CONTENTS
Monday 21 October 1991
Retail Business Establishments Statute Law Amendment Act, 1991, Bill 115 / Loi de 1991 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne les établissements de commerce de détail, projet de loi 115
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot NDP)
Vice-Chair: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East NDP)
Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough NDP)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West L)
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph NDP)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex NDP)
Mills, Gordon (Durham East NDP)
Poirier, Jean (Prescott and Russell L)
Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)
Winninger, David (London South NDP)
Also taking part: Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North L)
Clerk: Freedman, Lisa
Staff: Beecroft, Doug, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
1507
The committee met at 1548 in room 228.
RETAIL BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉTABLISSEMENTS DE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL
Resuming consideration of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act in respect of the opening of retail business establishments and employment in them.
Suite de l'étude du projet de loi 115, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail et la Loi sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui concerne l'ouverture des établissements de commerce de détail et l'emploi dans ces établissements.
The Chair: I call the committee to order. We are resuming debate on Mr Chiarelli's amendment to the main motion.
Mr Harnick: I at least initially had been led to believe we were adjourning this session. I was then told we were not adjourning this session. We have had some discussions and I have now made a proposal. Is there some idea we are going to continue debating the motion? I am asking Mr Morrow.
Mr Morrow: As far as I can see, we have a lot of people here who have been waiting for this to proceed. I suggest we debate my motion, as we have wasted the taxpayers' money for far too long.
Mr Winninger: Not "we"; not us.
Mr Morrow: Not us.
The Chair: On the amendment, not the motion.
Mr Curling: I ask that we have an adjournment for 20 minutes, because Mr Sorbara is not here. He is the whip of this committee. I ask that we move an adjournment and come back and decide what we will do after that.
The Chair: The motion is for a 20-minute recess. All in favour? Opposed? Okay, we will recess for 20 minutes.
The committee recessed at 1551.
1608
The Chair: I would like to call this committee back to order. We are resuming debate on Mr Chiarelli's amendment to Mr Morrow's motion.
Mr Sorbara: Who had the floor when we last adjourned? Was it months ago, or when?
The Chair: Nobody had the floor at adjournment last time.
Mr Sorbara: May I make a few comments as the whip on this committee? I think we have had some good preliminary remarks apropos of the amendment to the motion moved by Mr Chiarelli. That was an amendment, as I recall, to the motion of Mr Morrow.
Today, on behalf of my party, my colleague the member for Scarborough North, Mr Curling, is going to be making a few remarks. If I am not wrong, my colleague the member for Prescott and Russell, Mr Poirier, will be making some remarks as well. I certainly have a number of comments to make on the amendment, which I should tell you we support in general terms, although there are specifics -- as and when we get to the main motion in the weeks to come, I will have something to say about that, probably at some greater length.
In the interim, I hope my good friend the Solicitor General is doing the work he is required to do and even attending here, which is also good to see. It is rare that a minister has so little to do that he can sit and listen to us go on about amendments to amendments. Suffice it to say that I have found the Solicitor General generally co-operative in discussing the bill. This is the first time I have had a minister actually pick up the phone and call and say, "We understand where you're coming from," and I encourage him to continue in that regard.
My hope and expectation is that by the time we are finished dealing with this bill the government can have the common pause day it wants, but we can have reshaped this bill to take into consideration the problems that larger drugstores are facing, the problems that certain facilities like music stores are facing. There are a number of other issues I hope the government members will agree to support us on, and of course the question of shopping during the Christmas period we have raised before.
Without any further ado, just by way of anticipation, I can tell you that I will be speaking on a number of those subjects in the course of this debate, but I would now cede the floor to my good friend and colleague the member for Scarborough North, if that is in order.
The Chair: It is fully in order.
Mr Curling: I want to thank my colleague the whip for giving me this opportunity. We work so very closely together to make sure the voice of Ontario is heard. As a matter of fact, it is extremely important that this happen, because far too often presentations are made and we seem to exclude some of the extremely important parts of the province. I do not know how many of you have visited Scarborough North, but it is a microcosm of what Ontario and Canada are all about.
I want also to commend the minister for being here. I say that rather sincerely. I know my colleague made some remarks about it, but I know he also appreciates the fact that the minister will attend committee meetings and, as the minister indicated to me, will be here for clause-by-clause. I recall this because when under Bill 51 I was carrying rent review, I went around to hear the people who are specifically affected by the bill; they had their input and I heard it at first hand. So I want to say to the minister that his being here today is an indication of his commitment.
I do not know how much his party will allow him to make the changes as we hear the feelings and the interest and the concerns of the people across this province, but I am somehow confident that the will of the people will prevail on this, because it was the attitude of that party in opposition that it spoke for the will of the people, so that they could be heard. Speaking to this amendment, while on the one hand I am confident that the will of the people will prevail, I am not quite sure if the members in that party are allowed to make the will of the people prevail, because often people are shut out from making presentations. Even elected members of the House were shut out from participating and giving their contribution. So I hope this is a turning point, that he will listen to those people.
I also want, as you said, Mr Chair, to speak directly to the amendment put forward by my colleague Mr Chiarelli. I speak in strong support that this matter should be put forward to a later date after we hear from the people. The previous comments I made support that view. It is a very important issue, extremely important; it goes to the core of the economic situation today in this province. It affects people in the way they live their social lives.
While I commend the government for looking at a common pause day, we cannot arbitrarily have the state dictating to us what day it should be. "You all should have Sunday as your common pause day." People's lives, culture, behaviour are completely different. Your honourable member Mr Kormos expresses different views sometimes from the mass of the so-called social democrats in your party, and it is healthy that he speaks out. In the same way, when we talk about having a common day, we have to hear from people.
What would be a common pause day for you may not be the same common pause day for the other, and if we stop listening, then we stop governing. You cannot govern -- you can be a government of dictatorship. You dictate. The state will tell you when to pause, the state will tell you when to worship, and that is not the way we have seen Canada. That is not the way of many people who have come and talked about the Canada of a gentler society, a gentler society because people listen to others and they respect each other, knowing the differences.
The fact is that once you start to tamper with that aspect of it, people fear what else you are going to interfere with. People are wondering then if this government is going to tell them that Sunday is this common pause day.
Let me just carry this a little bit further. We have some religious groups who do not see Sunday as their common pause day. They worship on another day. They then by the state would have a common pause day and by their religious belief would have another pause day, so they will be faced with two pause days. What will happen then? They will either decide to lose the day of work and lose economically, because today, as we say, every penny counts. As a matter of fact, even when we are counting pennies these days, they do not add up to anything. You see them all over the place and people do not pick them up any more in the streets. Their value is nothing.
However, you and your party have stated very well the economic situation by saying we are in a recession. It took you a few weeks to realize that, but you did realize that. You also went forward in the area of having a budget. You have a deficit of $9.7 billion. I am not against deficits, I am just against how we spend the money, because we find there are people who could be helped in this process in a time of need, and here we are now penalizing people in a way. It is a matter of penalty to penalize someone by selecting a common pause day on a day he cannot take that economically would be disastrous to him.
We have to be very sensitive. We have to be extremely sensitive in the things we are doing. An issue I want to address is that this thing needs to be aired more and discussed more. The minister himself could then go back to his cabinet colleagues and say: "Listen, we're having a lot of problems with this bill, because what happened? We have not given enough time to think about it sensibly."
I heard my colleague Mr Sorbara, who spoke the other day, as you know, Mr Chairman, since you were here, and every member was bowing his head in agreement at some of the hurdles and impediments that were there. I hope I was not reading them wrong, because they were saying, "Yes, there are implications to this direction that could cause really severe problems."
Even the structure of how you are going to deal with cases is in question. In the House daily we hear about the courts that have been blocked by the tremendous amount of cases to be heard, and of course one way of resolving this is to pardon the 7,000 cases that do not come before the courts and to ease that burden there.
The reason I raised the courts is that even in the Ontario Human Rights Commission we talk about backlog. We are backlogged in the courts, we have a backlog with human rights, and it is not just because there are a lot of cases. The reason even the human rights cases are backlogged is because of the complexity of our society today. The cases are more complex. They are not standard cases we are going to hear day to day. We are having the homosexuals who have stated that their cases have to be heard and have to be addressed in a specific way. You have heard about the concerns of the disabled that have to be heard. As society develops, we have to make sure that these issues are heard in a singular form and not on a general basis.
1620
Mr Winninger: I think you are a little off topic.
Mr Mills: This is very simple.
Mr Curling: It is not simple because they felt that, "Here is a very simple thing to do. Let's put all those cases in the Ontario Muncipal Board now to be dealt with." I am sure the minister is quite aware of the tremendous backlog that is there. People are waiting to have their cases heard and for various things. Now we are going to put all these to the OMB to be heard. I do not think they have enough of a sense of it. I do not think they have researched it properly, and I know, as the Chairman, you will take all those things into consideration to say, "Wait a second before we hurry this thing through."
Because at one stage they felt, "Yes, we should do that." A motion was passed, and the honourable member who is not here now, Mr Morrow, had moved the motion to proceed with this as a matter of fact. After the government of the day had put it on hold, then they realized: "My golly, Christmas is coming. We should do something." So they made the motion to move it forward.
We are saying to them: "Don't try to do this in a hurry. You have an opportunity now to have it done properly." That is why my colleague Mr Chiarelli has put it forward, saying, "Let's think it through properly," and that is why I am going to support his motion to do it in the proper manner.
I want to go back to the unfairness and the discriminatory way that we are having the pause day on Sundays. Mr Chairman, you look rather like a family man, and we feel that, as a family man, you would be home every Sunday. That is the indication they gave.
Even if you are not married, Mr Chairman, I am sure that mom invites you for dinner every Sunday. We all talk about how we should have this nice family dinner on Sundays. I have three children and I have the hardest time getting them to Sunday dinner because they have their own agenda. The fact is that we decided Sunday is the family day. If you are not home, you will not see what is happening.
I urge you and I ask all members of the committee to go around their own communities, or come to Toronto if they want to -- if not Toronto, other cities -- to see individuals shopping. They are not shopping because they are anti-Christian or anti-Sabbath. They are not shopping because they just want to sock it to the government, to tell them that Sunday is a great day. They are not doing that. They are doing it because they realize that it is necessary for them to go out and do some shopping.
If you ask me if I ever shop on Sunday, and I know many of my colleagues have dodged that, I will say, "Yes, I have shopped many times on Sundays." I do that because it is necessary, because the demands of my job sometimes do not allow me to get out to do the necessary shopping I want to do on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday. But I like to know that I can organize myself to pick a day in which I can go out and do my shopping.
It is a cultural thing. As a matter of fact, it is a family thing to shop. These days you cannot even go to the stores without taking your children, because you will be punished in all that you have bought --
Mr Fletcher: It has all been said before.
The Chair: Order, please. We have one meeting going on here. Mr Curling has the floor.
Mr Curling: He is right that it may have been said before. Maybe what I have said has been said before, so are many things we are telling this government, if you were listening. Maybe it is so important it needs to be said five, six, seven, eight or as many times as possible until you come to your senses and say, "Yes, there is an area and there are people within a constituency." My constituency has almost 200,000 people. They want their voices to be heard.
A constituency that has a large population of Chinese -- and I mention that specifically, I am reading this -- becomes a tourist area. My area is not a tourist area. For instance, I do not see people trekking to Scarborough North from 30 miles away and saying, "What a lovely place." We have beautiful places to be enjoyed by everyone: people who live next door to the Rouge; people who live next door to the Metro area; people visiting the Metro Zoo. It is not a tourist area; it is community living we share with everyone.
Why do we have to define a tourist as an individual who lives 30 miles out of my riding to come to certain areas and shop? Trying to define a tourist to say that individual may shop because we define that individual as a tourist -- what is the definition? Oh, they live downtown, which is 30 miles or so from Scarborough.
Mr Fletcher: You do not even know what you are talking about.
Mr Curling: The honourable member may think I do not know what I am talking about. The reason he may feel so is that he has never visited my constituency, and if he has, he has done so like a tourist. He passed through for half an hour and said, "I have a full knowledge of what Scarborough is all about."
They do not have the foggiest idea what Scarborough is about. They do not have the foggiest idea of the culture or the habits of Scarborough. Therefore, in making a law, in moving on a bill that will reflect all the people of this province, you must listen. It is the first basic thing: sit down quietly and listen. That is the first decent thing to do. Listening is not a matter of sitting with glazed eye, it is sitting there and understanding, and if you do not understand, I am prepared to be asked questions continuously about Scarborough. I am prepared to go to the minister -- he disappeared, but I am sure he is coming back. I am confident he will be back shortly, but he will read Hansard himself.
I am prepared to inform him about that community, and the more informed he is, the better minister he will be. It will be better that a bill, a law, be put forward that will reflect the feelings of people. So when the member says I do not know what I am talking about, I think he is saying to himself: "I have shut myself off. I have a glazed eye. I am not listening any more. I have made up my mind. I know what I am doing, so you could talk until tomorrow. We ain't listening. We are going to proceed as we feel like proceeding -- insensitively."
It is funny and peculiar how the same government seems to be listening all the time and speaking for the -- is it called the common people? They do not use the term "the ordinary Canadian" any more. I have never met an ordinary Canadian. I have never met a common Canadian. I have met Canadians and they do not make ordinary contributions; they all make positive, good contributions in their own way.
When you sit there with glazed eyes, what annoys me is that beneath those glazed eyes are sensitive human beings, wonderful people. What they have done is read the book on socialism and memorize it, but when you go down to the heart of these individuals, my colleagues over there, they are people --
Mr Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Chair: It is really nice that this man figures we read a book about socialism, but what does this really have to do with the amendment to my motion?
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Morrow. You do not have a point of order, but to the amendment which is on the date and the public hearings.
1630
Mr Curling: That is it. That is what I am saying, for that date to come for that clause-by-clause hearing itself. What we have to do is make sure that, when we sit down, you are prepared to listen to the people first before you bring in any amendments. How can you amend something without having listened to the people? You have not listened to the people at all. We are saying to you that time is of essence to agree for us to open up this process to listen to the members here.
Mr Mills: How can he say he was listening although he was not there?
The Chair: Order. It is hard to follow. This is an extension of the House and Mr Curling has the floor. Interjections are not allowed.
Mr Curling: Let me comment because what my honourable friend Mr Mills said is important. He said, "How could he listen when he wasn't there?" Although we have a high percentage of illiteracy in this province, 25% functional illiteracy, I fall within the 75% of the functionally literate, in order to read Hansard and follow it closely. How can he state that when I the critic for the Solicitor General on Sunday shopping follow this very closely? He is telling me now that I was not there. I was very much there, my dear member, reading, watching and listening. Sometimes the technology of this world helps us to sit even sometimes in our office while doing other things, watching as you posture with, as I said, glazed eyes.
I want you to listen carefully. I want you to understand that there are people who would not like you to rush this thing through. I want you to understand that the individuals who would like to shop on Sunday because of religious or cultural reasons want to be heard. For you to sit by and think, "Really, no, we don't have to listen" -- the reason I am emphasizing this, and it is important that I emphasize it, is that I recall very much five, almost six years of listening to the opposition of the day, the New Democratic Party. You were not here then, Mr Chair, and I know you would not have been like that. I think you would have listened just as much as they would have. They were critical of some of the things the government of the day was doing, saying the government was not listening to bills.
When we did Bill 51, which I raise from time to time because I am personally familiar with that, we listened to them. They said: "Go out and listen to the people. Let them have an input." We were all players then, landlords, tenants, developers, all interest groups in this, so we could have a better bill. Furthermore, if this committee could use the example of Bill 51, it would be advancing the cause of democracy. I am not patting myself on the back. The one I am patting on the back today is Floyd Laughren. He was Chairman of that committee. We celebrate 20 years of Floyd's membership and contribution as an elected member of this House.
I remember him sitting there as a Chairperson. He was extremely impressed that we had put together landlords and tenants to come forward on the bill. The reason I am saying this is that we knew we did not have the answers to all this. We knew the people out there knew the problems concerning them and they had a great contribution to make towards the bill. This is what this committee should be doing, not rushing it through. The NDP members knew all along that one of the wonderful things about Christmas is that it does not come in January, February or June. It comes at a precise date on the calendar every year, December 25, and you plan for it.
We as opposition members, immediately upon the assumption of the opposition, reminded them: "Let's start preparing now for a proper bill for Christmas. Let's now look at this Sunday shopping bill before us." As a matter of fact, we did not only say that; we went further than that. We left a plan, a strategy, a tried process to say: "Here is the best way in which to go. Follow that."
What did they do? They started dilly-dallying around it. The time is coming for Christmas and they are trying to bring in a Christmas shopping bill. We warned them before that this is needed to deal with it, once and for all. The areas that you have selected -- as a matter of fact without even consultation. The chamber of commerce was extremely upset that you did not even consult with it.
Mr Fletcher: We can get rid of them.
Mr Curling: The member said he hoped to get rid of the chamber of commerce. That is the kind of remarks you will hear, that they have no use for business, and that is exactly the point. We are trying to have a one-sided bill. We have to listen to all concerns. We have to listen to the business community because jobs are dependent on them.
I see young members in my constituency who are going to university -- and the Vice-Chair, Mr Morrow, knows that so well -- or coming out of university just recently who know that sometimes parents are not able to give them the money. We have to supplement the tuition fee. The tuition fees that are going up today and the cutbacks that are happening to the community colleges and the universities are having great impact. You are taking away a day in which they could work, a choice of their own in a democratic society; you are taking that away, just because you want to put in a common pause day without thinking it through.
My colleague Mr Sorbara told you the flaws in this, how one person could go into one shop and buy certain things -- you can buy magazines or whatever -- and then because of the size of the area, you cannot buy. The bill is not properly thought through.
I think what they should do is not put all this on hold but put a sensible approach to this. Stop going ahead blindly, with glazed eyes, down a path that will cause more problems for all of us, problems for young people who need a supplement for their tuition fees because the economic times are tough, and problems for people who are unable to have a proper worship day because if they worship on a Saturday, they are being forced to worship on a Sunday. Now they have another pause day, an economic disaster for them.
I am saying to you, Mr Chairman, with your own influence, whatever way you can, when you are not in the chair, when you are in caucus with the minister, pull up a seat beside him, have him read some of the things that are being said here and remind him of the things that have been said here.
You see, an opposition is not here to just oppose. As a matter of fact --
Mr Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Could I possibly have the clerk read out the amendment to the honourable member, so he can actually address the amendment, if you would not mind, please.
The Chair: That is not a point of order, Mr Morrow, but to the amendment, Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: Exactly, to the amendment, because here the member is telling me again that he is not listening. If he realizes what I am trying to say to him, if they listen carefully, they would bring forward a bill and time to address the issue properly. If we do not say what they have to say, we are not addressing the bill. Of course, I am really happy that you have ruled that what Mr Morrow, the Vice-Chair -- and all those lovely titles that he has -- is saying, as a matter of fact, is out of order, not that I am out of order; and that I am addressing the issue.
I am emotional about this, because in this country we talk about getting a proper Constitution reflecting the people, but it is the laws that we make, how we go about making the laws, how we consult with people that make it a wonderful country. When we do not consult, when we lock people out, when we have insensitive bills and laws, that makes people angry.
That is why there are so many demonstrations outside. They feel that the government is not listening. I am giving the government the opportunity now to listen. It is an easy process. Whenever you are tired of listening, ask for a recess; so if your attention span is five minutes, we take a 15-minute recess. We come back to it again for five minutes, then a 15-minute recess. The value of that five minutes of listening is better than the arrogance that we sometimes see around here, that we are just proceeding along without any thought or any sensitivity to the community itself.
I urge this committee, I want to ask the committee one request, and I hope the clerk will make a bold note of this. I invite the committee out to Scarborough.
1640
Mr Sorbara: Let's have a public hearing in Scarborough. That would be a good idea.
Mr Curling: I think your learning curve will move so high all of you will be impressed with yourselves.
Mr Morrow: I am always impressed with myself.
Mr Curling: But if you come there, you will be listening to pertinent issues concerning this Sunday shopping bill. The diversity of the community --
Mr Mills: Mr Chair, he is just wasting time.
Mr Curling: Again, it is the exact point I am saying. The honourable member for Durham East said that to make the point for Scarborough North, my riding of almost 200,000 people, is a waste of time. To make the point that the concerns of this bill will hurt many people in my riding and I am bringing those issues is a waste of time. When they force those people who worship on Saturdays to worship on Sundays, they ask me to come forward to this committee. They said: "Tell them. They will listen to you. We elected you unanimously." As a matter of fact, there is no question of it. They sent me back and I am very proud to come back for a third term because they had the confidence that I would say this. If any member over on that side says to me I am wasting time --
Mr Mills: Let's get to the bill and then talk about this. That is what I am saying: Let's get to the bill.
Mr Curling: -- my determination will be here, whether he listens or not.
Mr Mills: Let's talk to the bill.
Mr Curling: We hope, as I said, that one day it will come through to his ears and he will listen. I am sure it is not falling -- I am sure they are going to tell me about being politically correct, but I hope he is not shutting his ears down. His eyes are glazed now and I hope his ears are not shut off.
Mr Morrow: I want to know why his eyes are glazed, Alvin.
Mr Mills: He tends to do that.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Curling: The honourable member encourages me to tell them as it is, tell them what Scarborough North is talking about. Whether or not, as he stated to me, they feel it is a waste of time, it may come home to them one day that to do this bill properly is not only in the interests of Scarborough North. You may think it is selfish that I am doing this.
Mr Sorbara: No, it is not. It is democratic.
Interjection: Get to the point.
Mr Curling: As soon as you have listened -- I am to the point. I may have to repeat it so you will get it. I could start from the beginning again. Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for having me and what have you. I want to say to you what an honour it is to be speaking on this amendment. I am telling you, Mr Chair, since the member did not hear me, I could go back to it again. But my feeling is that he is a literate, intelligent individual, and what he has not heard, he will read.
However, I just want to continue as I tell you about my riding, because it is important. Let's talk about the businesses that are in my community and what will be affected by this if it is not addressed properly, if it is not amended in such a manner that they feel they are part of this bill, they feel they are part of this province, they feel they are part of this country.
The community has a number of businesses. As a matter of fact, we have the largest Chinese community business, I would even say, in Canada. In six months alone 20,000 Chinese school-aged children moved into the riding. Of course they buy stuff and it is good for business, because we need the community to grow and the contribution of those individuals in my community is enormous. It would take me about five or six days just to make an introduction to what they have contributed. The other communities there are doing a vibrant business.
There was something on TV just recently about the Metro zoo. I think they said that over 20,000 visited the zoo in one day. It is busy. If individuals go to the zoo, they do not just go to see animals. I will tell you why that affects this bill. They go there and they spend money within the community. People are employed. People want to be employed. People need that money in order to live in this very difficult time. If you have 20,000 people coming to the Metro zoo in one day, they are not tourists, they are Canadians, and everyone else who is enjoying it. They are not ordinary people, they are Canadians as you always say about ordinary people. If businesses are open, it is vibrant, and they have the democratic right to shop.
You want to hear this. You want to know that this exists before you proceed in the manner in which you are going, Mr Chairman, and you will tell them, of course. I know you are taking the brunt of it because you are the Chair, but I feel as soon as I have completed all of this and my colleagues have completed it, you will get them in caucus and say, "I have been listening very attentively to this very informative, constructive position held by the members of the Liberal Party and also the members of the Conservative Party."
Shutting them down, and just being selective with a few businesses, is putting them at a disadvantage. Of course protection for the workers should be there. As a matter of fact, we have protection anyhow. It is a farce in a way to say we do not have people who work on Sundays. The nurses have been doing that for years. Many community groups are out there working. Remember the days when they would not even allow a ball game to be played on Sunday?
Mr Sorbara: Not even cricket.
Mr Curling: Not to mention cricket, which we do for the whole day. You could get away with a one-hour game of soccer or so, but cricket taking all day was disgraceful.
Mr Sorbara: With several tea breaks.
Mr Curling: Of course. As a matter of fact, starting from 10 o'clock in the morning and maybe going until 6 is a lovely game of cricket, a family day, but they said no. Today we are going to the ball game. As a matter of fact, most games are planned for Sundays. Do you know why, Mr Chairman? They feel it is good business sense.
Interjection: Because nobody is working and they can go to the ball game. That is why.
Mr Curling: But when the ball game is open and they say no one is working, it is nonsense, because they have to go to other things and they could do other things. Can you imagine if the Eaton Centre was open that day? Can you imagine the activity there, the economic vibrancy that would happen? But we decide not to consider the feelings and interests of the people of Scarborough North, the people in the Metro area or the people the province over.
So what will people do? You said it had no relevance. They will pack up their cars, jockey over to the other side of the parallel and shop till they drop. Then you complain it is a federal problem. Do you know why? Because you have not thought it through. You have not sat down and listened to the concerns of the people who are telling you they want to shop. You are not even sitting down to say: "What are your concerns? How is this bill affecting you?" Until you do that, you will have a revolt on your hands.
Coming back to the point I made earlier about the opposition here, we are not here to oppose. We want to have the best bill, the best law.
Interjection: Get going. Get on with it.
Mr Curling: We must proceed in the proper way. It starts from the beginning. You cannot start in the middle.
Mr Sorbara: Bring forward amendments if you want to get on with it. Put amendments on the table, and we will get on with it.
Mr Fletcher: You could have done it in 1985, you could have done it in 1987. What are you talking about? You had your chance.
The Chair: Order.
Mr Sorbara: You are insufficient. You do not do anything.
Mr Fletcher: You did not do it when you had the opportunity to do it.
Mr Sorbara: Put some amendments on the table and we will get on with it.
Mr Fletcher: You did not when you had the chance.
The Chair: Order.
Mr Sorbara: You cannot have it both ways.
The Chair: In all fairness to the Chair, ever since I have taken over the Chair, there has been constant bantering, side meetings, interjections, all things that are not allowed.
Mr Sorbara: You have lost control, Mr Chair.
Mr Mills: No, he has not.
The Chair: If we could proceed with one meeting, have one person on the floor at a time, it would be helpful to the Chair, to the members and to the people who are here taking time out of their busy schedules to attend these hearings. Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I think you have full control of this. From time to time, when the truth hits home, of course, when they wake up, it is, "Oh, my golly, I'm in a committee meeting and I should be thinking about this." The attention span comes up and then they will respond. I am glad to know they are responding, but I wanted to respond positively. The opposition --
1650
Mrs Mathyssen: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Mr Curling has made two derogatory statements with impunity. If he wants to discuss this legislation, by all means we are listening. But this is not a forum for him to level personal and insulting remarks. This is a body where we are looking at a piece of legislation. I feel quite affronted by the kinds of disparaging remarks he keeps directing at us. I personally have a very good attention span, Mr Chair.
The Chair: You do not have a point of order. On the amendment, Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: If I offended anyone bu saying that they were sleeping and were not listening, it is a figure of speech.
Mrs Mathyssen: No, Mr Curling. You said we had very a very limited attention span. You have said it twice now.
Mr Curling: If I offended anyone --
Mrs Mathyssen: Yes, you did offend someone. You offended me.
Mr Curling: I apologize to the honourable member if she has a limited attention span.
Mr Sorbara: Why? It is not your fault.
Mrs Mathyssen: Now, Mr Curling, I do understand that you are trying to apologize, but could you perhaps phrase it in a little more meaningful way?
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Mathyssen.
Mrs Mathyssen: You are welcome, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: Again, Mr Chairman, if in any way their attention span is not adequate enough to listen to what I am saying, my apologies. Maybe their attention span is --
Mrs Mathyssen: That sounds backwards again to me. It does not sound like an apology.
Mr Sorbara: The member for Scarborough North has the floor.
Mr Winninger: Could you repeat what you said? I was not paying attention.
The Chair: There was no point of order. There is no reason to apologize. Mr Curling, on the amendment to the main motion.
Mr Curling: If there is anything else that has offended the honourable member, I apologize. That is exactly what we are talking about, that individuals can be offended by things that are not offensive at all. This bill is offensive to my members in Scarborough North, and I am sure the process itself is offensive to quite a few members here. So you see, I understand the honourable member, that certain things could be said. While I may be going down the road in asking about attention spans, and she says, "No, my attention span is not five minutes, it is six minutes," and I say I am sorry -- or if it is 10 minutes or 15 minutes or 20 minutes -- in the meantime, Mr Chairman --
Mr Sorbara: I think you lost her attention.
Mr Curling: In the meantime, I am saying we must be careful about what we do, and be sensitive of course. We must listen carefully to what the concerns of that community are all about.
Opposition, as we are on this side, is to bring about good bills, good laws. We have a responsibility to bring about the concerns, to talk about what is offensive and what is seen to be offensive or seen as not being targeted in the right direction in the process. It is not going anywhere. You have not brought forward the amendments. As a matter of fact, you should show us the amendments too.
Interjection: We have already shown them.
Mr Sorbara: They are meaningless.
Mr Curling: You may say to us that these amendments were shown, and that this is adequate. It is not adequate. We are saying that they have not done or changed anything. You are going in that kind of direction that itself -- we would use the word "meaningless."
It is important that as we grow, as this country grows and as this province grows in its diversity, we be more sensitive. I have seen many bills coming through here. If we are not able to say to the people that we have listened, we have noted their concern; if people are not able to look at a bill and say, "I see myself there and I have seen where the government of the day has listened"; if there is no room for us to address all those individuals to make their concern heard; if there is not room at all there, they will then say that this government is not being democratic, is not being open. But the difference is that each day in the House as I listen to the government, how open it is and how, "We are now opening this place as never before for those people to come forward who have been shut out," we find that what they did as they opened that door to let people in, just down the corridor to get into the main hall, they were building another door so people got trapped in the alley. They thought they were on their way to open discussion and able to contribute, and it is not being done.
You have an opportunity to have one of the best oppositions this province has ever had, an opposition to make you, as a government, bring good bills in. I am glad the honourable member has joined us again, because Mrs Mathyssen is a person I respect tremendously in the House. I know I will get her support because she understands exactly what we are saying. She comes from a constituency that has those concerns I am addressing today. They would like the open process just like my constituents and the members of the opposition here.
When the time comes for clause-by-clause, I will be here and I will be speaking if those amendments to that bill are not adequate. You will be hearing me speak out against them, and I am sure many of my colleagues who are quite qualified and have followed this very closely will also be making their contribution. We could cut all that very short by having proper amendments coming forward, having a proper procedure being followed. This would finish, I would tell you, in half a day.
That is what we are doing. We are trying to save time because the process the committee is putting forward is not adequate. It will be bogged down in a lot of long debates about amendments and saying: "You have not listened properly. How can you do this?" So before you jump into the sea without being able to swim, what we are trying to do is give you a crash course in how to swim, so we can get to the shore properly. We will be helping you as opposition members to get there. We can shorten the time now. It is almost like saying, "Pay me now or pay me later." Let's deal with the issue.
There is a knocking in the car; there is a knocking in the bill. It is not perfect. The process is not perfect. Correct it now so that when we get to clause-by-clause, we will be humming along. Because if all had understood, we would have got some -- I hate to use the word "sense," but some sense in the bill. I am saying sense as individuals, that it makes sense. People could look at it in my riding, people could look at it in Windsor, people could look at it in North Bay, Moosonee and Rainy River, and everyone could say, "This bill represents us and we got there by the proper process."
If I believed that I would not be listened to, I would not have been speaking today. I am extremely confident in my colleagues here that they have heard what I have said, they have heard what many of the other colleagues on this side have stated and they will respond accordingly. They will then have a little caucus on their own and decide that they will change their strategy.
I think it was last week that, when the honourable member for York Centre put some examples forward here, the minister was so moved by that, you could drop a pin. He was listening. He understands that. Being a previous mayor, he understands the closeness of the people and how bills and laws can affect people. The member for York Centre put him into that situation, placed him into the store, placed the individual who would have been buying that product, and I could see the light in his face. I could see the vision of him saying, "Yes, we are going down the wrong road and the honourable member for York Centre is making a lot of sense."
1700
If you need help, we are here for that. We are here, Minister, to make sure the bill is as perfect as possible. It will not be completely perfect. There are no bills I know of that are perfect. There is no one single bill I know of that is perfect. As we change in our community and in the diversity of our population, we have to adjust accordingly. But the minister was aware of the implications and the process and the passage he was going on, and I am saying to him I think there is hope.
The members of course rebel at some of the truth I am saying and are annoyed by it. Sometimes it hurts to admit the fact that we are going on the wrong road. You may recall when the process of the insurance bill was hijacked, the public insurance that the government of the day had promised. They decided to say the same words the Liberal government had, which had researched and said, "This is the way we should go." They came out and said, "Yes, it's too expensive and this is the no-fault process we should go," the same things we were saying.
Speaking of that is like the descending of the heavens. Mr Kormos, who has walked in, understood that too. When they came to their senses -- I do not say that to offend anyone; I use it as a phrase -- and said that, what did this opposition party do? We applauded the government for taking that position. We did not say, "I told you so." No, we applauded them. We said, "It is an extremely difficult issue to address." We had tremendous consultation. We had to change our positions regularly as we consulted, as we listened. Then we said, "This is the best way to go."
The opposition of the day, now the government, told us that we sold out. As soon as they arrived and had their consultation, they realized the power of consultation, the power of listening. They listened and decided to agree with the position taken by the Liberal government of the day. We applaud the government for doing that. On this side of the fence, we want to applaud them for bringing about one of the best bills, the Retail Business Holidays Act when they amend that, and say that they have listened and have brought out one of the best bills. Again, it is not done just by the amendments. It is done by the process, how you get to the process. If we do not, we will pay heavily for that. We may not pay for it now but we will pay for it later.
I want to thank you, Mr Chairman, for conducting this in such a very professional manner and allowing me to state the case for Scarborough. I can speak with more emotion for Scarborough because I have lived there for over 20 years and I know the people. They asked me to bring to you and this committee the message I stated today about the process. They asked me further to follow this rather closely, not only for Scarborough but for the province.
I had to commend them for it as I went around my constituency and talked to those interest groups, because they were not selfish or parochial in their thinking. They were thinking about the province. They felt that what is good for us here in Scarborough North may not be good for the people out in Windsor, Rainy River, Moosonee or wherever their other brother and sister Ontarians are. They were confident that because I was emotionally moved by this, I would present it properly.
I do not think I have done justice to it in its entirety. I do not think I will ever do justice to this cause, because I know that when they presented their case to me I listened and I was so moved I felt completely inadequate to do this. But I have a responsibility as a representative to say to you all, "This is what is being said there." Do not ever underestimate the fact that I have travelled this province and listened to other people making this point of view too. They are consistent in what I am hearing. I urge you to adopt a process -- I am not playing games with all this to get political points; I do not think they are doing that really, because it would be extremely dangerous to do that -- in which our people would be better served regardless of culture, regardless of class, regardless of creed, and to be sensitive in that process.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Poirier was next on your list.
The Chair: Mr Morrow was next.
Mr Sorbara: I am sorry.
The Chair: Mr Morrow, further debate on the amendment.
Mr Morrow: Thank you very much, Mr Chair, I really appreciate that. Yes, I am going to speak to the amendment for a moment, if you do not mind. I obviously will not be as long as the honourable member was. Can we regress back to 1988 and 1989 when we had those flawed pieces of legislation, Bills 113 and 114? You know that legislation was like an airplane hangar; you could drive a plane through. Bill 115 is an obvious improvement. Look at the court challenges we faced under that. We had wide-open Sunday shopping from June until March, and there were a lot of problems.
Mr Harnick: There were? Name one problem.
Mr Morrow: We obviously listened all summer to the people. We hit 11 cities around this province and I am sure anybody will tell you that 11 cities on a tour is one heck of a big tour. There is no question about that. The only thing I have obviously seen going on here by the opposition members is an awful lot of stalling. Come on, let's be serious. The taxpayers of this province want us to move on with that.
Mr Sorbara: No, they do not. They do not want us to move on with this bill.
Mr Morrow: In saying that, Mr Chair, at this time I would like to call the question, please.
The Chair: The question has been called. It is non-debatable. All those in favour of calling the question?
Mr Sorbara: I would just call for a 20-minute recess for a vote. In calling for a 20-minute recess I simply want to warn the whip and the Vice-Chair of this committee that if he is going to use closure on this, he will have a long, difficult, troubled time getting this bill passed in each of its clauses.
Mr Fletcher: Does this mean stalling again?
Mr Sorbara: No, it means the furthest and most penetrating debate we can hear on each word, comma and other punctuation mark. You ought not to do this, Mark, you ought to sit down and negotiate some reasonable changes to a piece of legislation which right now is unacceptable to the people. If you think we are here talking for the benefit of our health or our lungs, you are nuts.
The Chair: Order, Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: We are just trying to make some improvements to a bill that is not going to work in a province that is suffering --
Mr Morrow: What do you think we are trying to do here? We are also trying to make improvements.
Mr Sorbara: -- so do not come in here and use closure every time you want to get your way.
Mr Fletcher: I think it is about time you guys stopped stalling.
Mr Sorbara: Let's have a 20-minute consideration of the question.
The Chair: We will recess until 5:30.
The committee recessed at 1709.
1730
The Chair: I call the committee back to order.
Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I raise before you, sir, and the members of this committee, what I consider to be a very difficult and perhaps unique, but nevertheless troubling, point of order arising from the procedure which got us to a point of having the question on the motion and the amendment to the motion that we were debating put before this committee.
If I can just put the facts before you, this afternoon we began debate on the amendment placed here by Mr Chiarelli, the member for Ottawa West, to the motion initially placed by Mr Morrow that this committee return to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 115. Today, Mr Chair, I addressed a few remarks to you at the opening of these discussions. I just want to review those remarks because they are pertinent to this point of order.
At that time in my remarks, and I invite you to review Hansard, I stated that on the amendment the committee was at that time considering, I would make a few opening remarks, but I was simply doing that to get us back into the flow of the business because my colleague Mr Curling, the member for Scarborough North, had some things to say to the committee on the amendment to the motion, and Mr Poirier, the member for Prescott-Russell, had some remarks to address to you as well.
I anticipated that in doing so I fulfilled the routine, or the obligation or the procedure, necessary to help you determine the list of speakers. Mr Curling did have an opportunity to deliver his remarks.
Mr Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Chair --
The Chair: We are on a point of order, Mr Morrow.
Mr Sorbara: I am speaking to a point of order, Mr Chairman. It is complex and I beg the indulgence of the committee and ask you to hear me out. I would also advise, sir, that I think a couple of other members will want to speak to this point of order as well. It is one of substance and significance and needs consideration.
Just to review, I indicated to you the speaking order for today for our members. I do not make any comment as to whether Mr Harnick wished to speak on the amendment. I leave that up to him. He may or may not have indicated to you his desire to speak. Nor do I recall Mr Morrow indicating to you in any way whatever that he intended to speak to the motion or secure the floor. I appreciate that we are operating under the orders relating to standing committees and I believe -- you might correct me if I am wrong -- that we are operating under section 118(a) of the standing orders, which reads as follows:
"The Chair of a standing or select committee shall maintain order in the committee and decide all questions of order subject to an appeal by the majority of the members of the committee to the Speaker." I note in that regard that an appeal would be appropriate here to the Speaker. "No debate shall be permitted on any decision of the Chair." I understand that provision as well.
It seems to me that regrettably we have not had time to carry out full, or any frankly, research on this point, but I would argue strenuously that under the circumstances, having implicitly acknowledged that there were at least two speakers from the Liberal caucus anxious to speak on this bill, you implicitly agreed that at least those two speakers would have the floor or would be permitted the floor to speak on this motion.
I understand that the ruling you made very quickly without any consideration is a ruling that in a theoretical sense you have the right to make. I acknowledge as well that the tradition in this committee is that speakers speak in rotation; that is, we move from the official opposition to the third party to the government or from the government to the official opposition to the third party in a rotation, and that allows each party and the members interested in the issue in each party to have their say.
I point out to you as well, though, that there is a long tradition in committees that where government members do not wish to substantially contribute to the debate, the speeches on issues before the committee can, rather than go in rotation, just proceed from member to member, given a member's interest in speaking.
Historically in this committee -- and if you go to the practices and procedures in the standing orders, you will see this -- there is a well-established tradition of a number of speakers from the same party speaking to an issue. I want to submit to you in conjunction with this point of order that by acceding to my request and listening to my remarks and creating a speakers' list, you agreed that this question was sufficiently significant before this committee to allow for at least the speakers that you had acknowledged wished to speak on the issue. In that respect, I point out again that you had not at that point consulted with the third party to determine whether it wished to speak to the issue.
When Mr Morrow got the floor, just to review the history somewhat, rather than speaking to the substance of the bill he quickly brought to you a motion to put the question, and that really is the issue that arises here on the point of order I am bringing to you. The precedents and practices of when a Chair of a committee such as this standing committee on the administration of justice shall determine whether or not a matter has been sufficiently debated is a question that still remains in some doubt. In fact, if you were to simply allow an adjournment of this committee so that issue could be pursued by legal research, I think that would resolve the point of order I am bringing to your attention now.
But absent your willingness to do that, I suggest to you that, in considering Mr Morrow's motion to put the question, you were bound to reject it at that time because you had already made a decision as the Chair of this committee acknowledging that Mr Poirier was going to be a speaker to the motion. It may well be that after the list of speakers had been exhausted or some other member who had already spoken to the motion wished to speak again that you could intervene, notwithstanding that you had put his name on the list. I acknowledge your right and ability to do that, but I do not think you can at one and the same time acknowledge that Mr Poirier will be speaking on the motion and then make a decision inconsistent with that determination. I suggest to you that at the beginning of these hearings you did indicate on the speakers' list that Mr Curling and Mr Poirier would have something to say. That is implicitly a decision on your part to allow the debate to continue at least to that point.
There are only so many members of this committee. I do not think that on your speakers' list you had indicated that any other government members wished to speak, nor do I believe that you had canvassed whether or not the Conservative Party members wished to speak. I would submit to you that it is inappropriate for you to make a split-second decision supporting Mr Morrow's request that the question be put. I also submit to you that the practices and procedures of this committee and this Legislature indicate that at least you have an obligation to reflect on whether or not the matter had been debated. That is your responsibility as Chair.
The reflection you need to make on such a point must include the fact that you have already determined that at least one other member wished to speak to the question. More than that, I want to submit to you that you might under those circumstances reject that name on that list if the member wishing to speak has no real and substantive relationship with the committee or with the issue that the committee is dealing with. But that is not the case when we consider that Mr Poirier wanted to speak. Why do I say that to you? I say that to you because Mr Poirier --
The Chair: Mr Sorbara --
Mr Sorbara: I just beg your --
The Chair: -- if I may rule, this should have happened before the division.
Mr Harnick: I want to speak on the point of order, so do not rule.
The Chair: There is no debate here. There is no point of order. First of all, there has been sufficient debate. Today was not the beginning of the debate on the amendments. We have debated the amendments. Everybody on the committee in the opposition has spoken to the amendment by Mr Chiarelli except Mr Curling, who is here for the first time today.
Mr Sorbara: No, I beg your indulgence. Mr Poirier has not --
The Chair: He has spoken on the amendments.
Mr Sorbara: Have you spoken on the amendments?
The Chair: On Mr Chiarelli's amendment, therefore there is no point of order.
Mr Sorbara: If I might just continue for a moment, sir --
The Chair: My ruling is there is no point of order, Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: I am sorry, I am going to have to challenge your ruling.
The Chair: All those in favour of the Chair's ruling?
Mr Sorbara: Wait a minute. I would like a 20-minute bell on this.
Mr Morrow: We just had a 20-minute division to speak on my question.
Mr Sorbara: I have a right to challenge the ruling of the Chair, we have a right to vote on it and I have a right to call a 20-minute bell.
Mr Morrow: We have a division on the original one, Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: You people will not consider the substance of this matter.
The Chair: Order.
Mr Morrow: We are supposed to walk in here and vote on the division.
Mr Sorbara: I am sorry. I believe it is a point of order.
The Chair: We are adjourned until tomorrow at 3:30.
The committee adjourned at 1742.