, had there been a professional board that quickly makes a decision, "This you can and this you can't do," that nonsense would have been out of the way. It would have saved the taxpayers enormous money.

With respect to the size of the stores, we think there ought to be consistency across the board; also to prevent an unnecessary charter challenge. Frankly, it would be ideal if you could have a 2,400-square-feet cap right across the board with respect to pharmacies, with respect to convenience stores, with respect to stores open for tourism purposes. Then you prevent the unlevel playing field that this morning the Committee for Fair Shopping and National Grocers have been rightly pointing out. You make for consistency.

Just keep in mind that this room here is about 1,200 square feet. If you have a store twice this size, it can adequately meet the health needs, the drug needs, the tourism needs, that is, the regular tourism needs, groceries, etc, of people, so why worry about the larger-sized stores?

The big stores within our coalition do not want to be open. None of the big stores want to be open. The big stores this morning said they do not want to be open. It costs them too much money. So let's make it easy, 2,400 square feet across the board, everybody equally. You have an equal playing field. You have consistency. It makes it easier for the police to enforce. If you couple that with four employees, as Manitoba does, you have an easy enforcement mechanism. All you have to do is check the payroll.

Mrs Cunningham: Was that not a great answer, Mr Chairman?

The Acting Chair: It was a good answer. I am even prepared to say it was a good question. Your next one, please.

Mr Carr: I think you are right and I appreciate all the effort you have made. I think you should know very well, because you have been around and you have had not only to hear what has happened in the past, to hear a lot about these hearings, but you have had firsthand experience at these meetings about what happens. I think that is important, because legislation that is talked about in the province, then you see the reality out there. It was interesting that you pointed out the 30-odd people, the amount of hours and so on, so the cost involved is tremendous.

Also what has happened, as you know, the confusing part, is that people have one position if they designed the bill and then, based on this bill, they have to change things and rework things. They have an ideal position, then they have their "like" position and then another position.

I appreciate you have come in with some very hard recommendations here, listed and outlined very clearly in legal terms and so on, but my question is this: If nothing changes in Bill 115 and we remain with it -- and you know the Premier said there will be a common pause day -- do you think we will in fact have a common pause day in the province?

1210

Mr Vandezande: You will not. This bill, if you look closely at subsections 4(1) and (2), has its principles reversed. That is not what I read in the throne speech. That is not what I heard Premier Rae say. Clearly, if the Premier and the cabinet take a hard look at what they said in the throne speech and what they have said in this bill, they will want to change this bill to make it consistent with their promises prior to the election, during the election and since the election.

I think with the help of the opposition we could clarify section 4. That is why we proposed the amendments that we did. You can come out of this with a bill that once and for all says to the public, says to the retailer, says to the municipalities: "We want a common pause day. For certain purposes you can have certain exemptions, and these are the basic rules." Should the government not do that, it would make a major mistake.

Mr Carr: I can appreciate where the Premier has problems, of course, because what happens is they put something in, intent, and then he does not follow it through, and then what comes back is not necessarily what the intent was. In all fairness, that might not be the government's fault. They say, "This is what we want, a common pause day." The officials go back and put it together, and when they come back, it does not add up. The only thing I hope the Premier is aware of, because let's face it, the cabinet and the Premier will make the decision on this, is that there are people -- the sleuths who have been following us around will bring it to his attention and to Mr Pilkey's attention that they should stop saying there will be a common pause day, because two years from now, if you do not change it, there will not be. I think that has been brought home as clearly as it can be.

Mr Vandezande: It is quicker than that. If you do not change this bill, if you do not pass it as proposed by us, you will have wide-open Sunday shopping in November, the NDP will have lost immense political capital and all of you will lose your credibility as politicians.

Mrs Cunningham: And their seats, Mr Vandezande.

Mr Vandezande: Well, I am not in the polling business.

Mrs Cunningham: It did not take the Liberals very long.

Mr Vandezande: The point I am trying to make is, do not wait for the Premier to act. It is your responsibility as members of this committee to see to it that the bill is tabled in the Legislature, that it reflects the government's commitment -- your own -- to a common pause day and that you have sections in the act that specify tourism criteria that are clear and consistent. Then you can say to the people of Ontario: "We have tried to meet the demands that have been put forward during the election. Here it is." And you try to enforce it in co-operation with the police as best you can. If you do not do that, you have failed the public and you lose more political credibility.

Mr McLean: Just a short question. We have heard it said many times across the way during the recession that we should have wide-open Sunday shopping because it is good for the economy. What is your statement?

Mr Vandezande: Mr McLean, the Committee for Fair Shopping and National Grocers, in its brief yesterday, made it clear that a food dollar is a food dollar is a food dollar. You can only spend your money once, and that has been my experience as the person who gets the groceries in the family. In the long run, the total expenditures of a family remain the same. All you do is spread it out over seven days. All you do, as National Grocers pointed out yesterday, is drive up the cost for those same sales. The bottom-line effect is that you lose money.

I think if we want to create employment -- and I will be glad to speak to you about that some time, as I did to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs the other day -- there are far more effective ways of doing that. The basic issue to keep in mind in this committee is what is in the interests of the social fabric, the community life, the wellbeing of the workers, the retailers and their families. You have a powerful opportunity once and for all to say, "We want a common pause day in this province." Other jurisdictions have it, they practise it. We do not want to be like the States, I hope and I trust.

Mr McLean: But we heard last fall that we are going to have a common pause day. Where is it?

Mr Vandezande: It is your chance now to implement it.

Mr Morrow: I just have two really quick questions, and then I will turn the floor over to Mr Fletcher.

Municipal option is a really important issue. You know I have always been opposed to it. I am opposed to it now. I know you are opposed to it. I want to pick up on something the Liberals said when they were asking you questions. They said that most municipal councils across this province favour their own options now. We heard differently in Hamilton yesterday. We have heard differently in North Bay. Can you comment on that?

Mr Vandezande: Municipal councils before whom I have appeared, appear to be, when you talk to them privately, utterly frustrated with the fact that they have been burdened with a job that they did not want in the first place. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has made that abundantly clear. They do not want it. They have said, "Please, let's have some consistency right across the board." I say, do them that favour. You do not, when it comes to education, health and welfare, allow municipalities to do their thing. You say, "We need consistency across the board because this is a question of social justice." You do not allow communities, on their own, to do that individual thing, ignoring the provincial rules. I say, run with it; do it right, and get it over with and get on to the next job.

Mr Morrow: I could not agree with you more. This brief you gave us this morning is really good. The amendments are something. But I know you, Larry. I have to ask you the obvious question: What is your bottom line?

Mr Vandezande: My bottom line is, establish the principle of a common pause day. Make sure that the legislation honours that principle throughout. Make sure it is enforceable so that it is simple to understand, easy to enforce, and that those who are guilty of violating the law get the kind of penalty or are faced with the kind of penalty that will scare them from violating it. That is why we advocate the increase of the penalty provisions to $10,000 for the first offence -- not in order to collect as much money as possible, but to signal to the community at large: "Look, we don't condone arbitrary violation of the law, which we have had in the past. We're going to stop that."

My bottom line is the principle of a common pause day, make sure it is enforced by everybody, and make sure that a provincial agency exists that will see to it that it is enforced equally. Should the NDP not deliver on its election promises and on its throne speech, then make sure there is, if you allow the municipal option to prevail, a provincial mechanism in place that at least calls municipalities to task when they violate the law, as has already happened in a number of communities without anybody doing anything about it.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you, Mr Vandezande, for an excellent presentation. Thank you for being so candid and also presenting the political realities of the situation. I agree with you fully. On your opening page, of your brief, the throne speech said, "We will provide for a common pause day to help strengthen family and community life while protecting small business and the rights of workers." That is something the Premier said, and as far as I am concerned we have heard enough throughout the province and we, as a committee, are going to have to start doing our job. We are going to have to live up to what we have said. If we do not, then we do not deserve to be here. You proved that with the Liberals. I think that is exactly what happened.

There is one question I do have. In your brief, the pharmacy size of 5,000 square feet differs from what one of your members was saying, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. Is there a bit of a conflict there between the two groups?

Mr Vandezande: No, and Mrs Cunningham will bear me out on this. This whole issue of the size of a pharmacy came up during the Bill 113 hearings. Those of you who were around at that time will remember it as well.

Mrs Cunningham: They are all gone. Everybody who was around is now gone.

Mr Vandezande: But you were there. The point I want to make, and that our coalition is making, is we are concerned that the legitimate health needs of all Ontario citizens are properly met. If that requires in certain communities a pharmacy to be open that is 5,000 square feet in size, let it be so. So you can easily make a provision in the act that allows pharmacies up to 5,000 square feet to be open if that is needed in a particular community, because, say, a 4,500-square-foot pharmacy is the only pharmacy that is available in that community.

A guiding principle is that it is the government's obligation that the legislation facilitates meeting the health needs of the people in the community. So there is no difference between us and trade unions or the Committee for Fair Shopping or National Grocers. We are all saying do not allow these phoney drugstores to continue in their unfair competition. Make sure they indeed sell pharmacy and related products. Make sure the health needs of the people in this province are met. Do not allow them to violate the law, because if you do, you invite wide-open Sunday shopping. We are saying clear-cut pharmacy restrictions in terms of size, employee, composition and product mix, and you will prevent all the problems you have had in the past. You will please the people of this province and you might get re-elected.

Mr O'Connor: You mention that the size of this room is likely around 1,200 square feet. I am a very bad judge of size, but I would say it would have to be at least twice the size of the pharmacy in the fine community in which I live, and they provide a wonderful service. I do not think they have ever not come up with the prescription I needed whenever I did have to go for an illness in my family.

Mr Vandezande: The average pharmacy counter is around 900 square feet.

Mr O'Connor: I am sure that is probably bigger than the whole store. The cross-border issue which has been brought --

Mr Vandezande: Smaller, you mean.

Mr O'Connor: Yes. I think you need to look at this in the long term. And I seem to have the feeling that the cross-border issue is -- hopefully, that is -- a short-term problem. Do you think we should be taking a look at that separately or do you think we should just make sure we come in with --

Mr Vandezande: I appeared at the public hearings that were conducted by the region of Niagara. Merchant after merchant appeared before the council -- and it is in a cross-border area -- and said, "We don't want to be open on Sundays." It has nothing to do with cross-border shopping because it does not solve the issue. And these merchants opposed the applications that were put forward by Herbie's and by a developer asking for wide-open Sunday shopping. They said, "If you want to cure the cross-border shopping phenomenon, then you have to do something about taxes, about the price differential, the free trade agreement, a host of non-Sunday shopping issues."

I am simply here saying to you, on the basis of the evidence gathered by retailers' associations which are a member of our coalition, please do something about that issue, but not through Sunday shopping because it will not solve it. It will only, as was pointed out again yesterday and this morning, drive up our cost of sales, but it will not increase our profits. So choose another route, use the mechanisms available to you and try to persuade Mr Mulroney and others in charge of that issue to do something about it once and for all.

The Acting Chair: Mr Vandezande, we all want to thank you for your presentation, for the obvious thought and work that has been put into your address today. As well, I think it warrants noting that you have been attending this set of Sunday shopping debates, as you have previous Sunday shopping debates. The respect both the proponents and indeed foes of Sunday shopping have for you is notable and it is warranted. You have a great deal of credibility and I want to thank you for your interest in the matter.

Mr Vandezande: Thank you. One reason for being here is to make sure that you people deliver on your word.

The Acting Chair: Gotcha. Thank you. I want to thank everybody this morning. I want to say hello to young Mikey Grimaldi here with his father from Griffith Street in Welland in the heart of the Niagara Peninsula. We are resuming at 1 o'clock with Shoppers Drug Mart.

The committee recessed at 1224.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The committee resumed at 1305.

SHOPPERS DRUG MART

The Chair: I call this meeting to order. We have before us a delegation from Shoppers Drug Mart. We have approximately half an hour. Could you identify yourselves into the mike for the purposes of our recording.

Mr Bloom: I am David Bloom. I am a pharmacist and chairman of Shoppers Drug Mart. I am here on behalf of the 327 Shoppers Drug Mart pharmacist owners and their 10,000 employees who operate pharmacies in almost every single community throughout Ontario.

We did not expect to have to appear before you today. Bill 115 contains no specific amendments to the pharmacy exemption. However, we have been monitoring the proceedings of this committee and some of the submissions have been questioning the situation with regard to pharmacy. We have therefore decided to make this presentation to provide you with the facts as we know them concerning pharmacy.

Each Shoppers Drug Mart pharmacy is independently owned and operated by a pharmacist, called an associate, under the Shoppers Drug Mart marketing banner. I am accompanied today by two of my colleagues: Bobbi Reinholdt, who is the pharmacist-owner of the only 24-hour pharmacy in the Ottawa market; and Gus Miller, the pharmacist-owner of a Shoppers Drug Mart in Oshawa.

As health care professionals, all pharmacists, and I stress all pharmacists, are concerned about the safety and wellbeing of the patients in their communities. We therefore value the opportunity to be involved in this legislative process.

Pharmacy service is an essential component of the health care delivery system. Patients do not choose when to get sick. Purchases of prescriptions, first aid products and over-the-counter medications are not intentional. Patients do not plan their pharmacy purchases in advance. Pharmacy services and products are not impulse, optional or even discretionary. They are invariable. They are unplanned because they are often required urgently.

In 1988, when the Retail Business Holidays Act was proposed, Shoppers Drug Mart pharmacist-owners participated fully in the consultation process and made presentations in every centre where the justice committee appeared. In fact, many other pharmacists, both chain and independent, who were not associated with any particular banner made submissions to the standing committee as well. The entire profession was concerned about the availability of pharmacy and related health care services on Sundays, and I assure you the same is true today.

The standing committee at that time conducted its own research that determined the availability and the accessibility of pharmacy services. I understand that research was undertaken by your legislative researcher, Susan Swift, who worked in conjunction with the Ontario College of Pharmacists and other pharmacy organizations.

After due consideration, the standing committee recommended a size limitation of 7,500 square feet for pharmacies to remain open on Sunday. This was not an arbitrary decision. It was specifically selected because that square footage would ensure that adequate pharmacy services would be available in each and every community throughout Ontario. It ensured that the public would have adequate access to pharmacy health services on Sundays and holidays.

There is a mistaken impression that 7,500 square feet was selected because it benefited Shoppers Drug Mart. Let me assure you that is absolutely incorrect. The legislation was not enacted for the benefit of Shoppers Drug Mart, nor did it satisfy many other pharmacy operators. It did, however, achieve its intended purpose, which was to ensure that pharmacy services would continue to be available in every community throughout the province.

The act contained a one-year moratorium effective on March 4, 1990, to enable pharmacies that in that time were in excess of 7,500 square feet to either change their size or remain closed on subsequent Sundays. There were 49 Shoppers Drug Mart pharmacists whose drugstores were in excess of 7,500 square feet. Several of them downsized their pharmacies to 7,500 square feet; others remained closed. Shoppers Drug Mart pharmacists have always obeyed the law, and those who are over 7,500 square feet have remained closed on Sundays and holidays since that time. I might add that there a number of pharmacies, both within the Shoppers Drug Mart banner and many independent pharmacists throughout Ontario, which have actually increased the size of their pharmacies to 7,500 square feet as a result of the legislation.

Please understand that the legislation has in fact created a standard model for pharmacies in the marketplace. Today there are actually more pharmacies at or around 7,500 square feet in size than existed prior to the Retail Business Holidays Act. In preparation for this presentation, we conducted a survey just last week of pharmacy size in selected communities. You will find the survey data attached to the document I hope you have received by now. If you would like to turn to it, it is exhibit A on pages 10 and 11. I am confident that the results contained in this survey would be substantiated if this committee commissioned a similar one in Ontario today.

If you note on the charts, it has the communities -- and again these are just selective communities; we have done more than this, but we have not tabulated them yet -- total number of pharmacies, total open Sundays, total open Sundays over 2,400 square feet and total open Sundays 2,400 square and under and then the general population of the particular city. For example, Ottawa and area: total number of pharmacies, 136; total open Sunday, 53; total open over 2,400 square feet, 50; total open Sundays if the legislation was refined to 2,400 square feet for a population of 700,000, there would be only three pharmacies open. That is a description of those two charts.

Non-pharmacists -- and I stress the word "non-pharmacists" -- have proposed that the optimum size of a pharmacy allowed to remain open on a Sunday should be 2,400 square feet. If that recommendation were accepted, it would be catastrophic for the health, safety and wellbeing of the people of Ontario. There would be entire communities without any pharmacy service. For example, if you note on the chart, Sault Ste Marie, which presently has four pharmacies open on Sundays, would have no pharmacy service to service its population of 73,000. Strathroy would not have an open pharmacy. The closest would be in London, 40 kilometres away. Trenton, Brockville, Bowmanville, Chatham, New Liskeard and Hawkesbury, for example, would also have absolutely no pharmacy services in their communities. Northern communities, such as the Timiskaming area, including Timmins, New Liskeard and Kirkland Lake, would have only one pharmacy in that entire triangle open on Sunday. Kingston would have only one pharmacy to serve the needs of 90,000 people.

You can well imagine the stress this would place on the resources of the local hospitals. Patients would be forced to go to the hospital for minor ailments because they would be unable to purchase over-the-counter remedies as well as prescription products. By the way, most hospital pharmacies are closed on Sundays.

I would now like to introduce Bobbi Reinholdt, who will speak briefly about the pharmacy situation in the city of Ottawa.

Miss Reinholdt: As David already mentioned, in the Ottawa area, including Nepean, Kanata, Orleans and other suburbs, where there is a population base of over 700,000, there are 136 pharmacies, of which 53 are open on Sunday. If the square footage for pharmacy was reduced to 2,400 square feet, it would mean that only three of these pharmacies would remain open.

My pharmacy, which is 7,500 square feet, is the only 24-hour drugstore in Ottawa. From midnight Saturday to midnight Sunday we fill approximately 150 to 200 prescriptions, of which over 100 are for emergencies. Many of those prescriptions come from the outpatient wards of the five hospitals and several emergency clinics in the Ottawa area.

The brief you have received contains several letters I have received from the Ottawa hospitals, and they are listed in your handout as exhibit B. In the interests of time, I would like to read only one paragraph from a letter I received from the director of pharmacy services at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. He writes:

"On behalf of the pharmacy department of the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, I support the application for the 24-hour pharmacy on Merivale Road.

"Surveys conducted by our department have shown that a significant number of prescriptions are written in the night-time hours when no other pharmacy services are available. The potential delays in receiving medication as a result of this service not being available could negatively affect the child's health."

I have also attached a similar letter that I received from the Queensway-Carleton Hospital. Let me read one paragraph:

"It has come to my attention that you may be forced to close Sundays...thus not providing a 24-hour pharmacy service, seven days a week. This would be an unfortunate event if it did occur.... It would be devastating to learn that this valuable service would be taken away."

I believe my colleagues across the province could produce similar letters of endorsement. My pharmacy would have to close if the size was reduced below 7,500 square feet.

Patients also rely on my pharmacy for more than prescription drugs. Most non-prescriptions and over-the-counter medication, such as antihistamines and analgesics, may only be sold by a pharmacist. They cannot by law be sold in any other retail establishment. Insulin is also a non-prescription drug, and last Sunday, August 25, my pharmacy sold 16 bottles of insulin. By the way, there are a multitude of new insulins on the market and not every pharmacy may necessarily carry all the different new brands. As you can appreciate, insulin is a life-saving medication for a diabetic.

Mr Bloom: Thank you very much, Bobbi.

I would like to add that Shoppers Drug Mart has four other 24-hour pharmacies in Toronto, and all are located near major hospitals. We are currently planning additional 24-hour pharmacies in other communities where there is the demand and the demonstrated need. If these pharmacies were to close midnight Saturday to midnight Sunday, there would be no 24-hour emergency pharmacies anywhere in either Toronto or Ottawa.

There is another vital service which many pharmacies offer on Sundays, and that relates to the supply of prescription services to nursing homes. If you close down such a pharmacy on a Sunday, the senior citizen would be unable to obtain an emergency prescription and would most probably have to be admitted to hospital. Besides the cost to the Ministry of Health, there are high stress factors relative to the patients and their families and to nursing care personnel. Shoppers Drug Mart pharmacists presently service approximately 5,800 nursing home beds throughout the province.

Our pharmacist-owner Gus Miller can give another perspective of how 2,400 square feet would impact health care services in the city of Oshawa.

Mr Miller: Thank you, David.

I have operated my pharmacy at Midtown Mall Shopping Centre in Oshawa for the past 22 years and have been open every single Sunday and most holidays since 1969. When the Retail Business Holidays Act was enacted, I reduced the size of my store from 10,000 square feet to 7,500 square feet in order to continue to serve my customers and also stay within the law. In the Oshawa, Bowmanville and Whitby areas, there are 27 pharmacies open on a Sunday. If that size is reduced to 2,400, there would only be six pharmacies to serve a population of almost 400,000 people.

I would like to pre-empt your question as to why a pharmacy needs 7,500 square feet in which to operate. The traditional mix of products in my pharmacy today is not very different from the products I sold when I started 22 years ago. The main difference, however, is in the number of items in each product category, commonly known as SKU, stock-keeping unit. For example, the number of antihistamines back then was limited. Today there are 10 times the number of formulations to relieve allergies, requiring an ever-increasing amount of display space.

Antihistamines are one of over 100 categories where new products and line extensions exist. All these require extra space. I think also Benylin, the old standby cough syrup, had one unit some years ago. There are now seven Benylins of slightly different formulation. Each one has two sizes. That is just an example. The many varieties and sizes of diapers that now require upwards of 36 linear feet of merchandise, every size and every brand has a category for girls and boys. The delivery of traditional pharmacy products and services requires an ever-increasing amount of space.

1320

The other difference today is the amount of medical information that pharmacists keep in their computers. I maintain a medication record for each of my patients in my pharmacy. Each pharmacy's records are independent. There is no centralized system, so, for example, I cannot access Bobbi Reinholdt's records. These records are essential in monitoring drug therapies and checking for allergies and interactions between medications. These records also include the patients' drug plan numbers for billing third-party plans like Ontario drug benefit, Blue Cross and Green Shield. If the patient went to another pharmacy, he would likely have to pay for his prescription out of his pocket if he could not produce his plan number.

An integral part of the pharmacist's role is patient counselling. This is especially important on Sundays when many doctors are unavailable and hospitals are overburdened.

Mr Bloom: Clearly the principal business of pharmacies on a Sunday is the sale of goods of a pharmaceutical or therapeutic nature or for hygienic or cosmetic purposes. This was the intention and the specifications of the current legislation.

In preparation for this presentation, we conducted a survey of total sales on Sunday, August 18, so it is very current. These results are based on 312 Shoppers Drug Mart pharmacies that were open that day. I would like to share some of the results with you, ladies and gentlemen.

We filled 10,031 prescriptions. Of these, 35% were for emergencies. They were prescribed by a doctor at a hospital or emergency clinic. Forty-one per cent of the total sales were for prescriptions and over-the-counter medication such as cough, cold and pain relievers and the like. A further 43% were for health and beauty aids, which includes first aid products such as sanitary products, diabetic syringes, bandages and ostomy products, items that only pharmacies would stock.

By limiting the size to 7,500 square feet, pharmacies are restricted in the nature and extent of product categories that they are physically able to stock; 7,500 square feet precludes them from devoting extensive sections of space to the non-traditional drugstore products such as clothing and soft goods, automotive, gardening supplies and a major offering of food and the like.

I must add that of the 327 Shoppers Drug Mart pharmacies, there are 15 -- and I repeat 15 -- Shoppers Drug Mart Food Baskets, which are open until midnight and carry a very limited selection of convenience food items in approximately 500 square feet of space. Sales of these products, again according to the recent research, represent 1.27% of total Sunday sales. The prototype of 312 Shoppers Drug Mart pharmacies do not contain a Food Basket and do not sell food.

Given all the circumstances, the legislation selected 7,500 square feet as the appropriate size because it ensured the following:

1. Every single community throughout Ontario, rural and urban, will have adequate and accessible pharmacy services.

2. The size limitation restricts pharmacies by preventing them from offering a wide selection of non-traditional pharmacy products.

3. The legislation has created a model size for pharmacies of 7,500 square feet in the marketplace; many have increased their square footage and many have reduced their area to comply with the legislation.

4. The legislation is easily enforceable; square footage is a fixed criterion.

5. The Retail Business Holidays Act as it presently stands recognizes the unique professional services of pharmacists and enables them to remain on the front line of the health care delivery system.

Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my colleagues, we thank you for giving us this opportunity to make the presentation. Hopefully we have clarified the situation relative to the pharmacy. We would be very pleased to respond to any of your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. A couple of minutes per caucus. Mr Daigeler.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you for coming before us. I am wondering, though, are you appearing before us because you are worried that there may be amendments made that will in fact limit the drugstores to 2,400 square feet, and do you have any evidence to that regard? At the present time, the way the law stands, I do not think that is envisaged. Do you just want to make sure that there are no changes in that regard, or do you have other reasons for appearing?

Mr Bloom: The primary reason is we have been reading the transcripts and there have been some comments made by non-pharmacists suggesting that 2,400 square feet would be the proper size. We appreciate that is completely unfounded and would certainly jeopardize the health, safety and wellbeing of the citizens of Ontario. We have an exceptionally good health care system. As pharmacists we want to preserve it.

Mr Daigeler: Have you spoken with the minister at all? Has there been any indication that they would want to change the present draft legislation?

Mr Bloom: No, we have had no discussion with the minister at all. It is just that in reading the transcripts we felt that not appearing could sort of jeopardize the position that is being held today, which we believe serves the public well, and that is to ensure the health care is available to all the citizens of Ontario.

Not that we thought the 2,400 would be necessarily justified, but we felt that if we did a survey that would be current with 1991 data, it once again proved that 2,400 square feet would jeopardize the health, safety and wellbeing. Certainly the two charts we provided you with substantiate that point of view.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation and the statistics that were laid out here. I think that is very helpful.

Looking at it then -- and I was trying to read the statistics there -- basically what you are saying is on the Sundays you have got most of your business coming from the prescriptions. Is that the one on page 6 that you are referring to?

Mr Bloom: Prescriptions and over-the-counter drugs and health and beauty aids would fall within the definition that you have.

Mr Carr: Okay. With the numbers, if they did change them from the statistics, were they based on all stores or just your own stores?

Mr Bloom: It was strictly based on our own stores.

Mr Carr: Your own stores?

Mr Bloom: Right. That is a Shoppers Drug Mart piece of research and it was based on 312 Shoppers Drug Marts right across Ontario, basically every city and town.

Mr Carr: The other question I had was relating to the changes, why they would make some changes there. As you know, there was a lot of debate over the square footage that has been put in for pharmacies. Do you like where you are at with that now? Do you like to sort of leave things alone? Where are you at with it?

Mr Bloom: I think the research was quite intensive. I might attribute that to Susan Swift. The number was based on facts. It was based on preserving the health care system that we enjoy today. I would hope that decisions would be made on facts. In reviewing the data today, they do not differ much from the data Susan came up with, except for the fact there are more 7,500-square-foot stores today than there were in 1988. Many independents and chains have decided to move their model up to 7,500 square feet, and I would say that 7,500 is very consistent model throughout the province.

Mr Carr: This morning when the Canadian Federation of Independent Business people were in, that is what they said. Of course they were talking about all retail and all the members they represent. They said the worst part of all these changes that we are looking at is the uncertainty. I think, to paraphrase it a little bit, they said just make up your mind and live with it. Is your position as well that you would just like to have it settled once and for all?

Mr Bloom: We would like it to be firm and consistent. Mr Miller stated that he had downsized from 10,000 to 7,500 square feet. In 1988 when the changes were introduced and 7,500 square feet was to be the limit, our Shoppers Drug Mart owner-operators spent $4 million complying with the law. Also our owner-operators have leases and lease commitments on their size of store. Stability is the best thing for us as pharmacists. Our primary goal should be to deliver the best health care system in the province, not be part of this kind of process.

1330

Mr O'Connor: Thank you for coming here today. I was going through your presentation and I noticed that one of my municipalities was on the list here. Perhaps you could help me. The municipality that I am referring to is Stouffville and it is one in the southern part of my riding. It says that there is a total of three pharmacies, two open on Sundays. Total over 2,400 is two and total open on Sundays under 2,400 is one. They alternate, do they?

Mr Bloom: Yes, they alternate.

Mr O'Connor: Would it be possible for that to happen in all municipalities? It seems that they must have sat down and worked out a compromise that does not allow one, because there is a difference in size, an unfair advantage.

Mr Bloom: There is severe risk in alternating because, as I think was stated earlier, the patient record systems are exclusive to the pharmacy. There is no on-line system where your particular patient record system would be listed with three different pharmacies. If you were coming in to purchase an over-the-counter drug and you had prescription drugs at a particular pharmacy and you were taking cumidine, for example, which is a a blood thinner -- I am not wishing that on you -- and you went ahead and bought Aspirin, Aspirin is contraindicated when you are taking cumidine. It could be fatal.

The pharmacist's role is to counsel patients. The Lowy commission, which was asked by the government to come out with some recommendations, has suggested in the strongest terms that the pharmacists have to get more involved in patient counselling to take some of the stress off the health care system. I believe it is the worst possible system to alternate pharmacies. They do so only if there is a lack of pharmacists involved. At Shoppers Drug Mart we do not do that.

Mr O'Connor: I tend to agree with that. The pharmacist is somebody the person in the community that is ill goes and talks to for some advice. Do you think it could be possible then that perhaps there should be some investment in this computer system so that information can be shared?

Mr Bloom: That would be absolutely illegal because those kinds of personal records cannot be shared, as you know. They are confidential records and they cannot be shared.

Mr O'Connor: You do not think that the patients then might take a look at that and think that perhaps in providing the health care they need for their own safety, that might not be a good idea? Do you think they would go against that?

Mr Bloom: Gus, you practise pharmacy on a daily basis. Maybe you would like to comment on the portability of records.

Mr Miller: There are without question a number of people that come in to my pharmacy. They know I have their history and they know I can look after all their needs. Frankly, I just cannot even consider the possible problems that would arise with my customers if I was not open.

Mr O'Connor: Could I put one more scenario to you? Right now in Ontario we have numerous problems, and one of them is drug addictions, and one of those addictions is prescription drugs. Do you not think if we had some sort of integrated system that perhaps that travesty would not happen, that we would not be putting people of Ontario at risk?

Mr Miller: We certainly encourage single-pharmacy shopping as we do discourage double doctoring to obtain multiple prescriptions for those types of drugs. Each area, and certainly in my Oshawa area, we have a telephone alert system that goes through the pharmacies within 20 minutes alerting of a possible fraud or overuse a drug. It is in place right now.

Mr Bloom: Could I ask Bobbi Reinholdt to comment? It gives you a different complexion by moving to Ottawa now, a different set of circumstances.

Miss Reinholdt: We have almost the exact same system. It is called the hotline, and it just kind of spreads out. The first store will get it, and you know your two or three contacts and you call.

Mr O'Connor: That hotline is exclusive to Shoppers' druggists?

Miss Reinholdt: No, no, it is all the pharmacies. Everyone is included under the local association.

Mrs Cunningham: Could I ask a process question, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: Yes. Perhaps we could allow the witnesses to leave first, please. Thank you very much for your presentation. Very articulate.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, given that the concerns of the pharmacies across the province right now are not in response to Bill 115 but more in response to the delegations that have appeared before our committee with regard to size of drugstores, is it the intent of the government if it will be listening to the public hearings and making any changes in the size of drugstores, to have a different process so that they can more appropriately make their presentation? Normally, people respond to what is in a bill. If it is not there, they would not even be here, but because of the public hearings they felt it necessary to come and give their point of view.

Could I ask Mr Mills to take this as a concern to the government and say, "Look, if we are going to make these changes based on public hearings or if we are going to consider them, there ought to be an appropriate public process for those people who are affected"? Could I make a request that you as the parliamentary assistant take that forward?

Mr Mills: All I can say is what I have said right from day one, that these hearings are a process, we are listening and we are making note of everything that is heard. Other than that, I can take back that particular item you have spoken of if that is what you wish, but generally we are listening to everything and taking everything into consideration.

Mrs Cunningham: My point is that most of the public response we are getting is not in response to the bill itself.

Mr Mills: Yes. This is a little different.

Mrs Cunningham: The response from the drugstores is different from the response of other persons coming before the committee. I expect many of us will be listening to changes in the bill that in fact relate to the specific clauses in the bill or the regulations, and others will not. I guess drugstores will not, and I have to say that I am in a major conflict in the way I think right now, because one of the recommendations we have been hearing is that all stores that open on Sunday ought to be 3,500 feet or 2,400 feet. We have all been hearing this. Noone has said, "Except those stores that are exempted by regulation now." So I am just sending it out as a caution to the great people who advise you, Mr Mills -- you know how I feel about that from time to time -- that if we are going to change in any way, there ought to be a more fair process for changing people who did not think they would be affected. All right? That is just my point on process.

ONTARIO DISCOUNT DRUG ASSOCIATION

The Chair: We now have a presentation from the Ontario Discount Drug Association, Mr Marv Turk and Mr Zel Goldstein.

Mr Turk: My name is Marv Turk. I am the president of PayLess Drugs. This gentleman is Mr Zel Goldstein, the president of Hy & Zel's. We represent the Ontario Discount Drug Association, which ostensibly are those drugstores over 7,500 square feet. We number 35, with approximately 3,000 employees, and the volume of business that we do in our stores is in excess of $325 million.

We come to the committee today to ask for one thing, the removal of that clause in the proposed Bill 115 which restricts drugstores over 7,500 square feet from opening. In other words, we are asking for a level playing field where all drugstores can be open on a Sunday if they so choose and/or marketplace conditions dictate that eventuality.

Obviously, some of the ideas I have are going to differ from my friend, Mr Bloom, in terms of the focus I would like to talk about. Mr Bloom focused on the professional end. We would like to focus on the professional end, fairness as well as pricing.

We are basing our request for an exemption on three points. The first one is fairness. I wonder if anybody in the committee, or if all members of the committee are aware that in fact Bill 113, as it exempts drugstores over 7,500 square feet, only exempts 3% of the drugstores in Ontario. I also wonder if the committee thinks it is fair that only 6% of the people who are still working on Sunday represent a very small percentage of the people, if we look at the basic principle the NDP espoused for Bill 115, a common pause day. It does not make much sense to us that 6% of the people are allowed to work while 94% are not allowed to work. In terms of the common pause day approach, obviously the government of the day, or certainly the committee, has taken pharmacy and has said it is an essential service and an essential part of the health care system. That is why they have not dealt with pharmacy in the position from Bill 113 as it applies to Bill 115. We agree with this. We feel pharmacy is an essential service and accordingly we feel that all pharmacies should be essential service and there should be no discrimination at that level.

1340

We also feel it does not make much sense that on the west side of the street you have a drugstore that is 7,500 square feet and allowed to be open and a drugstore on the east side of the street over 7,500 square feet forced to close, given the fact that you can purchase exactly the same range of merchandise in the store under 7,500 square feet as you can in the store over 7,500 square feet.

In 1989, the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 113, was passed and there was a year's exemption given to the large, over-7,500-square-foot stores to go to regional municipalities and ask for an exemption to have those large stores open. But to tell you the truth, we did this and we did not receive a very kindly reception because of the tremendous amount of anger that was directed against the government of the day. The municipalities felt they were being foisted with this additional responsibility. Sunday shopping was being applied to them and they certainly did not want it, so we were not successful.

In February 1989, Bill 113 was passed. The year's exemption expired at the end of February 1990. At that time the Hy & Zel's company had to make a conscious decision whether it should close or remain open. They decided to obey the law and stay closed. From March 1 to July 30 of that year until Bill 113 was temporarily overturned in the Pilkey decision, they were closed.

In the financial statement that was taken off in January 1991, the Hy & Zel's operation went from a profit in the previous year of $1.5 million to a loss of $4.5 million. That is extremely significant because what we have is forensic evidence which shows that our stores are not viable without Sunday, and it shows as well that the total loss of the $4.5 million can be directly attributed to the lost business on Sunday. Even though Hy & Zel's opened earlier in the morning, closed later at night, opened earlier and closed later on Saturday, it was only able to retain 10% to 12% of that business. The observation is quite simple: the people who wanted the merchandise, prescription drugs, etc, on a Sunday were going to those stores that were open, which are the under-7,500-square-feet stores and we feel this innately unfair.

We are prepared to give this forensic evidence, which shows our non-viability which is obviously extremely important to us. By submitting this type of information we are exposing ourselves to our bankers and our suppliers and, unfortunately, we are probably going to have a lot of negative feedback from this. But the bottom line is that if we are forced to continue to stay closed on Sunday -- some of our members are closed and some of them are not, in defiance of the law. I might add -- we are going to be out of business anyway, so I guess a little more aggravation is not going to matter much.

With regard to the issue of whether our large stores are drugstores, I would like to make a couple of comments. First of all, not only are our large stores drugstores, they are superdrugstores. We carry esoteric products for various types of diseases like sprue, Epstein-Barr, hypoglycaemia, which none of the smaller, under-7,500-square-feet stores carry, for two very good reasons. Number one, they do not have the space and, number two, they could never get the dollar return on dollar investment or the proper turnover to stock these items and they unfortunately run their businesses much more as a business than we do. We run our businesses much more as a pharmacy, although that might be strange to some people who are sitting around the table.

We also feel that Bill 113, as it was presented, really provided an overkill. The fact of the matter is that most of the information in Bill 113 on the criteria on which a drugstore is based is very solid. It comes from the 1898 Pharmacy Act, goes all the way through the 1931 Pharmacy Act and continued to the 1976 Health Disciplines Act and the 1976 Retail Business Holidays Act. The major component of that particular paragraph was and still is that the principal business of the pharmacy must be the dispensing of prescriptions, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, drug-related items, health and beauty aids, etc.

The reality of the situation is that our big stores do 75% to 80% of their business in this type of merchandise, although most people do not understand that. We do it obviously at prices significantly lower than the competition. In the sense that we were misunderstood and people were taking shots at us and saying, "You're not a drugstore, you are a food store camouflaged as a drugstore," that information was completely erroneous. There were no data to support that whatsoever.

As I say, in terms of what we are and who we are, we fill on average twice as many prescriptions as your average Shoppers Drug Mart -- I mention them because they were just here -- and on a Sunday we fill three times as many prescriptions as they do in an average store if we are allowed to open up against them. Obviously, people do not perceive us to be a food store, they perceive us to be a drugstore and the reality is that we are a drugstore.

The significant part of the fairness aspect relates to what the words "principal business" mean. We say we are a drugstore. Principal business means fundamental truth as well as majority or main. In every respect we can prove we are drugstores because the fundamental truth of our business is drugstores.

The second point I would like to mention is pricing. The average dispensing fee in our stores, again as opposed to my friends at Shoppers Drug Mart -- since they chose to take a subjective position with this I think I will take a few shots at them. The average dispensing fee in our stores versus the Shoppers Drug Mart stores is between 20% and 40% less, a significant amount of money. The 35 ODDA stores fill, on average, 2.5 million prescriptions a year. This means that the differential in dollars to the public, whether they are going to have it or not if they come to our stores versus Shoppers Drug Mart, is in the neighbourhood of $7 million, a significant amount.

In a recent survey taken at Hy & Zel's at the end of May, there were 940 drugstore items taken. Of the 940 items, over 90% were cheaper in a combination of PayLess and Hy & Zel's. The range of cheapness was between 5% and 35% or an average of 20%, a significant amount of money in recessionary times. Shoppers Drug Mart was cheaper in 2% of the items. That is not to say if they are in a flyer they are not cheaper, etc, but these are everyday prices, so obviously the pricing is extremely significant.

I would like to just mention one thing about cross-border shopping and I will be very brief. We all know, of course, all the variables that contribute to the problem of cross-border shopping: the high interest rates, the high Canadian dollar, the GST, free trade, etc, but I have not seen very much come from any government in terms of a positive approach.

Our stores, Zel and I and the people in our association, are really not concerned about competition, we are more concerned about the government closing us up. If we were able to pursue our business agenda, our marketing strategy and have our stores open and advertise it properly, we feel we could keep a lot of that kind of business in Canada. Of the total amount of cross-border shopping, 30% is done on Sunday; 7% of that business is in drugstores and drug-related items. I am not naïve enough to believe that we can take all that business and keep it here, but if we could take 2% or 3%, does that not mean jobs and extra taxes? Does that not show a different type of mindset that we have had in Ontario in the last couple of years and get rid of some of that negativity?

I have a letter here from a lady in Mississauga which will be distributed to you people, where she is absolutely incensed at the fact that Dixie Hy & Zel's was closed and she had to go to Shoppers Drug Mart where she states she paid twice as much money for the item. She is bashing all levels of government and saying they should be involved. The only point I want to make is the fact that in this day and age it is obviously extremely relevant and very important to most people, especially those with a lot of kids, not to have to pay more than they can afford to pay. You can read this letter.

The third and probably the most important point I would like to mention is jobs. Because of our non-viability, because of the fact that if we are not allowed to be open Sundays, we will effectively lose 3,000 jobs, our co-workers and people who worked with me for up to 20 years and with Zel's for up to 12 years are going to have to find different places to work. In terms of the Sunday shopping as it applies to our staff, 90% of the people who work for us are part-time university and college students or people who already have work five days a week who just cannot make it and require the extra day of work to pay their bills.

Sunday is the easiest day of the week we have to fill staff-wise. So the question is not necessarily who would want to shop on Sunday in the drugstore, but who would want to work on Sunday in a drugstore? The question is academic because it is not a problem for us. People want to work on Sunday and we just do not have that problem.

The situation that presented itself in Kapuskasing a couple of weeks ago where Mr Rae interceded and 800 jobs were saved is very commendable and I think the government should be doing more of this. However, that was 800 jobs. What we are saying to the government now is if we can prove to you, and I am sure the forensic evidence will prove, we have 3,000 jobs at stake, I think we deserve the same type of considerations as those people up in northern Ontario. Again, I am not dictating or threatening, I am stating the facts.

1350

As well as that, I would just like to make an off-the-cuff comment that I am a hands-on sort of a guy. I am a general manager rather than a president. I attend all the pay equity meetings and workplace safety meetings, and I must tell you that the question that has come out of five months of pay equity meetings has not been at all, "Since we have been maligned and taken advantage of all these years, are we going to get more money next year or the year after that?" Although we take it as a very serious issue, the question that is being asked is, "Are we going to have a job next year?" I have to be very candid with these people and I cannot really tell them they will. I think that is rather sad; everybody will admit that if that happens it really is sad.

I would like to turn the mike over to Mr Goldstein for a second. He has a couple of comments he would like to add.

Mr Goldstein: I would like to present to the committee these petitions which were collected in my stores over the weekend. Our customers want to shop in our stores. Almost 15,000 petitions are here and more will be collected in the coming weeks. I will make sure that when we have them in hand, we can deliver them to you as well. They are all here packaged in boxes. I can pass them around to you if you want.

Mr Turk: I would like to pass the meeting back to the Chair. If there are any questions anybody has of myself or Mr Goldstein, we would be pleased to try to answer them.

The Chair: It might be helpful actually for the committee's purposes to have a sample of those letters so we know what you are referring to. We will pass them back to you.

Mr Sorbara: Let me apologize to both the presenters and my colleagues on the committee for being a little bit late this afternoon. I just have a couple of questions for the presenters. The first relates to what I understand to be the major thrust of their submissions before the committee. That is, if I understand it correctly -- and do correct me if I am wrong -- that clause 3(2)(c) of of the act, as it currently stands, discriminates against your stores and your type of stores only because of an arbitrary qualifier of 7,500 square feet.

Mr Turk: That is exactly correct.

Mr Sorbara: It is my impression from Shoppers Drug Mart and others that they are not particularly interested in maintaining the 7,500-square-feet qualifier, although as an accidental, if you like, effect of this section, most of the stores of the kind you are speaking about are required to be closed and they are permitted to stay open.

Mr Turk: I think if the question was asked of Mr Bloom or any of the principals at Shoppers Drug Mart whether they would go for an all open or all closed situation, the answer would be undoubtedly all open.

Mr Sorbara: That is, to let the marketplace determine what size of store best suits the shopping public on a Sunday.

Mr Turk: That is correct.

Mr Sorbara: I suppose you are aware, because you have very competent advice on this matter, that as a very technical matter, the clause I refer to, clause 3(2)(c), is not currently under consideration by this committee, and that it would require unanimous consent of the committee, that is, the permission of the government, in order to proceed with an amendment to this section. Are you aware of that?

Mr Turk: We are aware of it and we hope the government of the day will understand the necessity in this economic climate to do this.

Mr Sorbara: All other matters aside -- that is to say the tourism matters as they are set out in the bill and the qualifiers in the bill as to how one goes about receiving permission to open on Sunday under the proposal of the government, which is an application to a municipality and public hearings and then the discretion of the municipality -- is it your view that an amendment to clause (c) would create a fairer marketplace for competitors that should be playing on a level playing field under this act?

Mr Turk: I do believe so, because I believe you cannot consider a level playing field in other than the specific industries or professions involved. My personal opinion is that the previous government made an error in trying to negate people they assumed to have a leg up, and trying to compare food stores, department stores and drugstores. I really believe you cannot do that.

Mr Sorbara: You make a very good point because the error, if there is an error in this section, is the error of a previous government. It is possible that an incumbent government could correct the error even though, once again, it is not strictly within our mandate.

The product line you have in your stores generally -- I guess they vary; you two guys are competitors -- is it the same as, similar to, different from, very different from, or wholly different from most drugstores that open on Sunday as a result of this 7,500-foot qualifier?

Mr Turk: It is very similar. The major difference is in the number of stock keeping units, SKUs. The gentleman commented on that. We have a 42-foot first aid section and the average for Shoppers is 12 feet. The average for Pharma Plus is 8 feet. So we have 600 items in that area and they have 200 items. We have a very strong and high service level and they do not. They have a high service level in terms of what they are trying to do. We have a high service level in terms of the total picture of the health care system, and that is really what we are.

Mr Sorbara: If an individual buying a prescription for the very first time goes to a drugstore and buys a prescription, say, at store A, what is the likelihood that the next time he or she needs a prescription he or she will return to store A rather than go to store B?

Mr Turk: Almost 90%.

Mr Sorbara: So if I buy at store A on Sunday and if the next time I get a prescription it is a Tuesday, I am likely to return to store A?

Mr Turk: Absolutely correct.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for a fine presentation. You may know that one of the presenters yesterday brought some information in to compare yourselves with their grocery store. Listening to the banter, it is nice to see that the free enterprise system is working and that the business community is having as much fun with the odd little shot at each other as we in the political field do.

In fact, when I look at some of the comments on the petitions here, it is interesting what some people are saying about the government on this. The first one just happened to be here. I will not repeat it because the lady probably will not want me to say it, but it is interesting that any time you do something as politicians you get a comment, and there is an interesting one right here.

But my question is on a more serious note, because I think somewhere --

Mr Sorbara: Than whose question? Than my question?

Mr Carr: Than my little bantering. It is a serious question because I think you said in the neighbourhood of about 3,000 jobs are in jeopardy if you are not allowed to open up. I am always reluctant to dig into financial details when it is public like this, but maybe you could just expand on that because, as you know, most people in this day and age are concerned about jobs. If you are not allowed to open on Sunday, what happens to a lot of those jobs?

Mr Turk: We lose 50% of our business. The business is not recapturable, because people will buy all those products that we sell in an under-7500-square-feet store. Mr Bloom made light of his Food Basket, etc, and the fact that they are only 500 square feet, but the reality is that in the 500 square feet they sell 90% of the food we sell. So the fact of the matter is that if somebody was in a Hy & Zel's and there was a Food Basket nearby, and Hy & Zel's had to close, they could go to the Food Basket, which has prescriptions and all your health and beauty aids, and get all the food they want. That is the reality of the situation. That is why we feel there is an inherent unfairness in linking anything to square footage. It makes no sense.

Mr Carr: Yesterday, even though your competitors were taking a little shot at it -- and I was comparing the prices actually out of curiosity. I will not comment, because it was fairly different in all areas. They did their presentation with the United Food and Commercial Workers and at the end they agreed on everything except the 7,500 square footage. National Grocers was the company that came in and said that, if you are going to have it open, do not put that square footage in because presumably that company will be caught in it as well. They said, "We would like to remain closed, but if you do open up, let's make the playing field level and let's not put the restrictions." Is your big concern with this legislation the square-footage aspect?

1400

Mr Turk: Absolutely. That is the only thing we are asking for. The fairness could be returned by allowing us to be open, by allowing the 7,500-square-foot provision to disappear. We can fulfil any other condition of Bill 113 or any law that will be written in terms of pharmacy. We are pharmacies, we are drugstores; that is what we are. But the 7,500 has forced us to close and will put us out of business if we do not get some relief from that.

Mr Goldstein: When we went into business in 1980, there was no restriction at all on the size of a drugstore. It was only in 1989 that they changed the ball game there.

Mr Carr: I think my colleague has a quick question. No time?

The Chair: No, unfortunately not.

Mr Carr: Sorry, Dianne.

The Chair: Mr Morrow and Mr Lessard.

Mr Carr: That was my fault. I said I would leave her time. We gave Greg a little time.

The Chair: You were both over.

Mr Carr: Yes, it is not for me, it is for Dianne. I knew I would not get it for me.

Mr Morrow: No problem then. For Dianne, anything.

Mr Carr: Go ahead and get in a question.

Mrs Cunningham: This is great. I get a chance to ask you questions again. You must be really angry this time; you were angry last time. This time you must be really angry because we have a bill that says it is in support of a common pause day, which I do not believe it is, and it is going to open up everybody but you.

Mr Goldstein: That is right. It does not support the 6% of people that work in the stores over 7,500 feet.

Mrs Cunningham: Drugstores are the exception, so now you have got caught up in this other municipal option, but not for drugstores.

Mr Goldstein: Right.

Mrs Cunningham: Okay, I have a practical question, given what we have heard and given the fact that Mr Mills has assured us the government is going to be looking at all of the input. You heard my previous question about reopening the discussions. In fact, if drugstores are going to be dealt with in any way separately, one of the things the government is going to have to think about if they are seriously looking at the size of stores now -- which is something I think they may have to seriously look at since there was a lot of input to the committee on that.

One of the issues during the last round -- and I do not know how people can do business in Ontario because there are too many rounds and changing laws and we have too many laws, but that is beside the point. In the last round we were looking at roping off and numbers of employees. There was a lot of input to that, not only around drugstores but around food stores that open on the weekends, vegetable markets and things like that. You had to operate, I think, with that rule at least for some period of time. I am not certain on that but I think you did. Is it something they should be considering?

Are you saying that cannot happen, or that it is not something one can implement or police or whatever?

Mr Goldstein: We tried to do that and as a matter of fact we did rope off the food and people were climbing over the ropes. They were getting into the food and they wanted to check it out. It is really not a very viable situation to rope off.

Mrs Cunningham: But would it be a compromise?

Mr Goldstein: It would be a compromise and that is a compromise we would be willing to make.

Mrs Cunningham: What about numbers of employees? Did you have to deal with numbers of employees as well? Can you tell us what your experience was there? The province of Manitoba does that now.

Mr Goldstein: The service level would become very low, which in turn would create chaos in the stores, because if they are not getting served properly they are just going to drop their items and walk out of the store.

Mrs Cunningham: Again, I am just posing it and getting your experience because it may in fact be a compromise factor. Right now, there has been absolutely no discussion around opening large drugstores.

Mr Turk: The number 8 would make sense. The number 4 does not make sense.

Mrs Cunningham: Okay, that is the kind of stuff we are looking for. We are here to help the government solve their very large problem, that they promised a common day of pause.

Mr Turk: The difficulty, as we see it, is that a drugstore is a drugstore is a drugstore. What is the difference about the size? What should be important is that they can conform to the law and the regulations of Bill 113 which are set out. If that can be done, what is the difference about the size of the store? If we choose to have larger sections, and in fact do more business because our prices are lower, it makes no sense to put a ceiling on a particular industry like the drugstore industry because it is an impediment on what we are able to sell which relates to the business.

Mrs Cunningham: The reason for my question, Mr Chairman, is that if we do get into the size of stores in general, I feel the government will have to take a look at the big picture and that is a very difficult one for previous presenters who followed a new rule, and even this group that had to follow a new rule in 1989.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Cunningham. Thank you very much, Mr Goldstein and Mr Turk.

Mr Morrow: Excuse me. Do we not get to ask questions on this side, Mr Chair?

The Chair: You certainly would have the opportunity to ask questions if you would like to but we have run out of time. Are you proposing that we run on?

Mr Morrow: Can I ask the other two caucuses, can we allow brief questions?

Mr Sorbara: I would support unanimous consent just to provide the good members of the NDP with a little time. This is our last day, sir.

Mr Morrow: We will be really quick.

Mr Sorbara: If we go a little late today I do not think we are going to offend anybody.

Mr Morrow: Gentlemen, it is very nice seeing you.

Mr Sorbara: I want to say the good members of the NDP, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: Unfortunately it is Mr Morrow and Mr Lessard who will be asking the questions.

Mr Morrow: It is very nice seeing you again. I want to say thank you very much, and I will explain why I am thanking them very much. Last Saturday morning my wife and I walked into Hy & Zel's on Queenston Road and Highway 20 and, much to my amusement, there was a sign there that said, "It's only fair," and asked them to call their local MPP, Mark Morrow, and gave my phone number. It is the best promotional thing I had had in a long time and it was free. Thank you.

Just one quick question, if you do not mind. Is it possible for you to tell us the breakdown of pharmacy sales and non-pharmacy sales, or can you get that type of information to us?

Mr Goldstein: The information that we have is that 75% to 80% of our business is done in drug and drug-related items. In other words, if you were to compare a 7,500-square-foot store, the 75% or 80% would relate to the same type of items as they would handle in those stores. The other 20% would probably be the food aspect of our business.

Mr Morrow: Is that the same on Sundays?

Mr Goldstein: Yes.

Mr Lessard: I have a flyer that was provided to us yesterday when we were in Hamilton from Hy & Zel's and it is fairly detailed and has quite a few items in it. It has Polaroid blank tapes and it has milk and it has school supplies and Scotch tape and chocolate bars and candy and frozen food and soup and all sorts of food items in here. The whole back page deals with soft drinks. I do not know whether this reflects the sales you have in your store, but it would seem like it focuses heavily on things that are other than drugs.

I think your submission would have a lot more credibility to it if you said, "We want to compete strictly in the area of pharmacy," but what I am going to suggest to you, and you can agree or disagree, is that what you have done is found a loophole in the previous Liberal legislation and you have exploited it to the max and you are here because you are afraid that loophole is going to get plugged.

Mr Turk: First of all, we have not plugged any loophole; we are forbidden by Bill 113 to be open. We are not open. So I do not know what you are alluding to in that respect. Do you understand what I am saying? We are not allowed to be open now.

Mr Lessard: If it is up to 7,500 square feet.

Mr Turk: All our 35 stores are over 7,500 square feet, so we are not by law allowed to be open. In terms of the flyer, first of all, if you took a look at a Shoppers Drug Mart flyer, you would see a tremendous amount of school supplies, soft drinks, etc, as well. It is a marketing process. We do not expect -- I do not mean to be disrespectful -- politicians to understand how to market retail operations. The reality is that what you see in there are some food items that we use to draw people in.

The reason we did that originally was because the food people used to do it with the drugs, so it was a reciprocal type of thing. We now find it brings them into the store, but it in no way, shape or form reflects the percentage of sales we have. We can prove this. We have documentation. So I do not think you should condemn us just because a flyer looks a certain way, because from what you are saying, you are not going to be happy with the Shoppers Drug Mart flyer either. And remember, the "Plus" in Pharma Plus is not drugs.

Again I just want to make that point to you, that the flyer does not represent the percentage of sales of our products, not in the least. As a matter of fact, they did the back page because they got $50,000 from Pepsi. That is the reason they did it, not because they sell a lot of Pepsi.

Mr Goldstein: I think we should focus on the 3,000 jobs that might be available if we are forced to close on Sunday. I think this is the issue today, the viability of the company and the 3,000 jobs that could be available if we are forced to close. Regardless of these ads, 75% to 80% of our sales are still done in drug and drug-related items.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Goldstein and Mr Turk.

1410

Mr Sorbara: Can I just raise a point of order arising from a response that was provided to us by the ministry?

Mr Fletcher: Greg is back. We have not had you for three days.

Mr Sorbara: Yes, I am back. You are right.

On Monday of this week, Mr Chairman, I asked that the Ministry of the Solicitor General provide us with a working definition of the phrase "common pause day" as it appears in the legislation. I also asked whether the ministry was prepared to make a proposal to include a legal definition of "common pause day" in the bill we are considering. The reason I did that is because the whole thrust of this bill is to achieve, at least in the view of the government, a common pause day on Sundays and other holidays that are enumerated in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

The answer that we received today did not get the question right. The question as reported here is "Shouldn't there be a definition of a common pause day?" That is not the question I asked. That was not my request for information. Even worse, the answer just goes on to restate the government's position about hoping to bring about a common pause day through its legislation. I think the government has the right to try and effect a common pause day on Sundays and holidays as defined in the act. My problem on this committee is I do not know what they mean by that in a practical sense and I do not know what they mean by that in a legal sense.

Once this bill is passed, councils in every municipality are going to have to try and maintain a common pause day if they are presented with an application to open on Sunday. I believe that requires a legal definition of "common pause day" and I believe we should be having a discussion here. I would like once again to put my request, those two requests, to the ministry for an answer. If they choose to say, "We prefer not to answer that," I accept that but getting the question wrong and then not even answering the question that they got is simply not acceptable.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sorbara. I hope, as you are suggesting, that at least the question will be properly recorded and I know you would appreciate a response.

Mr Sorbara: I hope so too.

TOWN AND COUNTRY

The Chair: We have before us Bonnie Brooks, the chairperson of Town and Country. I apologize for the delay, Ms Brooks. We have approximately half an hour for your presentation and for the many questions which I am sure the committee members will have for you. Please proceed when you are ready.

Ms Brooks: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, for allowing me to present today. Like my colleagues -- I believe some of the others from Dylex specifically have spoken over the last few weeks -- we think anything we can do to further develop a relationship between the government and businesses in Ontario is important.

I am the president of Town and Country stores and I am new to Dylex; I have only been with Dylex for a year. I was with Dylex all through the 1970s and through the 1980s I was with Holt Renfrew.

Town and Country is a ladies' fashion business that has been in business for 27 years and in the last couple of years has suffered dramatically, primarily in Ontario and primarily in 1990 and 1991 so far, largely due as well to the recession.

There are 165 stores across Canada from Newfoundland to Victoria of which 101 are in Ontario and 18 are in border markets, specifically border markets in Ontario. The customer profile is a working woman 35 years of age or over. Our average customer age at this point is 47, a very middle income customer.

Our employee profile is somewhat similar to our target customer. Some 99% of our employees are women and we employ over 900 women in Ontario. The ages of the women we employ are primarily 35 to 65. Some are over 65, middle income again. Many of them are single parents. Many of them are widows and empty-nesters.

It is difficult to find good sales associates. We treat our people very well. We provide them with incentives and we provide them with a level of superior training, we believe, and develop our people to grow and be successful.

Our product profile is very much career clothes, updated in classic fashion at very affordable and what we feel are smart prices for the 1990s. We have recently changed our pricing philosophy for a number of reasons. There has been a 13% decrease in sales in 1991 to date versus 1990 in Ontario this year. The Ontario stores are suffering. Sales in the western provinces and in the eastern provinces are in fact equal to last year, so it is not a company-wide problem; it is an Ontario problem.

The revenue on Sunday is approximately 8% of the weekly sales of the store, as demonstrated both by the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia currently and Ontario when we were open in Ontario in the spring of 1991. Our conservative estimated lost revenue in 1991 in Ontario on Sundays will be about $3 million. The revenue loss to border shopping could be estimated at a much higher number, as much as $6 million.

Our capital reinvestment in Ontario in 1990 was $3.5 million versus our reinvestment in Ontario in 1991 which will be basically nil or perhaps as much as $500,000, but certainly not the $3.5 million as in the past, because, of course, we invest in our successful areas only. Decreased capital investment over the next five years as a result of non-growth in Ontario equals 150 lost jobs at approximately $2.9 million a year and 25 new stores over the next five years which will not be developed at approximately $17 million in sales and approximately $10 million to $12 million in construction costs alone that will not go into Ontario.

There is a high degree of competition in the market segment of women's wear, as I am sure you know. We feel that a lot of our business is going south of the border on Sundays. The department stores in the States, Buffalo, etc, carry much larger inventories than the department stores in Ontario and there are a larger number of specialty stores all catering to the same customer, with a similar type of product.

The retail price in the United States in many cases is cheaper due to the dollar duty and the tax structure applied to our cost price. The selling margins are exactly the same in the United States as they are in Canada, according to all the statistics we have from the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada. Those statistics have been supplied for a number of years, and most of us subscribe to that service. However, of course, the profit margins for us versus the Americans are much different. They are poorer for Canadian retailers, and that is largely due to a difference in occupancy costs.

Our inability to open on Sunday is a major concern. Obviously, the incidence of cross border shopping is of concern, and our 18 stores that are on the border in border market malls have been the hardest hit. Sales there are down by as much as 50%.

It appears Sunday is becoming a favourite family shopping day for Canadians. Perhaps it is one of the only shopping days for Canadian families. But the Canadians that are shopping on Sunday that live in Ontario are not shopping in Ontario. Canada Customs has estimated a year-by-year increase of 2 million people per year crossing the border. The size of the lineups make it obviously impossible to enforce the law. The season-to-date statistics from the Business Week article on June 24, 1991, show a 22% increase in border traffic.

The business is not being done all at off-price outlets. We do not believe it is price that is driving the consumer south of the border. US retailers are scrambling to expand along the border. There are 16,000 Canadian customers who have credit cards with Bonwit Teller, a very upscale department store in Walden Galleria Mall in Buffalo. It is a regular-price shopping centre which claims to be the number one volume store in sales volume for every major US chain that is in there. It is not a discount mall. When we find that 16,000 Canadians have Bonwit Teller credit cards, they are not going to the States to shop for price.

1420

The Ontario government has estimated cross-border shopping will cost border towns in the province 14,000 jobs this year. We feel that some of the shopping centres in the border towns in Ontario have changed their format in terms of their retail format and slashed their prices to become discount operators to try to compete with the traffic that is going to the States. At Town and Country in 1991, we adopted this format as well in some of our border towns, but it is not a format that is sustainable long-term, certainly not for us and, I do not believe, for others either.

Our store managers who are working women, many as supporters of families, single-parent households, ask why they are watching the traffic on Sunday in markets like Welland and Fort Erie and Sarnia, literally lined up for miles and miles, and they are sitting closed in their stores and unable to open, with their store revenues down by 50%.

As an employer, we support the proposed amendments to the Employment Standards Act. We can guarantee the 36 continuous hours of rest in a seven-day period, the absolute right of employees to refuse to work on Sunday and the strengthening of our own human resources' abilities to deal with any grievances should they occur.

Our specific situation is very different perhaps from some of the other Dylex divisions. Several retailers, like Thriftys -- I know you heard from Thriftys this morning -- are employing students, and Sunday openings would provide the students additional income opportunity. In our case, our employee base is mature women, including widows, empty-nesters, etc. We have examples in our other provinces, where we are open on Sundays, of many employees actually requesting Sunday hours because they do not want to be home alone on a Sunday afternoon.

Believe it or not, the traditional Ontario family unit at home together on Sunday is not the reality of our customer base and it is not the reality of our employee base, according to our facts and our research. Single women find shopping and working two of the only activities they can do alone. Our society does not allow for dinners at restaurants and movies or attendance at social events and lots of other things for single women on their own, and I can speak to that. I have done a tremendous amount of travelling myself as a single woman in other cities, whatever, lots of times on the weekends, where I cannot be with anyone I know because I am in a strange town. There are absolutely very few things you can do, except perhaps some galleries, on a Sunday alone. Even eating out, as you may know, for women is really difficult in the early evening alone.

We would like to propose a Sunday opening amendment to cover the period from Thanksgiving to Christmas. The Christmas shopping period is the most significant in women's retail -- in many fields of other retail as well -- and accounts for up to 45% of the entire year's business. This year, many Ontario retailers will be out of business by January if we do not make changes to the current operating environment. The retail stores in Manhattan in New York, for example, for several years, as far as I can remember -- and I have been going to New York on business and on weekends for more than 20 years -- are always open on Sunday from 12 to 5 throughout that Christmas period, but they are not necessarily open -- and in fact I do not believe they are open -- during the year for any other consecutive Sundays.

The Ontario customers are clearly telling us they will shop on Sunday. At Town and Country we believe that certainly some of them would like to shop Canadian. Retail is a service business. It depends entirely on meeting the needs of today's consumer, who is time-pressured and price-driven, but we fear that the situation is escalating at an unacceptable rate, and that if we all do not try to do everything we can to stop the erosion of our business, there will be businesses this year that will not recover. Quite frankly, we need your support.

The Acting Chair (Mr Fletcher): Thank you, Ms Brooks. We will have approximately five minutes per caucus. We will start off with the Liberal caucus.

Mr Sorbara: Ms Brooks, I think your presentation stands as an excellent example of why restricting stores on Sunday, or restricting the market to stores which cater to the so-called tourist, is probably not well advised as a matter of public policy. I did not know that Town and Country catered to clothing for working women, but that is the case and you see a great potential to solidify your market on Sunday, that says to me there are a lot of working women out there, probably with children, sometimes with husbands, sometimes alone, who look particularly to Sunday afternoon as an opportunity, with or without children, with or without husband, to be shopping.

Ms Brooks: Absolutely correct.

Mr Sorbara: If that were not the case, you would not be so anxious to open your store. Is that right?

Ms Brooks: For our stores that have been open on Sundays in the past and certainly are open in the other provinces currently on Sundays, Sunday is a very exciting and fun day. It is not the same as a Saturday where everybody is in such an unbelievable rush, and it is not the same as weekdays because, for working women's businesses and there are many, many businesses in Canada that are working women's businesses; we are certainly not the only one -- the traffic is really non-existent on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday during the day, except perhaps at lunch-hour or in the evening between five and six or seven, because most people have other responsibilities during the evening, preparing meals, whatever it might be.

Those of us in the room who are women know what that is like. Shopping is not considered a negative activity on a Sunday; it is considered fun. They can do it with their families if they have families. Many do not.

Mr Sorbara: As far as you are concerned, the ability to ensure that you have a workforce available to work on Sunday would not require the kind of coercive tactics that some people have accused some employees of.

Ms Brooks: I find it really interesting that people coerce people to work today.

Mr Sorbara: I find it downright fraudulent.

Ms Brooks: We have a very difficult time finding good people, and when we find good people, we do everything we can to keep them happy, literally.

Mr Sorbara: So if someone said to you: "Yes, I would like to work in your store. By the way, I generally spend all day Sunday at church services and then at grandmother's," you would say: "That's fine. We can arrange your schedule so that you won't need to do that"?

Ms Brooks: Absolutely.

Mr Sorbara: You do not oppose then the employment standards provisions of this bill?

Ms Brooks: No, we support it 100%. Plus we are prepared to have our human resources offices across the province geared up for any grievances. It is not a problem, I do not think, for any retailer.

Mr Sorbara: You are supporting and endorsing a recent proposal from Dylex to amend Bill 115 so that any business could stay open between Thanksgiving and Christmas. Is that right?

Ms Brooks: Yes.

Mr Sorbara: How will that affect your market? It will not deal with the working woman who wants to buy clothes in May and only has Sunday.

Ms Brooks: No.

Mr Sorbara: So why this proposal?

Ms Brooks: Because such a large percentage of the retail business is still done between October and Christmas. Generally fall clothing is a somewhat higher price point than spring clothing, so your fall swing -- the percentage of fall business is always larger than the percentage of spring business -- the percentage of business done in those three months makes a difference as to whether you make or break the year. For many of us in retail in Ontario at this moment, it will mean the difference between whether we are still here in January or not. It is not a pretty picture.

Mr Sorbara: Is it the case that we could actually try the Thanksgiving to Christmas proposal for a couple of years and see whether it messed up the common pause day or screwed up family life or destroyed the quality of living in our communities, and if the evidence was in a couple or three years that doomsday did not arise as a result of Sunday afternoon shopping before Christmas that maybe we could expand the experiment somewhat?

1430

Ms Brooks: We test everything in our business, and I think everything is worth testing.

Mr Sorbara: And this would be a good test.

Ms Brooks: Absolutely.

Mr Carr: I was struck by one statement where you said that some of the people were watching the people go across the border while they could not work. We used to have a saying in hockey that you cannot win the game if you are watching the scoreboard. You cannot spend time watching the scoreboard, you have to be out there at least trying to play, although I am here because I did not play too well.

A lot of people have said there is not any more money to be spent than if you are open Sunday. The money will not be spent. There could be an argument that somebody might go to dinner in a restaurant and if there was Sunday opening they would not spend it on the dinner and restaurant; they would now spend it in your area. Would you like to comment on that aspect of it? I know there are such things as point-of-sale marketing where you put the candy bars as people go out the checkout because if the candy is there at point of sale they will impulse-buy. Maybe you could just comment on where you see the money coming from to purchase the goods.

Ms Brooks: I think it is twofold. First of all, in the early stages when we were open in other provinces, there was not necessarily a substantial increase in business. There was a change in the days of the basic business revenue, and obviously more to Sunday.

But what we feel is starting to happen is that there are two problems: number one, the border problem, which I know is an ongoing problem and not the one of this committee, but it affects the Sunday issue greatly when stores like Bonwit Teller, which are very upscale department stores -- these are not discount stores -- are benefiting from Ontario customers to a huge degree, not to a small degree. It is alarming. The other is that as a working woman's time becomes more and more and more pressured, the amount of shopping hours diminishes. Probably the concern is still there in terms of having a working career wardrobe, but women will not shop as much for themselves if they do not have time.

Mr Carr: Al has a question.

Mr McLean: I just have a bit of a problem here because I see Price Clubs and I see all kinds of stores open on Sundays. If they are open, why do you not open? Nobody seems to be doing anything about it. Is there a reason why? Are these price clubs allowed to be open on Sunday?

Mr Mills: No.

Mr McLean: Why are they? Who is doing anything about it?

Mr Mills: There are only so many policemen to go around.

Mr McLean: As we have it today, all kinds of stores are open on Sunday. This legislation could carry on for a year before anything is done. You will be out of business because you cannot open, so you think. All these other businesses here are now opening and reaping the profits because you cannot, so you think. This is really a comment, because you cannot answer the question. I want an answer from the Solicitor General's office as to why price clubs and these stores that I see are open on Sunday.

Ms Brooks: We are a traditional retailer, so we cannot.

Mr Mills: It might be the proper context to answer that there are hundreds and hundreds of people who speed up and down the 401 every day who are not apprehended. Take that one step further into the shops. There are only so many police and so many things to go around. If someone sees a store open and likes to complain to the police about it, I would imagine that upon complaint they would take action.

Mr McLean: But you know about it in the Solicitor General's office. Why are you not doing something about it?

Interjection: Why don't you ask the witness a question?

Mr McLean: I think it is important that this witness knows what has taken place in the province with regard to other stores being open and we are saying that she cannot.

The Vice-Chair: Mr McLean, please, we do have a witness here. If you want a clarification from the PA, you might be able to do that afterwards.

Mr McLean: I think it was a pretty good point.

Mr Carr: Mr Chair, any time left?

The Vice-Chair: You have approximately 30 seconds left, so please make it really fast.

Mr Carr: Very quickly, your stores are under 7,500?

Ms Brooks: We are definitely under.

Mr Carr: Okay. With the tourist exemption, there is a chance that you might be able to open. Do you think you will be able to open because a lot of the areas will be under tourist exemptions?

Ms Brooks: No, many of our areas will not be tourist exemptions. They will not qualify as tourist areas.

Mr Carr: Thank you. Good luck.

Mr O'Connor: Thank you for your presentation. I have just a few questions to try to bring some profile to this. Your customers you have talked about are working women. What kind of work would they do? Are they kind of upper-scale or would they be like the ones in grocery stores or cleaning?

Ms Brooks: Some of our employees are employed in the retail industry, many are employed as clerical functions and some are in middle management, in banking institutions.

Mr O'Connor: So minimum-wage women would be some of your clients?

Ms Brooks: Absolutely.

Mr O'Connor: That is nice. You mentioned the cross-border shopping issue. Of course we are trying to separate the two because they are different.

Ms Brooks: I know. I understand that. I have a difficult time separating them myself, because they are things --

Mr O'Connor: Would it be fair to say that less than 20% of your stores would be affected?

Ms Brooks: Yes. I have specifically 18 stores in border towns. I have more border-town stores than any other Dylex division. The extent to which the border shopping is hampering the non-border towns, ie, Hamilton and Toronto, whatever, is very difficult to calculate. I have only calculated the business store for store, which is down 50% store for store in at least 15 out of those 18 stores.

Mr O'Connor: Just to continue with what my colleague Mr Carr has asked re locations of your stores, would you say a majority are in malls?

Ms Brooks: Yes, they are.

Mr O'Connor: Okay, I see. One thing should be pointed out. We are trying to come up with legislation for a common pause day. It is going to definitely have an impact. If we are talking about malls, then perhaps you could try to shed a light on your tourists. Do you think a lot of your business comes from tourists shopping in malls?

Ms Brooks: No. I think it is going to be very difficult in terms of a tourism issue with a lot of the malls. That is assuming that tourists want to shop. Then if you want to talk about tourist shopping, I think the Eaton Centre is an absolute example of something that should be designated a tourist area. For goodness sake, it is the largest attractor of tourists in this city, and there are lots of statistics on that, but I do not think the County Fair Mall in Fort Erie could be considered a tourist attraction.

Mr O'Connor: Right.

The Vice-Chair: Ms Brooks, I would like to thank you very much for that fine presentation. You did a great job.

Ms Brooks: Thanks for listening. We appreciate it.

The Vice-Chair: That is what we are here for.

Ms Brooks: We need your help.

1440

ONTARIO AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION TORONTO AUTOMOBILE DEALERS

ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair: The next presenter up is the Ontario Auto Dealers Association. You have one half-hour. You can divide that however you want, but I am sure the fine people up here would like to ask you some questions. Before you start, can you please introduce yourself and where you are from.

Mr Souch: I am Jim Souch, past chairperson of the government relations committee of the Ontario and Toronto automobile dealers associations and dealer principal of Marigold Lincoln Mercury Sales Ltd in Whitby. With me today is my colleague Shelly Schlueter, who is deputy chairperson of the government relations committee and a partner of Schlueter Chevrolet Oldsmobile Ltd, located in Waterloo.

We welcome this opportunity to share with you our support and express our concerns about Bill 115. Before I address the specifics of Bill 115, I would like to take a few moments to inform you about our association.

Our association represents some 1,100 new car franchised dealers located throughout Ontario. Our industry employs some 60,000 people in a variety of jobs such as clerks, accountants, managers, salespersons, technicians and customer service representatives, just to mention a few.

We are a major contributor to the economic prosperity of this province, not only through the wages and benefits paid to our employees but through the taxes we collect on behalf of the government, such as the new fuel efficiency tax, the tire tax and the retail sales tax.

Our members are true entrepreneurial small business people who believe in the free enterprise system and believe Ontario provides excellent business opportunities. The dealers take an active role in their local community, sponsoring sporting activities, participating in local service and community organizations and providing leadership as chairpersons and directors of hospital boards and other social agencies.

The Ontario and Toronto automobile dealers commend the government for its commitment to the principle of a common pause day for all Ontario. We are supportive of the government's initiative to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act to improve the effectiveness of providing a common pause day for all of us here in Ontario.

Our members' commitment to the principle of a common pause day and their overwhelming opposition to Sunday shopping led our associations to petition the former government to amend the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act to prohibit the sale of motor vehicles on Sunday. We would still welcome this amendment to our industry. As an aside, I would like to point out that some two years ago we took a survey of the dealers and employees involved in our industry, and 98% of them did not want to be open on Sunday.

I am not going to revisit all the arguments that our association and other presenters have previously made in opposing Sunday shopping and supporting the principle of a common pause day other than to indicate that if dealerships operate on a Sunday, then customers will see an increase in the price of vehicles to offset operating costs. We are currently open an average of 64 hours a week. To open any longer than that is certainly going to increase our costs, and you know who is going to end up paying for these costs.

The increasing complexity of our industry precludes part-time employment opportunities.

A sale cannot be finalized on Sunday since government agencies and financial institutions are closed, preventing credit and lien checks.

Another point I would like to make is that it seems that Sunday is a silent sales day in the automobile industry. If any of you have walked around or been around any of our lots on a nice warm Sunday afternoon, you will see they are filled with people quietly seeing what we have to offer. To open our doors, I think, would drive those shoppers out of there because they do not want to be hassled and bother with salespeople.

It is sufficient to say that the sale of an automobile on a holiday will not be perceived by anyone as a major tourist attraction.

Ms Schlueter: Except maybe the dealer.

Mr Souch: Our primary objective is to support legislation which will provide for our employees and the people of Ontario a common pause day.

The Honourable Allan Pilkey, Solicitor General of Ontario, stated before this committee, "The principle of a common pause day is not up for debate." It is our contention that the proposed municipal option makes this statement hollow. The proposed municipal option will result eventually in wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario.

The second report of the select committee on retail store hours, 1987, in the section Tourist Industry/Area Municipal Exemption, records the following:

"This provincial framework might also discuss any possible adverse `domino effects' of local tourist bylaws upon adjacent or neighbouring municipalities. This effect could arise when one `open municipality' forces its competing neighbouring municipalities into opening their stores on holidays. Specific concern was raised regarding the practice or desire of some municipalities to declare the entire municipality a tourist area."

The concerns identified by the select committee are now with us. The council in Windsor declared the whole city a tourist area and some politicians in Metropolitan Toronto say they are considering this option.

The municipal option will create an unlevel and unfair playing field in the marketplace of Ontario. For example, dealerships can now open for business on Sunday in Windsor, although I understand none of them is doing this at the present time. However, if one dealer decides to open next Sunday, then because of the competitiveness of our industry, certain consequences will occur. The other dealers in Windsor will be forced to open on Sunday to protect their market shares. As you are aware, we do not have franchise laws in Ontario and I am quite sure the major manufacturers will be on any dealer that is closed on Sunday to get his doors open.

Just a few miles away in the county of Essex, dealers are unable to open on Sunday, because that municipality has not passed a tourist exemption bylaw. The concern of lost market share will force both the individual dealer and the vehicle manufacturer to petition local council to enact a tourist exemption bylaw. Therefore, we see the domino effect occurring and the potential for wide-open Sunday shopping increasing.

Our association respectfully suggests that the determination for a tourist exemption should not be the responsibility of local municipal councils. We are concerned that the criteria for the tourist exemptions are so broad and so loosely defined that they restrict no one. The will of the municipal council simply predominates.

Our concerns were justified when at the many public hearings held recently 90% who addressed the council opposed the application for tourist exemption yet the council granted it anyway. It is our concern that the proposed amendment, which grants a council the final decision in this matter, shackles the provincial government from initiating any action to prevent wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario.

We concur with the government's intention that Ontario tourist industry must be protected and promoted. We believe the most effective way to achieve this objective is to establish a provincial board to administer the tourist exemption. In our opinion, the provincial board would administer the tourist exemption with a greater deal of uniformity, fairness and consistency to committees throughout the province than is possible by an autonomous local council.

We maintain that for the legislation to be effective, the government should bring the stakeholders together and redefine and prepare a new set of viable tourist criteria and regulations to work on a Sunday.

Members of the committee, we thank you for this opportunity to share our views with you.Iif you have any questions, we would be happy to try and answer them at this time.

The Chair: Just before we start, we have six minutes each. Go ahead, Mr Daigeler.

Mr Daigeler: Can I just clarify? You are speaking on behalf of the Ontario Automobile Dealers Association or just on behalf of yourself?

Mr Souch: I am speaking on behalf of the Ontario Automobile Dealers Association and the Toronto Automobile Dealers Association. We represent probably 85% of the new car dealers in Ontario, and probably that represents 95% of new vehicle sales in Ontario.

Mr Daigeler: Has there been any debate or discussion recently among your members on that question? I am asking that because we have found that among members of the chambers of commerce and retailers and so on, there has been a change of opinion. I am just wondering whether you have noticed anything in that regard.

Mr Souch: No, we have not. We are open, as I said, 64 hours a week now and we feel that if a person cannot find time in 64 hours in a week to buy an automobile, to look for an automobile, I do not know how he has time to drive one.

Ms Schlueter: If I may add, our dealers out west, in the western provinces, in Alberta, can open. They have had it for a while. They are now in the process, with their local associations, of lobbying their provincial governments to get it taken away. They found six-day shopping is just spread over seven-day shopping. It has not turned into any kind of increased volume and has caused a great increase in administrative headaches.

Mr Daigeler: I have two questions in that regard. First, what happened in the time when our legislation was in limbo, when it was let down? Second, why is it not possible for the western automobile dealers to come to some agreement among themselves? Why do they ask the government to regulate them?

Ms Schlueter: Basically we are a very competitive breed.

Mr Souch: There is a possibility of getting one dealer out of the group who refuses to come to the party, so to speak.

Ms Schlueter: It is all that is needed.

Mr Souch: As a result, the dealers have to be open, because if we are not, the manufacturers are going to be breathing down our necks.

1450

Ms Schlueter: Quite honestly, we did have some rogue dealers open on a Sunday back in the time you are speaking of. It worked particularly well for them. It was Christmas. Saturdays you could shoot a cannon off in my showroom and you could walk across the street to the Towers plaza and not find a parking place. That works at a seasonal time, but over the long term, as it went on, to carry on through January, February and March, all of a sudden, it was not as attractive. There were cannons being shot off in Towers just as well as in our showrooms. It was new, it was exciting, it was another new angle to entertain. We could have our barbecues on Sundays instead of Saturdays.

Mr Sorbara: Given what we have heard from this group and others, perhaps I might move that we defer any further consideration of this bill until after the government presents a new piece of legislation in Parliament.

The Vice-Chair: Come on.

Mr Sorbara: No one likes this bill. I will move something to that effect.

Ms Shlueter: Can I second it?

The Vice-Chair: Mr Sorbara, we do have people who have come to listen to us today. Are you being serious, sir?

Mr Sorbara: Sure, I will move that. I will defer it until after our submission.

The Vice-Chair: Is there any debate on the motion? You want to defer it?

Mr Sorbara: We will defer it until after this evening, after the last submission. I would encourage the government members to come here for the rest of the submissions. Maybe they would hear something that would change their minds.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. The question I am going to ask relates to marketing. I suspect a car purchase is probably the second biggest one people make after a house. While going out to purchase clothes or something would be a big investment, I do not think availability of time applies to this. I think you are right that you are not going to get any more sales out of a particularly big item like that.

I would think, though, that even if some were open and some were closed, you would go to a particular dealership, number one, because it is the right brand, be it Ford, General Motors or whatever, but also there is something special about it: It has a good reputation for good price and, as you note in your industry today, the servicing aspect of it.

Do you really think you would lose sales if one person opened, that people making a big decision like purchasing a car would really say: "Well, we've got nothing to do. Let's go out and spend $20,000 today"? Or do they really take a lot of time? It is not made on one day like it would be to buy a shirt or something. Am I wrong in thinking that way?

Mr Souch: To clarify the point, the difficulty is that in our industry there are a lot of people out there who use very high pressure tactics.

Mr Carr: Car salesmen? No.

Mr Souch: There is no question about it.

Mr Carr: Car salesmen use pressure tactics?

Mr Souch: Our committee is very opposed to some of the tactics that are being used.

Mr Carr: I agree.

Mr Souch: They get some of these people walking in off the street and, boy, they just about take the shirts off their backs before they let them out of the door. We do not like this way of doing business and we are opposed to the types of advertising that are going on right now, but that is another story. It is very difficult to get the dealers to co-operate because of the competitiveness of our industry, but en masse, they do not want to be open on Sundays. To be open on Sundays, we have to have a manager, an appraiser and then we have to have salespeople as well. Also, 64 hours a week now means we would have to hire additional help and the costs would go up.

I think we would all end up spending a fortune on advertising, educating people to come in on Sunday and shop. All we are doing is pulling them out of Saturday or pulling them out of Thursday night or something and bringing them over to Sunday. We are not going to sell any more cars but we are going to spend a lot of money, and you know who pays the additional expenses.

Mr Carr: The difference I see with cars is of course that you do not have the money in your pocket or the bank. The vast majority of them are done through some type of loans.

Mr Souch: We will take plastic.

Mr Carr: You will take plastic. Anything in this day and age. So the big problem is that a lot of people would be having to go to make arrangements for the loan with the bank. That is why I am saying with something a little bit smaller, people will make it at the point of sale, because they will put in on their plastic, but most people when they are going to buy a car say, "Boy, we've got to think about this." When my wife buys things, she thinks about a coat for about two weeks, but people would not come in on a Sunday, make a point-of-sale decision and buy the car, even under those pressure tactics I would think, because obviously they would then have to go to the bank and they have time to think about it. So I guess what I am saying is I do not see the automobile dealers being too concerned about opening on Sunday, because I do not think it is something that people will do on the spur of the moment on a Sunday.

Ms Schlueter: I might just add that in another capacity I am a member of the vehicle compensation board. I see the damage that disreputable dealers have done. I have seen the effects of impulsive buys on new Canadians. I have seen dealers pressure people into paying in full, knowing the doors are going to be closing. That is almost a $4-million fund that the dealers have built in conjunction with the government. And it does happen. There are impulsive buyers out there.

The other side of that is if the impulsive buyers then want to change their minds, to try to unravel something is a horrendous nightmare. For those people to try to get their liquidated damages or deposit back from a dealer, it does not happen. I know and Jim knows you cannot make someone buy a car, but you can sure make them run around in circles before you give them back their deposit. It does happen.

Mr Carr: But what I am getting at is --

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Carr. That is it.

Mr Carr: You are not going to see where I am coming from.

Ms Schlueter: There are impulsive buyers still out there.

Mr Fletcher: I am a buyer. I am not a shopper, I am a buyer.

Ms Schlueter: Great.

Mr Fletcher: We have been hearing a lot of presentations --

Mr Souch: Can you give me your phone number?

Ms Schlueter: I got it first.

Mr Fletcher: I guess I should not have said that. I will give it to you after.

Your association suggests that the determination for a tourist exemption should not be the responsibility of the local municipal councils, that the tourist exemption is so broad and loosely defined that it really is non-restrictive and that you also believe in a provincial board. With a provincial board, are we looking at stakeholders who could possibly come up with a viable set of criteria for tourist exemption, stakeholders such as retailers' unions and local governments getting together, getting something down that people are agreeing on, instead of just throwing it out loosey-goosey?

Mr Souch: I think the way it is set up now we are going to have wide-open Sunday shopping down the line because, as I say, Windsor is now open. If Essex feels that it has got to be open, it is going to become a tourist-exempt area. I do not know what tourist attraction they have there, but they will find one.

Mr Fletcher: There have been a lot of presentations made and I think it is a great idea. I fully support that concept. Let me just go on record as saying that I will try to convince as many people as possible on this committee and also in my own caucus that I think this is the way we should go. I think that is the amendment I will be trying for personally.

Mr Souch: I will put it this way: If you involve people in the various industries, they know what is going on.

Mr Fletcher: That is right. I agree fully.

Mr Souch: We are handling it first hand; not to say that the government does not know what is going on or elected representatives do not know what is going on.

Mr Fletcher: I agree with your statement fully. Thank you, sir.

Ms Schlueter: We are for the most part a family-owned business. It passes down through the generations. It is starting to dilute somewhat by my daughter's generation, but regardless of that fact, being a family-owned business, you tend to do things with your staff. We have a social club that our staff runs. We run social functions. We have to plan easy things such as even our Christmas party so that everyone can attend, because our hours are so fragmented; so that salespeople can attend and enjoy and they do not have to get up at 9 o'clock Saturday morning to go into work. The staff party now is on a Saturday, so we have to book that many years in advance. We have two big hotels in Waterloo.

It is things like that -- we had a busload of employees and their families take in a Blue Jays game -- that our social club does. We call it the 300 club. Those kinds of things may be small potatoes to you people, but we are a small family-owned business with employees we have to really nurture, because if they choose not to work at my dealership, they go off down the street to another dealership. It is like a revolving door and it costs every time a new employee comes in. If you get good ones, hang on to them, put their kids through college. It is that tough out there to get good, dependable people to work for you. We are talking lots of money in responsible positions that they are responsible for. You can be ripped off in various ways.

That is one other aspect to think about, that there would be no joint time at any time that everyone and everybody, every employee of the dealership, could get together.

1500

The Vice-Chair: Mr Kormos, could you keep it brief if you would not mind, please?

Mr Kormos: Are you asking me whether I can keep it brief or is this an exhortation?

The Vice-Chair: You have it.

Mr Kormos: I do not spend as much time at car dealerships as I used to when I had the 1987 Corvette. It was always in the shop. The 1990 one has been wonderful, though.

What you are saying is that, within one community, if a given car dealership opens for whatever capricious reasons it may choose, others are going to be compelled to do it, even though they understand that it is bad business to open seven days a week. We extend that one further and we look at municipal optioning and the fact that, notwithstanding guidelines, municipal councils are what they are. They are subject to pressures and influences, and different councils may well choose to decide things in different ways. What happens if your community of Waterloo indeed understands that there is not going to be Sunday opening, but a car dealership happens to be in a location which is a tourist area by definition in an adjoining community? You are put in the same boat as you are if the car dealership down the road opens, are you not?

Ms Schlueter: Absolutely. As I say, we might be missing something. We might be missing a car sale if we do not open, because New Hamburg has the Mennonites there and it is open.

Mr Kormos: So municipal optioning ain't going to work.

Ms Schlueter: It is a step, but we have to have some kind of control. We just do not want such broad criteria to fit in. At one point they are saying here, "The retail business establishment...provides goods or services necessary to tourist activities in the area served by the establishment." Are we talking about, "I better have my parts and service department open in case somebody blows a gasket"? The technicians and the parts people are nine-to-fivers. They are nine-to-fivers Monday to Friday.

Mr Kormos: As they should be.

Ms Schlueter: Absolutely.

Mr Kormos: Gotcha.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Mills has made a big request here that he have a few brief seconds.

Mr Mills: Thank you Mr Chair. I would just like a brief few seconds of Mr Souch. I represent part of Whitby in Durham East. I am very glad to see you here today. Another added factor that perhaps you do not know is that I bought my car from Marigold Lincoln and I must say that I would like it on the record that what you said is actually what you preach, a very well run, reputable company. Thank you for being here.

Mr Sorbara: We will be back now after these messages.

Mr Souch: I have got that on tape and I am going to use it.

Mr Sorbara: Right up in the store in big print, "Endorsed by Gord Mills."

Mr Mills: It is GM country.

The Vice-Chair: I would like to thank you for taking the time out to come down here today.

REXDALE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair: The next people up are the Rexdale Business Association. You have a half-hour.

Mr S. Singh: My name is Shamsher Singh. I am a representative of Scarborough Textile and Fabric in Rexdale and I am the general spokesman for that association.

Mr G. Singh: My name is Gurcharan Singh. I am here to present a brief on behalf of the Rexdale Business Association.

Mr Bal: My name is Manohar Singh Bal. I am also here on behalf of the Rexdale Business Association and I am also the secretary of the Ontario Council of Sikhs.

Mr G. Singh: We were expecting a fourth gentleman. I think we lost him somewhere in the traffic. We will see if he can join us later on. It must be the weather.

Good afternoon. Before I start reading the brief, I would like to very quickly give you an outline of what is contained therein. The first part talks about what we are going to be speaking with you about. In the appendix we have a list of the members of the Rexdale Business Association, followed by the Sikh holy days and festivals. Finally, in the third appendix, we have a note about the Sikhs as a people.

First of all, with respect to the bill, we are pleased and honoured at this opportunity to come before you and present our views on Bill 115. The Rexdale Business Association is an association of concerned businesses in the Rexdale area, the main businesses being fabric stores, jewellery stores and department stores. The current membership consists of 12 businesses and, as I said, a complete list of these businesses is in appendix 1.

With respect to Bill 115 itself, we feel it is a very significant piece of legislation and it has many wider repercussions that just the financial health of the province. We see that the commitment of the government is also in earnest, and that is reflected in this august committee here. We are grateful for this opportunity to address you.

Similarly, the bill impacts on the social, cultural and religious lives of the owners, employees and indeed the shopping public itself. Therefore, our presentation will discuss these aspects before any recommendations are made.

Most important of all for the Rexdale Business Association, the impact of the bill must be judged with respect to its religious impact. The majority of the members of the Rexdale Business Association are of the Sikh persuasion, but that is not to say that this is detrimental to any other religious persuasions represented through its membership. We have consulted other people who are members, and we feel that this is consistent with their views on the religious aspects of the bill.

Specifically then, the Sikh religion was founded by Guru Nanak in 1469. He was followed by nine other gurus. The prophethood was invested in the Sikh community and our Sikh bible. Both these are very significant and important in the practice of our religion. These events, which celebrate the births, deaths, marriages and pontifications of the 10 gurus, are our religious festivals.

In the Sikh faith there is no religious day as such because with the consistent philosophy of Sikhism, any day, any time and any place is a holy time, event and location. However, by custom and tradition stretching to well over a century -- this is how much our research yields us -- the Sikh Sabbath has by default been a Sunday. Therefore, Sunday is a very important and a very religious day in that sense.

We would like to tie that up with the religious aspect. In the practice of Sikhism, going to the Sikh church, which is called the Gurdwara, is very important. This is done on a Sunday; therefore, the two tie up. Religiously, it is very important, fundamental, and indeed we are ordained to go to church, and we go to church on Sundays. Therefore, Sunday is a religious day. Therefore, it is de facto Sikh Sabbath, and therefore Sunday must be recognized as a religious day. This is the religious impact of our presentation to you: that Sunday should be declared a religious day and therefore it should be a holiday.

The Sikhs are also commanded to be family members. Celibacy is not permitted in our religion. If for whatever reasons, for instance medical reasons or some social reasons or things like that, a person, a male or a female, follows celibacy, that is to be accepted as a social situation. Religiously, we must be householders. The point I am trying to make is, the family aspect in a Sikh's life is very important. Religiosity in a Sikh is also very important, and the two tie up. Therefore, Sunday is not only a religious day, a holiday; it is a family day.

1510

Sikhs very emphatically demand that in addition to personal spiritual advancement, social commitment be religiously respected. I would like to read that sentence once again. Sikhs very emphatically demand that in addition to personal spiritual advancement -- which is a personal, spiritual thing; it is internal, it is for me. But that is not all; there is another aspect to a complete life, and that is a social commitment, and that must be religiously respected. All social functions, such as birth celebrations, marriage performances and receptions, functions involved with passing away, baptism, are conducted in the Sikh church, in our Gurdwara. These functions are invariably performed on Sundays. So there is a social impact, which is very important, there is a family impact and there is a religious impact.

Therefore, it is essential that this day be known to be available for such events. Visitors and guests would also coincide their arrivals and visits on the appropriate functions. Most of these functions are family functions, and Sunday would be the day when the family would be together to attend, participate and contribute in a meaningful manner. Therefore, socially speaking, Sunday is a very important day for such activities; indeed, a red-letter day in the social calendar.

On top of all this, we feel that Sunday is a children's day. It is very important in this overworked and overtime era that at least one day be dedicated to the upbringing of children and the maintenance of the family. All children-related activities such as birthday parties, picnics, outings, visiting friends and relatives, etc, are done on Sundays. Sunday is, in essence, a children's day and should stay that way. It must be allowed to be a full and complete event. This is the day when the day care centres, the baby-sitters, the child-minders, are all banished. This is the day to be a parent, to be a guardian and to be a relative. Children are fussed over, prepared for the following hectic week and given private and personal lessons on this day, Sunday, in religious affairs, in sociology and in civics.

Additionally, there is a cultural impact. As a community, cultural functions are always held on Sundays. Sports events, movies, theatres and the like are always arranged for Sundays. This is the time to colour the mosaic of the multicultural fabric of Canada, which we so like to talk about and boast about and really be proud of. This is the meaning of multiculturalism as we know it in Canada, and Sunday holiday is a Canadianism holiday and must be celebrated as such. This is the day that allows us that multicultural thing which we keep talking about. It is very fundamental to the fabric of Canada, and this is the way we will keep it and uphold it.

Then, in all this, there is the business aspect of course. We fully know that open business attracts dollars. The share of the market of any particular sector and the volume of intake for the fabric, jewellery and department stores are well established. However, what is fairly unstable is the allocation of this to the business of a store and a location. We feel, and this is the point we wish to make as far as the business aspect is concerned, that if any one particular store of any of these types in any other location is allowed to be kept open when all the others are by law supposed to be closed, it will create imbalance. It has another problem: it will create unrest in the community. It will bring an imbalance of an order which is not welcome in the health of the community. Sunday is a closing day and a common pause day and we strongly recommend that it be declared and this law be vigorously imposed and implemented.

Section 3.1 states, I will paraphrase it, that the first offence will be $500 and successive offences would be $2,000. We submit that this section is too weak. It is not a deterrent in itself. We recommend that the first offence be $10,000 and successive offences be $50,000. We are here dispensing social, cultural, religious, moral and ethical justice, and there is no price for any of this.

Woefully we note, perhaps not so woefully, but admittedly we admit that there is an exception in the bill. The bill permits a possible exemption for tourist locations. This definition should be revised. Whereas we in Ontario welcome our guests and extend to them the hospitality of this great province and this country, which it is renowned for, we should be careful not to build obsolescence into our laws and statutes. For instance, to permit the possibility of a hired tongue-plower to stand in a court of law and argue that a fabric or a jewellery or a department store is a tourist attraction worthy of exemption in the Retail Business Establishments Statute Law Amendment Act is nothing short of ridicule and mockery.

These stores do not dispense life-saving items and are not essential commodity sellers so as to cause anguish when a prospective buyer is asked to skip a 36-hour, luxury item, shopfree period. We recommend that the exemption clause be strengthened to take away any lacuna which might be so obvious.

Section 39f talks about compensation. We feel that the law can and should be more specific and strong in the matter of granting compensation to the employees who may suffer for refusing to work on Sundays. The Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act suffer because they are too weak and they do not have the teeth and the strength of law behind them. We suggest that this be made as forceful and as strong as possible. Similarly, we recommend that a minimum fine of $10,000 for the first offence and $50,000 for subsequent offences be allowed. The criminality of playing with the lives of others and the law should be judged as such. As a final judgement, the business should be ordered closed under the act if repeat violations occur.

Finally, there are some related consequences we would like to very briefly touch upon, and that is that the law must be fair and fairly implemented. It must be enforced uniformly without any favouritism. We feel that if it fails to be fairly implemented, it could manifest as a law-and-order situation. This would cause disharmony, unrest and misplacement of faith in the government in the minds of the community. The effect on the children, the family and the domestic calm will be unmeasurable. No doubt every hour a business is open a buck may roll in, but the price of the buck would be very heavy in the social, cultural and religious ledger.

To summarize, I would like to itemize some of the highlights.

1. Due to religious reasons, Sunday is the de facto Sikh Sabbath. This is based on tradition, culture and the practice of the Sikh faith. Therefore, from our perspective, Sunday closing is the most favoured common pause day.

2. Due to social reasons also, Sunday is proposed to be the day of rest and is promoted as a family day. All social practices, such as marriages, birthdays, family outings, picnics and particular activities associated with children are held on Sunday.

3. All cultural events are held on Sundays.

4. All intercommunity and intracommunity activities are planned for Sundays.

5. Assuming the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act recognize and proclaim Sunday as the common pause day, then it is very strongly recommended that in the interest of fair trading and fair trade practices the law be very meticulously and exactingly enforced so that no trader may evade the law and profit thereby.

1520

We further feel that if even one store or business is allowed to open on the designated day of rest, it will promote friction in the community, it will unfairly impinge upon the share of the market and manifest in strife, unrest and disharmony in the quality of life and social behaviour.

6. Jewellery, fabric and department stores cannot and should not be allowed to become an exemption under the designated Sunday closing day, either by becoming or being allowed to become a tourist or such type of an enterprise. We submit and maintain that these types of businesses are not a tourist nor can they ever become an essential business,even to support other legitimate tourist-promoting businesses.

7. Sunday closing will enhance the fairness in the marketplace, we respectfully submit.

Thank you very much.

Mr Sorbara: Thank you, and let me say that the presentation was well argued. I am turning to the final page. Paragraph 5 of page 8 makes what I consider to be an extremely important point. You say that even if one business is allowed to open on the designated day of rest, it will promote friction in the community. The problem with the government's legislation is that many businesses will stay open under the tourism fiction, and that will be a great detriment to those businesses that are not going to be able to stay open.

You argue the point eloquently, based on the Sikh religion, which has such a profound impact and influence on those who adhere to the Sikh faith. But I am wondering why the state, why the government, ought to join hands with you in enforcing that religious commitment. Just to tell you where I am coming from, I point out that the Jewish faith has long held Saturday to be the Sabbath and a holy day for the purposes of its religion and that has been able to predominate in the life of someone who adheres to the Jewish faith without the state reinforcing that by requiring store closings.

Given that in Canada some people adhere to the Christian faith and some to the Jewish faith and some to the Sikh religion and some to Islam, which holds Friday as the holy day, would it not be better simply to allow people and communities to make their own free choices and for the state to stay back from the marketplace and not try to prefer one day or to prefer one group of businesses over another?

Mr G. Singh: I would like to come back to your first question first. I am not sure if I may have said it wrongly. The point we were trying to make is if any one business of this type is allowed to be open when others are being closed, then there will be a problem because it will attract. It will work as a magnet. We know that one store on such-and-such a street is open, and everybody will flock there and this will create a problem.

Mr Sorbara: I certainly agree with that.

Mr G. Singh: This is the one business thing I am talking about.

You have very eloquently brought in the relationship between the Sikh religion and the Jewish faith. True. The argument which will give you the answer to your question is this: Sikhism is not a religion only, it is a way of life. Therefore, when I say that we would like to have Sundays off, as I said earlier, it is from a religious, a social and a cultural point of view. We cannot bring forward those other aspects of being a Sikh if that opportunity does not come about to be a family, if togetherness is not allowed to be on a certain day. Sunday is not only a religious day; it is a cultural day, a social day, a family day, a children's day. Because of that we say there is an onus on the government to intercede and act on behalf of our citizens. To promote religion, if it happens as well, there is no harm in it, but that is not the exclusive reason why we are saying this.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. I grew up in the Rexdale area. As a matter of fact, I went to West Humber Collegiate, as did my wife, which is not too far from some of the businesses on Albion Road. It is nice to have the people from Rexdale come in.

My question is along the same lines. As you know, with the tourist exemption, some municipalities are going to open. They are going to take the blanket exemption and away they go. I want to see what the impact will be on your businesses in the Rexdale area if in fact, say, Peel decides to open under the tourism exemption. They are close enough. Do you see people from Rexdale then whipping over there and doing shopping and cutting out your business?

Mr G. Singh: I think we cannot tell you with any great certainty yes or no, but once we allow ourselves that possibility, anything can happen. I would say to you, yes, when people would come, they would sort of head towards that area because they know there is one place that is available. They would go there, but that will create a problem in the rest of the businesses as well. So why should we have that exemption? If the law says no Sunday opening of these types of stores, that should be implemented throughout the province. I think if we leave the municipal thing, it will not be practical in that sense. There is that possibility. Yes, we feel that.

Mr Bal: I would like to add that right now we do have this problem. Even within the greater Toronto area, the law is not being implemented equally. In the Rexdale area stores are not allowed to open, whereas in the Gerrard Street area stores are allowed to open. It is the same policy, the same police force implementing it, but somehow the local in charge of that particular duty is not implementing it the same way.

When you compare Metro with Peel, it is the same problem. Sometimes the Peel police enforce the law and force them to shut down and sometimes they do not. Let's say the people in Peel know that Toronto is closed. Even if they are going to get a fine of $500, they would like to open and make more money anyway. So at this time, this problem is in the community, and that is why we say that the law should be fairly implemented throughout and there should not be any exemptions.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. As far as the tourist exemptions are concerned, you are saying they are too broad, they are too loose and you would like to see them tightened up so that someone will not be able to go into court and argue that they can be open. As I said before, we have heard a lot of presentations about having stakeholders, the retailers, the unions and local government get together and determine what the criteria should be and make it tighter. Is that a good proposition that you yourself could get involved in?

Mr G. Singh: Yes. We say to you, sir, that if we are going to make the law, let's be serious about it. Why should we have loopholes, unless we are trying to plot against ourselves? Either make it and make it good, or let it go.

Mr Fletcher: I agree with you fully, sir. Thank you very much.

Mr G. Singh: We are aware of that.

Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: A tongue-plower I trust --

Mr G. Singh: I hope no lawyers are here.

Mr Kormos: Mr Sorbara stepped out for a moment, but I trust that is a highly descriptive and colloquial name for a lawyer.

Mr G. Singh: I shall take pride in that. It was not meant to be --

Mr Kormos: I know enough lawyers that I am going to adopt it into my own vocabulary.

Mr G. Singh: After the presentation, I will tell you what they are officially known as.

Mr Kormos: I am sorry. That was not a point of order, was it?

The Chair: No, you are right. Can we hear from our next lawyer, Mr Lessard?

1530

Mr Lessard: I suppose that is the nice way of saying it in the Sikh culture. That is the first time that Peter and I have been referred to as tongue-plowers.

I just wanted to say that I have a lot of respect for the Sikh community's appreciation of its culture and the society and the family. I suppose that if we had a bit more of that influence, we would not find ourselves in the dilemma we are faced with in trying to regulate a common pause day.

You talk about the disruption that may take place in the community. My question is along the lines that if there were some types of stores that were able to open, would there be an intimidation or a compulsion felt by members of the Sikh community to possibly open their stores or work on those businesses, or is the Sikh faith such that it would just be impossible for them to open and they would forgo that business on that day?

Mr G. Singh: I think more the former than the latter, in the sense that it would create a problem inasmuch as in the community we will tend to frown upon that person. Unfortunately, I cannot say just because a store is open that person is going to be a good family man and a good cultural man and a good religious man. I wish I could, but the two do not necessarily go together. However, if the stores are to open and that single business is also supposed to stay closed, there will be more respect for the community within itself. We will know that we are upholding the law. We will know that we are doing the right thing and that we have an opportunity to be religious and cultural and social. So it will be an impetus to better living for the individual as well as a good uplift to the community in itself. We internally feel that.

Mr Lessard: So in expressing your call for the government to commit itself to the common pause day principle, you are speaking not only on behalf of the Rexdale Business Association but on behalf of the Sikh community at large.

Mr G. Singh: Indeed we are.

The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION

The Chair: We now have a presentation from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. Your name, sir?

Mr Onyschuk: I am Jim Onyschuk. I am a research officer with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union.

The Chair: We have approximately half an hour to be divided between your presentation and questions, which I am sure the members here will have plenty of.

Mr Onyschuk: I will try and be as brief as possible. Most of you know the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, since the government is the employer of a great portion of our members. We represent approximately 109,000 workers, the largest group working directly for the government of Ontario.

Our members range all over the map in terms of jobs. The only kinds of jobs we may not represent are in the retail industry itself, so the question arises, why would we have an interest in this issue, since it seems to apply mostly to retail workers? Our members also are members of families, and we strongly support and endorse the idea of a common pause day, particularly its being Sunday. Since many of our members are married to people who do work in retail establishments, we like to see a common day for the family, so we do have an interest in this bill.

We support the bill. We support the stand that has been taken by the United Food and Commercial Workers on the changes required to the bill. The bill does support the tourist industry, while at the same time, and most important for workers in the province, it extends to thousands of retail workers the absolute right to refuse Sunday work without fear of losing their jobs or facing disciplinary action.

Under the employment standards part of it, section 39eb(1), retail workers, including part-time, will have the absolute right to refuse work on Sundays or on a holiday in any retail business defined under the Retail Business Holidays Act. Of course, there are always the manipulations on the part of the employers, through their scheduling, to force people to work on Sundays, and we have to design some sort of regulations to further protect workers, so the legislation has to be tightened up.

There are some additional benefits, such as if a worker agrees to work on Sunday but subsequently chooses not to, for whatever reason, he or she would, with 48 hours' notice to the employer, be allowed to opt out in that kind of circumstance. Some of the other benefits under the Employment Standards Act include the 36 continuous hours of rest, which has to be supported, and where there is a dispute, the employment standards officers will be empowered to issue orders for compensation and/or reinstatement. There will have to be some strong guidelines issued for the employment standards officers who are our members to assist in this kind of situation.

The five major concerns that our brothers in the retail industry have raised are:

1. The intent of the Retail Business Holidays Act. They point out the fact that there are what we in the union business refer to as "weasel words" or "weasel phrases," and these should be taken out and replaced with some stronger wording. For example, the wordings "shall take into account" or "should be maintained" are so broad that they do not effectively prohibit anyone from coming under this act.

2. The municipal option. There are so many ways in which municipalities can allow businesses to opt out of the provisions of the act that this has to be tightened up, and we ask that this committee take a close look at the wording proposed by the UFCW.

3. Drugstore openings on Sundays. They propose that there be a limit in terms of size. We go into drugstores nowadays and they do not look like drugstores. You can buy beach balls. There is all sorts of confectionery. You can even buy hardware in drugstores, which I found kind of surprising. So are they drugstores or are they basically broader retail stores? The proposal of up to 2,400 square feet plus limiting the number of people who would work in the drugstore is an important proposal.

4. Enforcement of the legislation. Again the amount is too little. It should be for a first offence a $10,000 fine and a subsequent offence a minimum $20,000 fine, although after hearing the previous participants, proposing a $50,000 fine, that is probably fine with a lot of people in that kind of instance.

5. The definition of a retail business. We find that it is too broad a definition and it is too general in the sense that it does not capture certain types of retail establishments such as the club warehouse, and that should be included. You have to tighten up the definition of what is a bona fide retail business.

We support the proposed amendments that you find on pages 2 to 6 of the UFCW brief.

We have heard a lot of economists speaking on the economy, and of course you all know that when you get 12 economists in a room you get 13 different positions, so I am going to present what I think is a solid position.

Does Sunday shopping boost the economy? I would maintain no. In fact, if you rephrase the question, "How does spending a fixed amount of money over six days differ from spending the same amount over seven days?" then the answer becomes quite clear. The costs go up, the overhead goes up and you have to pay for that overhead through either increased prices and/or laying off workers as a way of recouping the increased costs. So it would not boost the economy in both cases, because there would be a cost-push inflationary impact on the one hand, and on the other hand, where there would be layoffs, it would be causing unemployment and further costs to the public sector in terms of having to bear unemployment and so on.

There are no economic data supporting the case that Sunday shopping boosts the general economy. The only thing you can argue is that in certain instances, on a case-by-case basis, some retailers may benefit at the expense of other retailers, and that is what the issue is in terms of a lot of the retailers getting the jump ahead of somebody else. But for the economy as a whole, there is no benefit. In fact, all it does is create a situation where there is turmoil in the economy and a number of people could be hard hit.

1540

Are jobs lost without Sunday shopping? Again there are no data to support the proposal that jobs are lost. The A&P chain lost 202 jobs in the six months following June 1990 when there was widespread Sunday shopping and, similarly, Loblaws reduced staff hours by 3.14%. It stands to reason; the overhead had increased and they had to find a way of recouping the overhead costs, so they rationalized the production and consequently people were laid off. Of course, it ends up becoming an expense for society as a whole.

Will tourists stay away? I do not see tourists flooding into Canada for purchasing groceries or anything like that. I see them coming into Canada to watch ball games. I see them for many other reasons: The streets are safe, we have a decent society. They are attracted to many attractions. There is the CNE going on right now. There are various terrific parks and other tourist spots that we offer. That is what attracts tourists, as well as the dollar.

The monetary exchange rate, as I am sure you have heard before, is way too high and this is one of the major reasons why tourists are attracted to countries, they are getting a benefit through a lower exchange rate. In the case of Canada, the reason there may be a decline in some of the tourism is due to the federal government policies of high exchange rates. It has nothing to do with the province of Ontario in terms of controlling; it is a federal matter. Also, the free trade agreement, the GST and these other factors, I am sure you have heard a number of times, are key factors in why Canadians are flooding across the border and tourists may be staying away.

The issue of cross-border shopping is being brought into this debate and we feel that this is a false kind of connection, that cross-border shopping has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of wide-open Sunday shopping. The issue, as I pointed out, is an economic issue that is brought on by the federal government.

In other provinces that do have wide-open Sunday shopping, such as British Columbia and Alberta, with the changes in exchange rate policies and the GST and so on, there has been an increase in cross-border shopping, so that argument does not hold water.

There are a number of social costs associated with Sunday shopping, namely, that we will have to hire on more police to deal with any particular crimes such as shoplifting and other related crimes, public transportation will have to be increased to handle any extra flow, day care facilities and so on. There are a number of social costs that we have to bear for this and those social costs will be primarily borne by the municipalities that have to increase property taxes in order to pay for these costs.

A key point that we would like to make pertains to family life and leisure: The issue of a common pause day must not be confused with the issue of cross-border shopping; however, it must be linked to the issue of how work relates to family life and leisure. It is an important linkage. The reason people work is so that they can have time for leisure, and it would be great if people could have leisure at the same time.

For most young families, both parents, including mothers of young children, are expected to work for pay, and both parents are equally responsible for the economic support of their children. Most important, both parents are responsible for providing emotionally secure support systems for their children. A key element of a support system is when a family shares a common day of leisure. Since governments now encourage both parents to work, it is both proper and necessary that governments make it as easy as possible for them to do so, and governments must likewise focus policy on making it as easy as possible for workers and their families to enjoy leisure time together. In any civilized society government must promote and foster more voluntary leisure time.

We also see this as an issue of free choice and flexibility, which helps improve our quality of life. Governments and service industry employers should make it a policy goal to provide the individual with the greatest possible degree of freedom to allocate his or her own time among different uses, be it work or be it leisure. By having freely determined options rather than being forced by employer pressures, workers will have the power to choose how time is allocated. This empowering process goes a long way towards reducing work stress and improving the quality of life. Bill 115 will assist workers to gain some power over their work and leisure time, and for that reason we commend it.

In conclusion, the labour movement has long argued for a common pause day for workers and their families. We reiterate that we agree with our brothers and sisters in the United Food and Commercial Workers union when they conclude that, while representing a move in the right direction, the bill would fail to ensure that this goal is met and would serve to open a door to further erosion of the common pause day unless there is some tightening up of some of the words. We respectfully ask that this committee recommend the proposed amendments of the UFCW.

The Chair: Thank you, Brother Onyschuk. We have approximately four minutes per caucus.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Onyschuk, I noticed at the beginning you mentioned, "Our members work virtually every variety of work week and would, if polled, indicate a preference for Sunday being a common pause day from work." Is that an indication that in upcoming contract negotiations with the government of Ontario you will be looking for statutory protection against having to work on Sunday?

Mr Onyschuk: It is not an indication of that. Many of our jobs are 24-hour kinds of jobs. We are working in institutions, correctional facilities, hospitals and so on, so in that kind of situation you could not apply that. However, I have been involved in many cases of negotiating shift schedules, and the preference of our members has always been for at least having a Sunday off on a regular basis. It is a great demand on the part of our workers.

In other countries they have situations where unless it is absolutely necessary and an essential-service situation, there would be, for example, no midnight shifts, and weekends are the ultimate goal.

Mr Sorbara: Those are matters that have been arranged through collective bargaining, but my question has to do with legislation. Here we have retail workers being granted in statute an absolute right to refuse. I guess what I am asking is whether you expect that sort of legislated protection to be granted to other workers in the workforce.

My other question is this. You will recall that during the election campaign last year the government had promised a common pause day. I recall just shortly after the election a publication of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, a sort of congratulatory note as to how OPSEU had helped defeat the government, and now we had to get on with whatever. Do you believe this legislation, given the tourist exemptions and the opportunity for communities broadly to open on Sunday, is a fulfilment of the election commitment of the New Democratic Party for a common pause day?

Mr Onyschuk: Can you rephrase that question?

Mr Sorbara: Bob Rae and the NDP promised a common pause day if they were elected. They were elected. You guys said you helped them get elected. What I want to know is, do you consider that this legislation we are considering in this committee --

Mr Onyschuk: Meets the requirements?

Mr Sorbara: -- reflects the fulfilment of the commitment to bring about a common pause day? As far as I am concerned, it deals with a very small number of workers in the workplace. Maybe 50% of retail workers will be able to take advantage of it. Public sector workers will not be able to take advantage of it, industrial workers will not be able to take advantage of it, service workers will not be able to take advantage of it. It affects -- a best guess -- maybe 300,000 workers, optimistically. In your view, does that represent the commitment to bring about a common pause day in Ontario?

Mr Onyschuk: No.

Mr Sorbara: Then we agree.

Mr Onyschuk: I think where some confusion will arise is that not all government workers are essential.

Mr Sorbara: Any workers. For most workers, this does not mean anything. They do not get the day off. A few retail workers work. I cannot even get a definition of a common pause day.

Mr Onyschuk: There are 300,000 retail workers in Ontario.

Mr Sorbara: No, there are more than that.

1550

Mr Onyschuk: Approximately 300,000 from what I understand. There may be more. Then, of course, in many other areas there are workers who have the weekends off. What we are maintaining is that unless it is essential, unless it is an around-the-clock, seven-day operation, where there is an option -- and the title of our brief is very clear; it says Free Choice -- where there is a non-essential kind of operation, the preference should be towards allowing the common pause day. It should be to try to guarantee that everybody be given that common pause day and that there be no --

Mr Sorbara: I agree with you, but that is not in this legislation. This legislation deals with maybe 150,000 to 250,000 retail workers. What about the other seven million workers in Ontario who might want a common pause day?

Mr Onyschuk: We would like to see legislation that would guarantee that workers and non-essential kinds of 24-hour operations would be given at least the Sunday off. I get these requests all the time to develop these schedules that would meet these particular needs. Our members want it. Everybody wants it. In fact, if you ask workers what day they would like off, you would probably find most of them would opt for Sunday. It is almost an unwritten law.

Mr Sorbara: It is almost universal.

Mr Onyschuk: It is almost universal, right.

Mr Sorbara: That is why I am trying to get, whether you believe that this legislation, drafted as it is with the option of municipalities holus-bolus to open, and not dealing with any workers except retail workers, and then only some of them -- do you believe it will bring about the common pause day that Bob Rae promised prior to the election?

Mr Onyschuk: For a certain segment, yes, and with some concerns as well, which were expressed by ourselves and by the food and commercial workers, namely, that the language is not strong enough, there are no guarantees. The employer can use various kinds of pressures by rescheduling people, can force people to work on a Sunday. We have to provide guidelines which will protect workers and guarantee that they could refuse.

Mr McLean: I would anticipate that you would have been happy if we had had legislation brought in by the province without the municipal option. The government would bring it in and say, "Sunday is going to be a common pause day, and we're doing it. There's no option for the municipality to say you can be open or closed." It would be a direct hit from the province saying this is who can be open, whether it is 2,400 square feet and four employees or eight employees, or whatever. Would you not have anticipated that would have been the type of legislation that we would have gotten so that it would have been definite?

Mr Onyschuk: I think giving the municipalities the option is a way of getting around the principles of the legislation, and that is one of the dangers. Yes, I would agree that it would be better to put it in some stronger way so there is no giving a group the option of finding a way out, because all the municipality has to do is declare, "Our town is a tourist area."

Mr McLean: But that is really the dilemma we have today, I would think: Are we going to allow the option to remain or are we going to say, "Okay, we are going to have a common pause day and there are going to be regulations and they is going to be set by the government"?

Mr Onyschuk: I would opt for the latter, that it be set by the government and there would be regulations, there would be very clear-cut definitions as to what would constitute a tourist area.

Mr McLean: Is that the stand most of your brothers and sisters are taking with regard to this legislation?

Mr Onyschuk: Yes, that is the stand of our union.

Mr McLean: Good. Thank you.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. A couple of things. Do you think Bill 115 is a step in the right direction?

Mr Onyschuk: It is. We indicate in our brief it is a step, with some caveats.

Mr Fletcher: Right, with some minor adjustments, a little fine-tuning here and there. I agree with you.

Mr Sorbara: It all depends on where you are going, what direction you are going.

Mr Fletcher: We are going a lot better than what the previous government did. You know that.

As far as the job loss and everything else, the A&P chain losing 202 jobs in six months after the previous legislation was there, where are you getting your stats from?

Mr Onyschuk: I am relying on other unions, some of the data they have come up with.

Mr Fletcher: That is okay. I know how well unions work together. I was in one for a long time and I am still a good member.

As far as what you are saying about the social cost of Sunday shopping, we have heard business leaders come in and everyone else, and they have been asked the questions: "Has it hurt the family unit? Has it broken up the community?" They have said: "No, of course not. Everyone loves to shop on Sunday." Just in your own way, what do you see happening to the family life with Sunday shopping?

Mr Onyschuk: I see somebody who has to work on a Sunday, one family member who has to work on a Sunday and another family member who has Sunday off. It creates problems. It throws schedules totally out of whack. It is a nice day for everybody to get together and go to the tourist spots and go to the recreational areas, and it will help boost those areas that are currently already existing. So I see, if you have a common pause day, it will benefit those areas and it helps keep the family together as well. If anybody has ever worked shifts, the most horrible thing is when you are sort of moving into a bed that is still warm, somebody else is going to work and you are climbing into that bed, just keeping the bed warm but never meeting. That is what we are trying to avoid by fighting any proposal for a wide-open Sunday.

Mr Fletcher: I know exactly what it is like. It is amazing we have three children. I do not have any more questions. I know Mr Lessard does.

Mr Lessard: I will keep it really brief. I appreciate the fact that you entitled your presentation Free Choice, and you have made reference to freedom of choice on the last page, because we have been hearing from other people who say this is a free choice issue and the free choice should be if businesses own their business, they should have the choice to open and if workers want the free choice, they can decide whether they want to work or not, and if they do not want to work on Sunday, that is fine. They can have that choice as well.

In your union, is there a premium paid for work on Sundays?

Mr Onyschuk: It depends upon the shift, but usually there is.

Mr Lessard: Notwithstanding that fact, people who have the seniority to be able to have flexibility in their schedule would most of the time choose to have the Sunday off rather than work it and get premium pay.

Mr Onyschuk: Yes, in most cases, but quite often you negotiate a schedule that everybody has the same kind of schedule, except that one person may have a weekend off, let's say the first of the month, and another person with much higher seniority may have it off in the last. By way of analogy, it is like a cannon, like three blind mice, you know. Everybody does the same basic shift except at a different time. Normally, that is sort of a standard kind of shift we do have. We are not like in the blue collar, industrial sector where seniority may guarantee somebody working the day shift versus somebody with lesser seniority working an afternoon shift and so on.

Mr Lessard: That is what we heard from Stelco. They said, "Well, if you have been there for 25 years, then you can get your Sundays off."

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your fine presentation. I hope everybody takes into account what you said.

1600

SUZY SHIER

The Vice-Chair: Next up please, Suzy Shier. Welcome. You have 30 minutes. You can divide that time up however you want, but I am sure the fine people up here would like to ask you a few questions. Can you please start by telling us who you are and where you are from. Go ahead any time you are ready.

Mr Posluns: My name is David Posluns. I am senior vice-president of Dylex Ltd and I am speaking here today on behalf of one of our retail divisions, Suzy Shier. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this dialogue and consultation and hope that you understand my commitment to retailing and to this province is both professional and personal.

Before I begin the formal remarks of my presentation, I would like to tell you a little bit about myself. I was raised and educated in Toronto. After receiving a graduate degree in the United States, I spent seven years working in the US, including four years working in the retail industry. As well, my family has been in the retail business for over 25 years.

Recently I decided to come home to Ontario to work at Dylex. One of the main reasons I returned was that I realized that the Canadian retail industry is imperilled. I wanted to do what I could to help preserve our distinct retail industry. That is why I am here before you today.

Let me make it clear from the start, Dylex supports the right of retailers to open on Sundays. The reasons that we do not support the legislation are as follows: Bill 115 prevents those in the retail sector who want to work on Sunday from doing so; Bill 115 weakens our ability to respond to the challenges posed by the GST, cross-border shopping and the growing presence of American retailers; Bill 115 decreases the likelihood of renewed investment in the retail industry.

There have been three significant changes in our economy and society since the issue was first raised over 15 years ago. In fact, over the last few years, the issues have become even clearer.

The first major change occurred in our tax system. High provincial and federal sales taxes have made goods and services purchased in Ontario much more costly. This, along with high income taxes, has caused Ontarians to have less disposable income, and this has had a direct impact on the retail industry.

The second major change is the increasing incidence of cross-border shopping. As I am sure you are aware, 70% of Ontario consumers live within a 90-minute drive to the US border, and a walk through the parking lot of any US border mall on Sunday afternoon will confirm that Ontarians want to shop on Sundays. We at Dylex are losing about $200 million a year in sales annually because of cross-border shopping and $110 million from Ontario alone, and this continues to increase.

The third major change is the increasing presence of US operations in the Ontario market. I would like to expand on this phenomenon. US chains operating here in Ontario have the financial backing to weather this recession, gain market share and squeeze Canadian retailers out of the market. While some American retailers have established offices here in Ontario, given present trends, it is only a matter of time before the Canadian market gets served by the US distribution networks. That way American retailers can avoid the labour costs, save the taxes and run their trucks an extra 100 miles north to deliver their foreign-made products into the Ontario market. In short, if people do not soon recognize the serious threat to our Canadian retail sector, we will become a nation of clerks serving American corporations.

I have some firsthand information as to why Canadian retailers are disadvantaged vis-à-vis their American counterparts. One of Dylex's subsidiaries was a participant in a study conducted by the University of Western Ontario's school of business administration. The results of this study showed some very disturbing results.

The study compared the performance of US retailers entering Canada to that of Canadian companies entering the United States. The results were chilling. Of the 29 Canadian businesses entering the United States, only nine were qualified successes. Conversely, of the 13 United States businesses entering Canada, each and every one was successful. The study concluded that US retailers had a lower cost structure than Canadian retailers and that affords them the opportunity to have lower prices. Furthermore, the US companies were more profitable and better capitalized than Canadian retailers and could therefore take more risks. The message of this study was that American retailers are thriving in Canadian markets while Canadians are floundering the United States.

In short, our tax system has changed, our economy has changed, our society is changing and foreign retailers are presenting new and daunting threats to the survival of the Ontario retail industry. These new factors should be taken into account in your consideration of Bill 115. As committee members, you have a duty to consult and to listen to the public on this and other important issues. Once you have decided on this bill, you can turn your attention to any number of other public issues, but we at Dylex, at our 15 retail divisions, at every store, in every mall across Ontario, all 10,000 of us, will have to live with the consequences of your decision.

Now I would like to talk about the consultative process in Ontario. I was very disturbed when I heard members of this government tell Eric Paul, the chairman of Bi-Way, that the principle of a common pause day is not negotiable, that the rights of retail workers to refuse work are not negotiable and that the tourist exemption is not negotiable. In fact, what we are being told is that Bill 115 is not negotiable. I hope that this is not this government's form of consultation.

First, Dylex, the largest specialty store retailer in this province, was never consulted by this government about this legislation. Now, after the second reading of this legislation when we have finally been given a forum to express our views, we hear that it is too late to discuss the parts of this legislation which concern us. Is that this government's form of consultation?

Second, the only section of Bill 115 upon which this government has indicated that it wants any public consultation is the content of the regulations, which would fall under the purview of this bill. I am not a lawyer but, on review of this bill, it appears to me that this government would be granted extraordinarily widespread and unchecked powers to make regulations under Bill 115.

Why, I ask you, has this government asked for public consultation on this bill if it appears that it is already a fait accompli? If this committee is not here to discuss the provisions of the bill but simply to speak about how it will exercise its vast regulatory power, why do you not simply call this committee what it truly is, a committee to deal with the implementation of the regulations once this majority government passes it through the Legislature? Is that this government's form of consultation?

Third, I was disheartened to hear the new Solicitor General, Allan Pilkey, address this committee midway through the consultation process and say, and I am paraphrasing, "Despite the overwhelming opposition to this bill, we are going to proceed with it." Is that this government's form of consultation?

You can see why people across Ontario are cynical about governments in general. It is especially frustrating because on a weekly basis we receive calls from the economic development officers from towns and states south of the border asking Dylex to consider relocating its offices. These other governments are extraordinarily hospitable to business and truly want to forge a partnership. They have presented many attractive reasons for relocating and they are aggressively pursuing Dylex and other firms in the industry.

We want to stay in Canada. We were raised here. We were educated here. We have families here. We have developed skills that can be applied to our Canadian economy. As you are well aware, some firms have already begun to leave the province. More and more businesses have reached a point where they are forced to say, "One more push and I'll be forced to go." Is Sunday shopping that push? It is hard to say but, considering all the challenges facing us, it is certainly a major disadvantage for Canadian retailers.

The Premier recently said that as a community we have a choice between bickering among ourselves for the next four years and losing to all the external pressures facing Ontario or working together to confront the economic and social challenges to ensure Ontario remains a strong and healthy jurisdiction. We are committed to working with the government in a successful partnership but we need to see some signs that the government is listening to us. We have to be strong to survive and we believe we can work together to help the industry.

I have heard that the United Food and Commercial Workers union proposed to this committee that a new set of regulations be established by a government-appointed committee of the affected stakeholders. This union also suggested that the stakeholders should include representatives of affected groups such as retailers, unions and the government. If the bill passes in its present form, we support this recommendation and propose that it would be most appropriate for a representative from Dylex, as a leader in retail, to be appointed as a member of that committee.

We have made a commitment to fight to preserve a distinctive Canadian retail sector, a sector that responds to the needs of our consumers and protects the rights of our employees. We would like to think the provincial government is with us, not against us, in this effort. Help us to convince others that Ontario can be a good place to be in retailing. With that, I will turn the microphone over to Joel Teitelbaum.

1610

Mr Teitelbaum: Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am Joel Teitelbaum, strategic planning manager for Dylex. Like David I was raised and educated here in Canada and we are both back from recently having worked in the United States. We are now home working to preserve and promote the retail sector here in Canada. Let me tell you that we are waging the fight of our lives to ensure that we continue to make and sell quality products, to retain our 10,000 employees here in Ontario and to demonstrate to our shareholders that Ontario is a good place to do business.

Dylex is a leader in Canadian retailing. Our 15 chains have a total of 1,500 stores across Canada. However, in the US a 1,500-store company would not really be a major player. In fact, it would have to be at least three times that large in order to considered substantial. I had an opportunity to witness at first hand how American retailers operate and how they view their Canadian operations. Because of the tremendous number of large US chains, they are in a far better position to derive benefits from pooling their resources. For example, they are able to acquire sophisticated information systems which Canadian retailers could not possibly afford. They are better able to monitor market trends and seize market share. They also maintain their head offices in the United States, where they are not required to pay the comparatively higher Canadian taxes.

In retailing, the number of bankruptcies in Ontario has grown exponentially over the past several years. According to the bankruptcy branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, there were a total of 383 retail bankruptcies in Ontario in the 12 months of 1990. While that may sound like quite a few, in 1991 so far there have been a total of 513 retail bankruptcies in this province alone.

On a prorated basis that is a 50% increase, and I should add here that October is typically the peak month for retail bankruptcies, so 50% is probably very conservative. You will probably see more like a 75% to 100% increase in retail bankruptcies in Ontario. It is the strong that survive. Unfortunately our US counterparts are stronger because they are better capitalized and better able to survive these recessionary times.

Let me give you an example of how American retailers have a competitive advantage over Canadian retailers. The US-based Price Club operates in Ontario and is permitted to remain open on Sundays, and this is under the pretext of being a wholesale operation. The Price Club can spread its overhead costs over an additional day when competition is sparse. The Price Club can generally offer lower prices than Canadian retailers. They do this by offering lower levels of service and greater automation, which keeps their labour costs down and translates into far fewer jobs for Ontarians. Once again, the Ontario-based firms pay higher Canadian taxes than do their American counterparts. A self-serve operation like the Price Club is allowed to remain open on Sundays while Canadian stores, which have a higher overhead and offer more jobs to Ontario workers, are forced to remain closed. To me this is no level playing field. You know most of Canada's population resides within a short distance from the US border. We know that because our customers are driving south to Buffalo, Detroit, Erie and elsewhere.

I want to show you samples of the sort of intense pressure American shopping malls are putting on Canadians to shop in the United States. We have a few publications. We have Shop US, Cross Border Shopping Guide and Directory, and Metro Community News, and these are all delivered into the mailboxes of Ontarians living near the border. I will show you here, though, in the Consumer Guide to Free Trade there is actually an update on the Sunday shopping laws. It tells what the old and new laws are so it lets Canadian shoppers keep a diary as to when the Sundays are available for them to travel to the United States.

It will not be long before American retailers simply add Ontario to their transcontinental US distribution network. They will derive all of the benefits of being located in the United States with none of the obligations to support our health care and social service structure. Sure, they may have a Toronto office for a while, but it will simply be a regional office. Eventually there would be no administrative centre in Ontario at all. The retailer would treat his Ontario business no differently than Texas, Oklahoma or Missouri. All retail headquarters and therefore capital expenditures will be outside of Ontario. This does not have to happen. It is not unstoppable. But in the current public policy environment there are fewer and fewer reasons for retail headquarters to remain in Canada.

I know there has been a committee looking at cross-border shopping, but I am simply asking you to adopt a holistic approach when you consider the future of this bill. This issue must be examined in the context of the variety of economic pressures facing our industry and all industries here in Ontario.

We support Bill 115's provisions which enhance the rights of employees to refuse Sunday work. In practical terms, there has never been a shortage of employees who want to work on Sundays. We also support the right of retailers to be treated fairly like other sectors of our economy and therefore we strongly support Sunday openings. In his statement to this committee, the new Solicitor General suggested that retailers were arguing that Sunday shopping would be a cure-all for the effects of the recession. Nobody is claiming that, but there are a series of government initiatives which undermine our ability to remain in operation.

The Solicitor General also questioned the validity of numbers being used by retailers and other groups to measure the impact of Sunday restrictions. Yes, the recession is having an impact on sales, but the Sunday shopping issue is exacerbating an already bad situation. As for whose numbers are most correct, I suggest that as retailers we have a pretty good understanding of the dollar impacts of these issues on our own stores as we poll the spending patterns of well over 100,000 Canadians every day, 300 days a year at our cash registers.

Solicitor General Pilkey has stressed that Bill 115 deals with Sunday working, not shopping. He assumes that society is divided into two groups, workers and shoppers. He assumes that this bill can protect workers by limiting the rights of shoppers. But I view our society as a richer, more complicated fabric, and someone who does not choose to work on Sunday may still choose to shop on that day. I do not accept that shoppers and workers are mutually exclusive.

The workers of this province want freedom of choice as to when they consume and the consumers of this province want freedom of choice as to when they work. Permitting stores to open on Sundays would be consistent with the fact that many other sectors do business on Sundays in Ontario, including the manufacturing and resource sectors which operate seven days a week in order to be much more efficient, productive and competitive. It is not fair that those of us in the retail industry are constrained from operating on Sundays on the same terms.

The federal government's most recent review of the retail industry demonstrated that less than 13% of Canadians work in retail. I should add that the federal figure included stores that open on Sundays as well as management personnel who work in the stores. Evidently, using the federal figures, this does not seem like a common pause day at all. It is a day where approximately 10% of Ontario employees are not permitted to earn a livelihood. We want to make retailing work in Ontario. It is an excellent jurisdiction with great potential, but its potential is inhibited by the various legislative actions taken by this and other governments. We are not looking for bailouts or buyouts. We would like to see the government be our partner in preserving a distinctly Canadian retail sector and to demonstrate its commitment to that sector.

A compromise that we support is the one put forward this morning by Mickey Maklin of Thriftys. We believe that by allowing retailers to open on Sundays between Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day, this government can show that it is listening to the retail industry and the workers it represents. This brief 10-week exemption would be very welcome, particularly since we estimate that 35% to 45% of Dylex's sales revenue occurs within that period, depending on which market we happen to be serving. With all the factors that have negatively impacted the retail industry, this would be a good first step which could allow retailers to keep Canadian disposable income from migrating over the border to fuel the US economy. I strongly urge you to give this proposed amendment serious consideration and I would also like to just re-read the amendment for the record.

The Dylex proposal for holiday season Sunday shopping:

"It is proposed that Bill 115 be amended to permit the opening of retail business establishments on Sundays which fall between Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Dylex supports Bill 115 in so far as it amends the Employment Standards Act with respect to employment in retail business establishments (part II of Bill 115).

"The above proposal preserves the principle that retail business holidays are common pause days subject merely to a ten-week exception. The policy reasons underlying this proposal are as follow:

"The consumptive behaviour of Ontarians is typically at its peak between Thanksgiving Day and Christmas. An extra day of shopping per week at the busiest time of the year would provide a service to consumers without undermining the principle of a common pause day for the remainder of the year.

"Ontario's retail sector has suffered considerably over the past several years. If this proposal were to be enacted, more jobs would be created to staff retail establishments.

"An increasing number of Ontarians are shopping outside of the province, particularly in the United States. If this proposal were to be enacted, Ontarians wishing to purchase merchandise on a Sunday during the holiday season would have the option to shop in this province."

I thank you and look forward to your questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Teitelbaum. Before we start with questions from the caucuses, Mr Mills, the parliamentary assistant, wishes to make a clarification on some point.

Mr Mills: In regard to your comments about Price Clubs, It is the view of the Ministry of the Attorney General that Price Clubs fall within this legislation. In other words they are not private; they are public.

The Chair: We have approximately two minutes per caucus. Mr Sorbara.

Mr Sorbara: Just on that point, the parliamentary assistant makes that point every time the problem of Price Clubs is brought up. Unfortunately, the views of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General do not amount to a hill of beans on that subject; it is the view of the courts whether or not the Price Clubs come and the courts will determine that. I have not yet been satisfied that the court has decided the same rules ought to apply to the Price Clubs as apply to a Dylex store.

1620

Just on the face of it, I am very attracted to your notion that we attempt to get rid of the fiction of a common pause day during that period from Thanksgiving to Christmas. The group of people that is going to decide whether that is possible is not in the room. Frankly, most of them are not in the building. They are in ministers' offices around the Queen's Park precinct and the one who sits as the chairman of that table is in the corner office over there. Have you any hope at all that you are going to be able to convince him and them that it is in the best interests of the province generally, and its businesses, its workers and its retail sector, to allow this flexibility during that peak season? In other words, how has your lobbying gone on this? Ours is just getting nowhere.

Mr Posluns: Based on my comments earlier and on the evidence that we have seen, we do not believe that business is being listened to sufficiently strongly to have the confidence that we will be able to get this amendment.

Mr Sorbara: If you get the amendment, are you going to have to coerce workers into coming in on those Sundays in order to keep your stores open? Are you going to have to threaten them?

Mr Posluns: Our experience has been that we have had no problem whatsoever in getting people to volunteer to come in on Sundays. We have never ever had to force anyone to work on a Sunday.

Mr Sorbara: Just as an interesting comment on that, we have had public hearings on this bill for quite some time and we have invited any member of the public to come before us. We have not had one worker who said, "I was coerced into working on Sunday against my will." The whole theory of this law is to protect workers who are helpless, notwithstanding the might and power of the United Food and Commercial Workers and other things, including the statute that already exists.

Mr Posluns: During the time frame outlined in our proposal, I would venture to guess that many people would be looking forward to trying to get extra income to support their holiday purchases, and this is a perfect vehicle for them to earn that revenue.

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I do not think it is correct for Mr Sorbara to suggest that we are not listening, because the very essence of this committee is to listen and to take note. You suggested that we are not listening, and that is not right.

Mr Sorbara: No, no, no. I believe that you are listening. What I am saying is not getting through. I just hope what they are saying is getting through. I know you are listening to them.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. I think one of the people on the committee said this morning that it was nice to have a new idea introduced at this late stage of our hearings, something that had not been talked about. I think Mr Sorbara is right; the decision is made at the cabinet table. And Mr Mills is right; they are listening, and hopefully what is said here will be taken back to the people that will be making this decision around the cabinet table. I suspect they will hear about it over the next little while.

But this one is a little bit new, and I think if you were going to be successful, one of the ways to do that would be to have the support of your workers for this particular proposal. I was just wondering if you could comment whether you believe you have the support of the people that work for you for this idea to make it between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Mr Posluns: Based on our experience last year with Sunday shopping, I firmly believe we would have support.

Mr Carr: Those same people that were happy to work last year on Sunday would be happy with this.

Mr Posluns: Absolutely.

Mr Teitelbaum: If I could add to David's comments, typically during that season you do have a lot of students who have classes throughout the week and are eager to find a day in which they can work and earn a little income. Additionally, you have a lot of widows and people that are alone without families who are looking for something to occupy their time during the holidays or the time leading up to the holidays as society gets more festive and they get more depressed. We find there is a large pool of workers that is untapped, and I think this period of time would particularly be quite attractive to them to come and apply for some part-time work.

Mr Carr: In regard to one of the comments you made about the government listening, Mr Rae made the comment -- I think it was yesterday or the day before -- when he was being interviewed in Whistler, he said again for the umpteenth time, "We want to work with people in the business community," and he talked about tourism being an important part of it. To me, it will be interesting to see what happens with this bill, how much compromise there is, because in order to be successful, there is going to have to be compromise in a lot of areas.

During this period, if in fact there are no amendments and, for whatever reason, your business is not allowed to open, how much of an economic impact will you be looking at? I do not know if it can be done in terms of dollars. Just where will it put you in terms of being able to survive? We heard from one of the chaps at Hy & Zel's who said he feels they are right on the edge and this could be the thing to push them off. How are you in terms of your financial situation?

Mr Posluns: If you look at the trend in the retail industry and, as Joel mentioned, if you look at the number of bankruptcies, I think the industry as a whole will be impacted dramatically. If you want to look at Dylex specifically, I do not think it will put us into bankruptcy in any sense of the word. But I quoted a figure earlier of losing at least $200 million in sales to cross-border shopping. If you were to say that 30% to 40% of our revenue falls within that time frame, say 40%, you would be looking at $80 million of revenue and the profit that would be commensurate with it, and that could be the difference between a very profitable year and a year in which we lost money.

Mr Carr: One of the other suggestions that has been made, as you probably know, is that there is no more money available and people do not spend any more, although I suspect your industry would be happy if, as I mentioned to one of the other presenters, people that were going to spend $50, $60 or whatever on a dinner, then decide to spend it on Sunday buying something. There could be that choice, although the people in the restaurant industry might lose out. Do you see some of the dollars coming from other sectors where people might purchase on Sunday because they do not have any more money, or will they take the money out of savings? Where will the money come from that will --

Mr Teitelbaum: The money will come; it is money that is currently being disposed of in the United States. It will be money that will remain in this country and fuel our own economy for growth and create jobs. I think we all are aware that after taxation, the retail sector is probably the primary means of putting money into the economy for growth and for capital expenditure. If that money continues to flow like a river down into Buffalo and Erie and Detroit and across the country into Washington, then that is where the money is going to come down.

The United States has a population base of a quarter of a billion people. We have a tenth of that, so our $2 billion is not a drop in their ocean. But that $2 billion is well over 15% of retail sales in this country, so I think that is clearly where it is going to come from. Instead of building someone else's economy, maybe it is time we all start doing something about our own.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. A couple of things: First, when Mr Sorbara said no one has really appeared here about being coerced, I see four people sitting at the back who have firsthand evidence of people being coerced. Yesterday in Hamilton, we heard about 40 grievances that are being processed by a union because of working. I am not saying that you coerce. I am not saying that all people coerce. There are some; there are not some. It goes both ways. As far as the recommendations, as far as this draft legislation which is up for amendments by this committee is concerned, and if the opposition members do not want wish to put in any amendments, then they are not going to be helping the process themselves.

But I am really interested in this stakeholder situation. It is something I am on record as saying this morning, if you read the Hansard, that I would like to push for as far as this side of the House is concerned. If the opposition members would support me in getting stakeholders together, of the unions, of the retail people, of local governments, and letting us come up with a workable solution to the situation.

Let's not have a hodge-podge. I do not want to see that either. I think it has to be something that has some teeth in it -- I am sure I am hearing that from you -- and something that is going to create a level playing field. If you are willing to be involved with this, we are willing to accept you. Working with government is a two-way street. Banging on a door does not work all the time. I mean, you have to ease your way in sometimes. So far, let's face it, we have both been antagonists at times. We would have to knock down some of the barriers, and that is going to take a little time. But are you willing to get involved with a stakeholder situation as far as setting the criteria is concerned?

1630

Mr Posluns: Absolutely.

Mr Fletcher: I am very glad to hear that.

Mr Teitelbaum: Mr Fletcher, if I could talk to your point about coercion, I would submit -- and I have no evidence to support this but I would be happy to gather some and present it to you -- you will find far more cases of people having been coerced to work on a Saturday than on a Sunday. You will find far more cases of people having been coerced to work on a Friday evening than on a Sunday. I do not see how saying that 40 people in Hamilton were coerced to work sheds any light on this issue.

Mr Fletcher: Whether you are coerced to work a Saturday or Sunday, it is coercion.

Mr Teitelbaum: Right, but I do not see how Sunday shopping really comes into play here. We have already said we support the right of workers of Ontario to refuse work on Sundays, so I think that is sort of a non sequitur.

Mr Fletcher: That is right. I know. I was just responding to the answer that you gave to Mr Sorbara.

Mr Teitelbaum: I just did not want you to think that things were being directed in the wrong direction.

Mr Fletcher: Another thing you are talking about is creating jobs with Sunday shopping. That is what I keep hearing. "We are going to create a lot of jobs." You talk about the United States, and I look at this from an American article: "Current evidence strongly indicates a continuation of the trend in cutbacks in the early part of 1991. Sears Roebuck cut 33,000 employees, including 13,000 full-time. Hills department store is closing 28 of its 214 stores. Computer Factory laid off more than 300 workers and closed 20" -- my God, you get down near the bottom and by month-end there are 52,000 jobs lost in the September-October period, all in the retail sector in the United States.

The reason is, and you said it quite well, they are undercutting. If we allow wide-open Sunday shopping, does it not make it a lot easier for them to get into the country? Does it not take away the level playing field? Are you going to have to cut your costs through labour cutbacks in order to compete with the US companies that are already doing it?

Mr Posluns: No, I do not believe so at all. In fact, the reason I think we are not on a level playing field is that we, as an Ontario-based corporation with most of our stores here, have to draw the majority of our revenue from this province. They get the majority of their revenue south of the border. They can be open on Sundays and they can gain all the revenue in their territory. It will not matter to them one bit whether we are open here Sunday or not because they can continue to earn their profit south of the border and fuel our demise.

Mr Teitelbaum: Sir, if you take as an example The Gap, which is a US-based corporation, they currently have probably 1,500 stores in the United States that are all open on Sunday. They currently have anywhere from 25 to 50 stores in Canada, some of which are, some of which are not, the bottom line being that it is very minor for them if their Canadian stores are open Sunday or not, because those 50 or so extra days a year are not going to amount to a hill of beans as far as they are concerned. As far as we are concerned, where all of our stores or 90% of our stores are here in Canada, that extra day translated across all of our stores has quite a significant impact, whereas it is sort of irrelevant as far as the US companies are concerned.

Mr Posluns: The other thing I would like to comment on is that while there is an erosion of retail profitability in the US, if you look at the top firms in the United States and the top firms in Canada, I think you will see that the stronger US firms are getting stronger and stronger, and that those being impacted are not necessarily those retailers along the northern border where they have seen huge increases in sales as a result of Canadians shopping there. In fact, I was just speaking to a US retailer this morning who opened a store in Vermont and the store manager had quoted to the head of the company that 60% to 70% of their shoppers were Canadians in Vermont.

Mr Fletcher: Let me personally thank you for your presentation. I think it was excellent. I just have the same fears I had when free trade was introduced. We were saying what was going to happen years before anyone else and it started to happen, and we were told, "No, it's a level playing field. Don't worry about it." I am worried, and I know that you are worried as retailers when the Americans start coming in.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Teitelbaum, Mr Posluns. Very interesting presentation.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, can I suggest that we deal with the subcommittee report very, very quickly and then we adjourn until 5 o'clock to hear Mr De Boer.

The Chair: That sounds fine to me.

Mr Morrow: I believe Mr Sorbara had a motion on the floor.

Mr Sorbara: But it was going to be taken up at the end of the presentations.

Mr Morrow: Can't we deal with that now, Mr Sorbara?

Mr Sorbara: Let's see how quickly we deal with the subcommittee report. Then we will deal with that.

Mr Morrow: Let's roll.

The Chair: This is the report of your subcommittee:

"Your subcommittee met on Thursday, 29 August 1991 and agreed to the following:

"1. That ideally, amendments for Bill 115 should be submitted to the clerk by Wednesday, 11 September 1991 by 4:30 pm to enable distribution to committee members prior to the start of clause-by-clause.

"2. That this committee not sit during the week of 23 September.

"3. Subject to the conclusion of clause-by-clause on Bill 115, ministry briefings for Bills 74, 108, 109 and 110 commence on 30 September 1991."

Any discussion on this?

Mr Sorbara: When are we scheduled to begin clause-by-clause consideration about this?

Mr Morrow: September 16. That has been agreed to already.

Mr Daigeler: Do you have a time for that?

Mr Morrow: It is at 10 am, Monday morning, September 16.

Mr Mills: Till the end of the week, Thursday?

Mr Sorbara: We may be able to get finished more quickly depending upon how the government --

Interjection: Is that right?

Mr Sorbara: Seriously, we could do it in about --

The Chair: Any further discussion on the subcommittee report?

Mr Mills: Yes, what do you mean by --

The Chair: Do we have further discussion on the subcommittee report?

Mr Sorbara: Yes. I would like in respect to paragraph 1 to propose that it be Thursday the 12th. I know it is hard for Lisa to get them out, but my problem is that we as a caucus are going to be meeting on the 11th. I thought we could just conclude our amendments Thursday morning and we will fax them to you.

Clerk of the Committee: My only comment on that is that the reason Wednesday at 4:30 was put out was because of the problems with the mail and because people will be in their constituency offices. I was going to Purolate them Thursday so they would be in members' offices by Friday, because it is an overnight Purolator. As long as I have them early Thursday morning, then I can Purolate them so members can have them Friday.

Mr Morrow: It just says "ideally."

Mr Sorbara: Yes, I appreciate that. Just as a practical matter, we will probably discuss them Wednesday night at our caucus retreat, and then we will fax them.

Mr Morrow: Where is your retreat?

Mr Sorbara: Whistler. It's a resort near Vancouver.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr McLean: The clause-by-clause is going to take place on the week of the 16th, and you are wanting the amendments in by the 11th?

The Chair: That is right.

Mr McLean: They would be dealt with during the week of the 16th. Is that right?

The Chair: That is right.

Mr Mills: Exactly.

Mr Sorbara: Subject to those comments, I move we adopt that.

The Chair: Mr Sorbara moves acceptance of the subcommittee report.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Sorbara: Now I will withdraw my motion unless you want to deal with it.

Mr Mills: Not to be reintroduced any more today.

Mr Sorbara: You never know, Gordy. It all depends on whether --

Mr Morrow: Mr Sorbara, thank you very much.

The Chair: Excuse me, are you withdrawing your motion?

Mr Sorbara: Yes, I will withdraw the motion.

Mr Mills: We have not got enough members here.

GERRIT DE BOER

The Chair: We now have a presentation from Mr De Boer of Idomo Furniture International.

Mr Mills: Is that De Boer's furniture?

The Chair: No, it is Idomo Furniture.

Normally, I say please make yourself comfortable and have a glass of water, but I see you are looking after yourself quite well. We have approximately half an hour to be divided between your presentation and questions, of which I am sure there will be many, from committee members. Please proceed when you are ready.

Mr De Boer: Thank you very much. If you read my submission there are maybe a couple of spelling errors in it since I just finished it off this afternoon. Unfortunately, you always have these hearings during my catalogue time, which is one of the busiest times in my company.

1640

Last Saturday I flew back from Denmark. The clerks at the airport counter could hardly handle the tourist refunds for GST and PST. Amazing where all those tourists found time to shop, considering the fact that most stores are closed all weekday evenings, have to close on Saturday at 2 pm and are closed on Sundays. On reading a Dutch newspaper the same day, it was also interesting to see that they too were dealing with new shopping demands. However, the fight there is whether to allow extended hours four days of the week from 6 pm to 7 pm. They settled on allowing the stores to close at 6:30 pm. What will we settle on here in Ontario? Will the red herring of tourism force retail employees to work both Saturdays and Sundays?

When this legislation was announced at a news conference earlier this year, I was there and I felt betrayed. The emphasis on tourism in that news conference, and the fact that these present proposals will allow such disparities in this province, present the fact that wide-open Sunday shopping will be a reality before the term of this government is up. In fact, this government was giving the criteria to municipalities that would help them justify opening up Sunday retailing.

Two hours after this news conference my fears were confirmed when I appeared before Mississauga council regarding a tourist application that some developer wanted for his mall. The councillors, in just two hours, had the new proposed legislation too, and they used it as a checklist. Cultural, architectural, historic -- point after point was used to justify a commercial mall, and they voted to approve the application. There were no restrictions. There were no thoughts to the fairness of the businesses and their employees across the street or in neighbouring municipalities.

On the drive home I thought back to a full-page newspaper ad on Sunday employee working I placed two and a half years ago with the heading, "David, where's the fairness?" I thought a heading today, "But Bob, you promised," would be more appropriate. If a socialist party was not going to address the social needs of this province, who was?

I consider myself privileged. I have a loving family. I have a healthy business. I have the privilege also of being able to close my stores on Sunday and having my employees have a common day off with their families, as well as myself. Can the same be said for other retail employees in this province? It is not so much Sunday hours, but the combination with Saturdays and weekday evenings that is the problem. Locked in, hours away from home, when the family is home.

My US friends have tremendous staff turnovers with their seven-days-a-week shopping. Would you choose retail as a career if you had no weekends, plus a couple of evenings a week? When I told some of my US friends that there was a period where Sunday shopping was allowed in Ontario and I said that I would be closed, they said: "De Boer, you are stupid and you're nuts. We do 35% of our business on Sunday, and you keep your door closed?" I am willing to take that for the sake of my employees, but I do not want to see a US type of system here in Ontario.

That is basically why I went and gathered three different laws from three countries I do business in, Denmark, Germany and Holland. Basically, why are things different in Europe? First, all retail employees have their own organizations and are fully represented on any issue. In fact, it was very interesting when I read the Dutch legislation. It started with, "I, Julianna, or I, Beatrix, have listened to...." The government must have listed at least 14 different trade organizations of different retail employees. They did not list any retailers. They did not list any tourist organizations. It was strictly a question of the large retail trade organizations being addressed for the legislation they presented. Second, the emphasis on certain social needs is more predominant. In Europe, the Americans like to call it Euro-laziness. I would refer it more to there being a lot of social issues that are treated differently in Europe.

What are those store hours in Europe? In Denmark the ordinary opening hours for regular stores Monday through Friday are to 5:30, limited on Saturday only to 12 noon. In addition, stores can open an additional 10 hours per week at store discretion, but cannot stay open past 8 pm on weekdays. On Saturday, stores must close at 2 o'clock, and all stores must close Sundays and holidays.

There are exemptions in points 2 and 3. You will note that under 3, the stores that are allowed to open on Sunday must be licensed and must post the limited items offered for sale. Also, the exemptions specifically restrict any retailer from combining any two or more into his operation. I think that is something we should also keep in mind in relationship to the pharmacies. Pharmacies are a key issue in Ontario. They are not really pharmacies. They are masquerading as pseudo-supermarkets. I think that issue has been addressed by other people who have made presentations to this committee.

Stores can only open until 12 noon, and I just list again what exemptions there are. In Denmark, they do allow one Sunday per year where, before Christmas, the stores can be open from 10 am to 8 pm. But I really think this is a small price to pay for retail employees who do not work evenings and Saturdays. Also, on the first Saturday of the month, opening hours are extended to 5 pm.

In Denmark, there is the situation where the definition of what retail is and wholesaler is, and liquidators are, would not allow a situation like a Price Club to open. I think, as everybody also realizes, that is something that is really not justifiable and fair in the present legislation.

Hours of opening must be clearly posted on all store entrances, and this is quite clear across Europe, in Germany, Holland and Denmark. Where the retailer in Denmark is responsible about it himself, he must put them in effect for a minimum of one month. He cannot suddenly make changes in the middle of the month. Jumping now to point 9, if there is a violation of the permit granted by the chief of police, then the regular shop owners can complain to a licensing committee. The licensing committee ruling on a complaint is final and cannot be appealed.

In Germany, all stores must close at 6:30 pm Monday through Friday, with the option of being allowed to open Thursday evening until 8:30 pm. Normal hours on a Saturday are until 2 pm, except the first Saturday of the month where they may be open until 4 pm. For four Saturdays before the 24th of December, the stores are allowed to be open, and they make certain exceptions in summer and before Christmas shopping.

In Germany, also point 3, all drugstores may stay open at the regular hours during the week, including Sundays and holidays, provided that service and sales on Sunday and holidays are restricted to medication, nursing articles, baby food and hygienic personal needs. In Germany, most of the drugstores are what you still would call true drugstores. They are very small sizes, under 1,000 square feet, and they really just dispense medicine. In large communities with two or more drugstores, only one can be open. A sign has to be put up directing customers to the next open store.

"Open for business" even means if you have a bell for customers, because a lot of these individuals also might live above the store. But if there is a bell for customers that also means they are open for business. They get quite detailed on that. Even newspaper sales are quite restricted on a Sunday, to between 11 am and 1 pm. Vending machines are actually under the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour, which I find quite unusual.

The exemptions that they do allow in tourist areas are basically very specific and are devoted to crafts, devotional materials, swimwear, fresh fruit, alcohol-free drinks, milk, sweets and pretty well the things that a normal confectionery store has here. But it is not the situation in Germany that convenience stores are allowed to open completely around the whole country. There are certain areas where convenience stores are also not allowed to be open.

Stores may be opened up to four Sundays per year to tie in with special travelling bazaars. If they have a fair or a Mardi Gras type of event, this may be restricted to designated areas, and the stores cannot be open more than five hours. Other restrictions apply as well. It is strictly controlled by the provincial governments and not that widely used. Also, out of the whole year stores are allowed to open up to two more evenings up to 8:30. They have very constricted hours in Germany. The stores also, like in Denmark, may be open on December 24 if it falls on a Sunday, but then only four hours and they must be closed by 2 pm.

1650

The labour laws are quite strict for retail employees. To prepare for special openings, employees may work an extra half hour before opening and after closing if necessary. That applies to the whole week, not only to Sundays. No employee may work more than four hours on a Sunday or a holiday. Workers are not allowed to work more than 22 Sundays or holidays per year, and none after 6 pm. To compensate employees who work Sundays or holidays in excess of three hours, they must be given the same time off during the next week. For worker protection, any employer with more than one employee must display this law and records must be kept on all employees asked to work Sundays and holidays and for time given off the following week. The worker protection board of the labour ministry of the provincial government administers this law.

In the Netherlands, enforcement is the key issue that starts all the different regulations going. It is what they call their notification key. You cannot even open up a store in Holland unless you have authorization for your hours posted. If there has not been a posted notice, authorized by the mayor and council, whereon the hours of operation can easily be seen or if these hours are outside of what is posted or on the special holidays, you cannot open the door.

Basically, it just goes through the whole notification process again. You have to apply to city council in your particular area. Irrespective of that, the notification is that the store cannot be open to the public on Sundays, on workdays, before 5 o'clock in the morning, Saturdays after 5 o'clock, on other workdays after 6 o'clock in the evening, and also -- I found this very interesting -- more than 52 hours per week.

If you look at what most of our stores are at, most of our stores are open 70 hours a week. In Holland, they are restricted to 52 hours. But even at 70 hours we do have people clamouring for Sunday shopping at the same time.

Just skipping to the next page, the local city council has the option to designate one evening open to shop in the week. That is the municipal option in Holland. You can choose either Thursday night or Friday night as your one night for shopping in Holland. They also have the same situation we have in Ontario where, because of religious viewpoints, if someone wants to have another day off then they have that power.

City councils with restrictions, riders and qualifications, can grant up to 14 exemption days in one calendar year. However, at most four days can be a Sunday and those 10 other days whereby the hours can be extended. This is not widely used and hardly ever used for larger stores.

They also go into if it is one of those four Sundays, what type of criteria are allowed for it. But the main thing is that if it does not disturb the competitiveness of the area, it will not be allowed. The approval needed is also from the responsible cabinet minister, ie, federal approval. Because large store openings would destroy the competitiveness of the area, exemptions are mainly for smaller tourist-oriented and bazaar-oriented stores or during their festive times. Then they list some more exemptions which are not dissimilar to our type of exemptions that I think we have in section 2 or section 3 in the present act.

I guess I come from the viewpoint that I do not like to see any type of municipal option. In Europe it is basically provincial control. The options that the municipalities do have are tightly restricted.

But not really knowing where this government is going on certain issues, my first point is that at least we have no exemptions for statutory holidays except for the exemptions that are allowed now under the legislation. At least give retail employees those 12 days or those 10 days in the year where they are going to have that break.

Second, have a cap on tourist-size stores and employees. It is very simple: no cap, big problems. If you get a larger store starting to open up in a tourist area, you will get cross-municipal shopping. We already see television advertising telling us it is worth the drive to Acton on Sunday. The same store in Acton offers leather sofa sets advertised in the Toronto Globe and Mail.

I think if you allow larger stores to open, and I do not even think that the store in Acton is what I would call a larger store, but if you allow the present process to happen in tourist areas, you definitely will get cross-municipal shopping.

Third, limit pharmacies to real pharmacies. As in Germany, restrict pharmacy sales to medication, nursing articles, baby food and personal hygiene needs. I would also limit the size of the pharmacies so that you do not get into the supermarket areas. I think that some groups have mentioned 2,500 square feet, and if they can do pharmacy for 1,000 square feet in Europe, I think 2,500 square feet is more than enough.

Fourth, there should be notification of hours for business establishments to be open. For me, this is a really crucial area. After two and a half years where I have also dealt with this legislation, I think I understand it to a certain extent. After two and a half years, the average cop on the beat has a very hard time trying to decipher this legislation. Because of that, we need a very clear notification process on a door where a policeman when he goes to a retail establishment can quite clearly say, "Yes, he is within the law," or "He is not within the law." I think you will solve a lot of court problems at the same time.

Fifth, give real protection to employees under the Employment Standards Act. Restrict the number of hours that an employee can work on a Sunday and restrict the amount of Sundays an employee can work during the year.

Sixth, help tourists really shop in Ontario. I am quite adamant on this one. What we really need is a refund policy for tourists that will work in this province. I think you would get a lot more tourists shopping in this province if you give a refund policy situation, like they do in Denmark, where they do get a quick monetary refund at border points.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr De Boer. The points you make about other communities and how they deal with this are very interesting. We have a limited amount of time for questions, about two minutes per caucus.

Mr Daigeler: I really appreciate the very detailed information on the situation in Europe. I actually had requested from our own research services that kind of background and they were not able, at least not as yet, to get me that. I am just wondering where you ever found that very detailed information.

Mr De Boer: All you do is phone the mayor and say, "Fax me your stuff." You spend a half-hour on the phone. I was quite limited in the amount of countries I could get it from. I got an estimate on the translation of these three items alone. It was $8,000. Needless to say, I did not pay the $8,000.

Mr Daigeler: You summarized it very well. I must say thank you for the research that went into it, because it certainly answers most of the questions that I have in that regard. However, it also points out that really what we are looking at is a whole different outlook on the question of working and shopping, and that really, we are not looking at Sunday rest, we are looking at weekend rest. Or are we very different here?

I have asked the labour movement several times, for example, whether there is any attempt to go in the direction that Europe wants to go, that you close at noon on Saturdays. There is nothing like that there. Plus, we have all these exemptions that we have traditionally had here in Ontario, which make it very difficult to make specific rules for just one sector. I think that is the problem this government is experiencing. We experienced it, and I think the Tories experienced it. You are probably right, if you want to have a common day of rest, you have to be as strict as what you are putting forward here. If not, you might as well say, "Let business decide." I think it is that either-or type of thing. Would you agree with that?

Mr De Boer: I would definitely agree with that. The regulations for some of this get even more detailed. I just sort of stuck to what I thought were the relevant main points. Even when you look at the situation where in certain areas, if people are allowed to open for four Sundays a year in Europe, it is irrelevant because they do not work evenings, they do not work Saturday afternoons. I think most retail employees would love to work Sunday afternoons if they could have four weekend days off and if they could have Saturday afternoon off. That is the whole question of locked-in hours. You are locked in on weekends. You are locked into evenings. That is what the situation of the employees is about, and that is definitely what is addressed in Europe.

1700

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for a fine presentation. Your summary was great and what you put from some of the other parts of the world is very good as well. From the sound of it, the way you care about your employees, they should be fortunate to have somebody who takes as much time to put all this together to help them out.

Having said that, of all places in the world you have seen, and you have listed Denmark and Germany, if you had your choice and you were Premier for a day, which one would you grab?

Mr De Boer: Poland.

Mr Carr: Poland?

Mr De Boer: If you look at the German laws or the Danish laws or even the Dutch laws, there is no evening retailing at all pretty well throughout Europe. It is a very different kettle of fish than here. Here we are working every single evening. We are working on Saturdays. My employees right now have a hard enough time having to work every Saturday, because that is when we do the majority of our business, and having to work on the evenings. It is hard enough now trying to get employees to work those three evenings and to work those Saturdays. Because of that situation, when you ask, "What country would you live in?" I think of northern Europe or even southern Europe. My German is not so good and I speak a little Danish, but my Italian is non-existent and so is my Portuguese or else I would have maybe gotten those in too.

Mr Kormos: Mr De Boer, Mr Carr talks about the prospect of being Premier for a day. I know what he is speaking about; I was minister for a day.

In his submission, Mr Vandezande quoted the comment in the speech from the throne that the government is going to "provide for a common pause day to help strengthen family and community life while protecting small business and the rights of workers." Like, I am sure, all of my colleagues, trade unionist workers and people in the church community, I rejoiced in that declaration back in November 1990, because we saw a common pause day in the retail sector as one which indeed not only strengthens community and family life but strengthens the role of small businesses because it puts them on something of a level playing field. That phrase has been used a whole lot. I have to tell you when I was able to overcome my shock at this legislation -- because I was one of the small group of 19 New Democrats who were in the opposition and voted against the last Sunday shopping legislation because it permitted municipal optioning; we disagreed, initially at least, with the expansion of square footage for some of the types of retailers -- we are faced now with a dilemma. Virtually every representation from the trade union movement has said municipal optioning is a less-than-desirable way to do it and it is going to result in wide-open Sunday shopping. Indeed, those people who have traditionally supported and continue to be in support of Sunday shopping, some of them chambers of commerce, do not think municipal options are appropriate either.

What I am suggesting to you is that we do not have to worry about who does the exempting if indeed our definitions of what can remain open are sufficiently succinct and narrow and really reflect bona fide vendors who ought to be open on Sundays to serve certain community needs. You were involved in a pretty enthusiastic and passionate campaign, an expensive campaign, as an advocate of common pause day. Let me, as a member of the New Democratic Party and as a backbencher in the government caucus, ask you this: If the legislation that is in this bill with this municipal option, with this very broad tourist exemption, becomes law, what does Mr De Boer do then?

Mr De Boer: I am not going to move out of the province.

Mr Kormos: Neither am I, Mr De Boer.

Interjection: Start a new political party.

Mr De Boer: I would also not start a new party, because basically I could not be in the same position that you people are in. As an aside, also on the party structure, if I was elected, I could not take somebody saying: "Okay, De Boer. Welcome aboard. Now shut up. You can talk during caucus, but don't ever vote the way you want to in the public sector because we're not going to allow you to do it."

That really bothered me. That was my cool blast into politics two and a half years ago. There were people who were quite favourable to our concerns, but I found that -- I had just come back from Poland during those times. I was dealing with some of my factories in Poland and I always had the feeling that in some ways they had more freedom than we had here in Ontario. I found that very sad.

When you ask what am I going to do when this legislation comes out, I am hoping, and that is maybe why I have kept quiet to a certain extent, that during this process you people who are involved in the amendments that are being put forward and the amendments that are being accepted will really see the flaws of this legislation. Because I really think the flaws are quite open and quite wide in this legislation. So I do not think it is a dead duck yet, Peter.

I am just hoping that through your graces you have the empathy for retail employees, because I am also a strong believer that retail employees are not that well represented in this province. The unions really do not have the representation of retail employees, for instance. I think it is under 20%. I do not know what the figure is, but they do not have the representation they do in Europe. If they had the same type of representation they did in Europe, this legislation would not have got as far as it did.

In one way I see myself also as a spokesman of the unorganized retail workers and I am hoping you people realize their plight. It is basically a question of their locked-in hours. If retail employees had four evenings off and had Saturdays off at 2 o'clock, I would not even be fighting for stopping Sunday shopping.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr De Boer, for a very interesting presentation, and certainly for information that we have not previously heard.

Mr De Boer: I thought I would give a different tack to it.

Mr Morrow: With your indulgence, Mr Chair, I would like to thank some people. I would like to thank the more than 50 presenters who have come before us during the last four weeks of hearings. I would like to thank all the research staff. I would like to thank the clerk for putting up with us for this long. I would like to thank them for all the hard work that they are going to do. I would especially like to thank all the people involved here. They have just been fine hearings. And Hansard. I forgot Hansard.

The Chair: I would like to add to Mr Morrow's comments very simply that we have come to an end of a lengthy series of hearings. We have had some excellent presentations, but it has been at times gruelling, at times an enjoyable process.

We stand adjourned until September 16 at 10 am.

The committee adjourned at 1710.