LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ALCOOLS
CONTENTS
Monday 2 May 1994
Liquor Control Amendment Act, 1993, Bill 113, Ms Churley / Loi de 1993 modifiant la Loi sur les alcools, projet de loi 113, Mme Churley
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)
*Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)
*Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)
Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)
*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND) for Ms Harrington
McClelland, Carman (Brampton North/-Nord L) for Mr Chiarelli
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations:
Bourgeois, Don, legal counsel
Duignan, Noel, parliamentary assistant to the minister
Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: Filion, Sibylle, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1549 in room 228.
LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ALCOOLS
Consideration of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act / Projet de loi modifiant la Loi sur les alcools.
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): Today we'll be considering clause-by-clause of Bill 113. We will begin with section 1. Any comments or amendments?
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Mr Chairman, I arrived here today and found on my desk a submission from the Lakeport Brewing Corp. I really haven't had time to review this in its totality, but it appears to be a brief of some significance. I wonder if you have any comment about why we didn't have this before the last session or why this group isn't appearing here to present this brief so we might be able to ask them questions about some very significant issues they've raised.
When I read about this very significant employer in the Hamilton area recommending that "the enactment of Bill 113 and the promulgation of the regulations thereunder be deferred until such time as an independent, comprehensive study of BRI operating costs and service charges has been undertaken," I really wonder if it's prudent to deal with this without hearing from this group.
The question I really want to ask them is, how does their particular concern impact on Bill 113? It may not impact on it at all, but it's a pretty significant brief and I really would like to know whether we're just going to ignore this or how we're going to consider it, whether we're going to have any kind of discussion about it or whether we just find it on our desks and ignore it and continue with the bill.
The Chair: Several things: The subcommittee met and we had a sense of who wanted to appear before the committee. There was enough time for anybody who was interested to tell us if they were, in order to be put on the list. As far as we know, this particular group did not ask to be placed on the list of deputants.
We are aware, however, that they wanted to submit something to us. Through the clerk, I understand we urged them to send it to us as soon as possible. It came to us, however, on Friday, at what time I'm not sure, but obviously it was very difficult to send to the respective members at that time. That's why it appears on your desk now. How you want to deal with this is something you might want to respond to, and the rest of the members on this committee.
Mr Harnick: What I would like to know -- and I guess the parliamentary assistant is the most appropriate person who can tell us this for the purposes of the record -- does the concern expressed in this brief from the Lakeport Brewing Corp, dated April 28, 1994, have any connection to Bill 113 that we're presently considering? Are any of the sections in Bill 113 going to impact on Lakeport Brewing in terms of the material presently before us?
Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): The ministry's involved in litigation in this aspect and can offer no further comments on this.
Mr Harnick: What I want to know and what, I would submit with respect, we should know before we consider this bill any further is whether Bill 113 impacts on the concerns of Lakeport Brewing as set out in its brief. Surely the parliamentary assistant can tell us whether in fact that is or is not the case.
Mr Duignan: In fact, Bill 113 provides an opportunity to deal with this issue in the long run.
Mr Harnick: Mr Chair, I can appreciate that you're exasperated with me already, but just hear me out, with respect. I have some genuine concern that this is a very important brief. My concern --
The Chair: Mr Harnick, what do you recommend? You heard what I said. They knew about this hearing. They didn't want to depute, as far as I know. We urged them to write a brief, as quickly as they could, obviously. We're lucky to have this in front of us at this time. What do you want us to do? Suggest something.
Mr Harnick: I want the parliamentary assistant to tell me in a very categorical, straightforward way whether Bill 113, this piece of legislation before us, has any effect on the concerns expressed in the brief submitted by Lakeport Brewing. If the parliamentary assistant doesn't know, I think we should adjourn so he can find an answer, because that should affect how we're going to vote on this bill.
Mr Duignan: We'll ask ministry staff to comment.
Mr Don Bourgeois: I'm Don Bourgeois, legal counsel for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The ministry isn't in a position to be able to comment specifically on the contents of the brief nor on the litigation itself. However, the bill does provide statutory authority, for example, for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to pass regulations governing the operations of government stores or classes of government stores, and it is possible to consider some of the issues that are apparently raised in that context.
Mr Harnick: I didn't know this was coming and I didn't have very much time to deal with it, but they make a comment at paragraph 2.7 on page 6: "It is, of course, impossible to comment intelligently on the legislation without being able to examine the draft regulations which the government intends to introduce, but in view of the impact of the actions already taken by BRI and the LCBO it is important for the committee to be made aware of the adverse effect of the new regime at BRI, which appears to have come into existence without the benefit of implementing legislation by the province of Ontario and without the impact of the changes being fully understood by the government and the LCBO."
All I'm concerned about is whether Bill 113 impacts on their concerns. I don't know. I don't know the answer, and I'm looking to the ministry to be able to tell me so I can know how to vote on this bill.
Mr Bourgeois: The bill provides an opportunity to do so by regulation or through terms and conditions established by the Liquor Control Board with respect to the government authorizations that are issued by the Liquor Control Board to Brewers Retail.
Mr Harnick: But you see what they say at item 2.7. They're very clear. "It is, of course, impossible to comment intelligently on the legislation without being able to examine the draft regulations." If they can't do it and they're in the business, how are we supposed to be able to do it?
Mr Duignan: Mr Harnick, to be quite frank and honest, there are many pieces of legislation that come to committee that don't have the regulations prepared with the legislation, so to me it's a moot argument.
Mr Harnick: I just think we'd all be in a better position to know what we were voting on if we knew whether Bill 113 has any impact on what they're saying.
Mr Bourgeois: The ministry will be consulting with the various participants in the industry as we prepare the regulations.
Mr Harnick: Okay. So much for that.
1600
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): This submission from Lakeport Brewing Corp is before us. I'm just wondering, is this the first time we have seen this? Maybe the parliamentary assistant could tell me.
Mr Duignan: I understand that's correct, yes.
Mr Curling: We have had submissions before us and this isn't one.
The Chair: This is not one of them.
Mr Curling: I'm sure that in the democratic process all submissions that came before us would be considered seriously. Therefore, the drafting and proper amendments to the bill would be made by each party after reading this because we'll have taken into consideration the submission. Isn't that the process?
The Chair: That is the process. This document came in Friday. We couldn't deliver it any sooner, so it's in front of you now.
Mr Curling: I understand it's before us now. I don't have any great faith in the process of how you have done regulations anyhow. You have shown us that your regulations will come maybe a year after this bill has gone through and will never be proclaimed until some time later.
I suggest that we adjourn to give my party an opportunity to digest this and see if we can encompass some of the recommendations, if we think it's necessary, into Bill 113. We may be submitting other amendments to the act. My suggestion is that you have to give us some time for my party to respond to this.
The Chair: Mr Winninger, can I have your attention for a moment? We have a suggestion that has not been moved yet. There is a submission that is before you today. The opposition members are saying they haven't had a chance to review this document and they'd like some time to read it. I would like the various members to respond to the suggestion. Presumably you're saying we defer dealing with clause-by-clause to another day, until you have an opportunity to read this. I would welcome remarks from the members.
Mr Duignan: First of all, Mr Chair, what happens if we get another brief today and another brief tomorrow and another one the day after? Do we keep adjourning this? I'm sorry, I'm not in favour of adjourning.
Mr Harnick: I think the parliamentary assistant would do his colleagues who sit in the Legislature representing ridings from Hamilton a great service (a) if he read the brief and (b) if he understood that this company employs 135 people in Hamilton, "has already invested $3.5 million [in Hamilton] and plans to invest a further $4.8 million in the brewery and makes annual contributions of more than $50 million to the regional economy. [It] is currently expanding its market into Quebec and western Canada [and] is also exporting beer to the United States. As a result of the American brands being brewed under licence, Lakeport is preserving Canadian jobs, so Lakeport's contribution to the Ontario economy is expected to increase significantly over the next few years. Perhaps most important of all, Lakeport is investing money in creating jobs in a region which has been hard hit by plant closures, downsizing and business failures."
It seems to me that if your party really stands for the creation of jobs, when an employer as significant as this in the Hamilton region, that's making the investment this company is investing in the Hamilton region, we had better adjourn this and understand what this brief is all about.
I can appreciate the importance of ramming this thing through, but it's a matter of waiting one more day. I suspect clause-by-clause will take all of 25 minutes to complete. This is a very significant brief, not some brief put in by anybody to delay this, but this is a very significant employer in Hamilton. But if you don't care about Hamilton and if you don't care about your own colleagues --
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Would you stop it?
Mr Harnick: Oh, be quiet.
Mr Bisson: Come on, don't be such a --
The Chair: I urge you to control yourselves, please.
Mr Harnick: It seems to me that when you get a brief like this, you should pay it some heed. I think my friend the member for Scarborough North's suggestion is a good one, especially to a government that professes to be in the business of creating jobs for workers.
Mr Duignan: Is this a motion or a suggestion?
Mr Bisson: If I understood correctly at the beginning, and I'd just like clarification from the Chair, has the subcommittee ordered up the business of the committee? Am I correct in understanding that?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Bisson: There was no request on the part of the company in question to make a submission with themselves being here?
The Chair: That's correct.
Mr Bisson: I say we move on with the business.
The Chair: This group had discussions with the clerk about submitting this report to us. My discussion with the clerk suggests that they may not have even had it in time for clause-by-clause, but they managed to do it in advance, so this is what we've got here in front of us. It came rather late.
Mr Bisson: The point is that we receive a number of briefs on all committees, and past practice has always been that you have up to a certain day to bring the brief before the committee. If we as a committee start saying, "Well, because we have yet another one that came in, we can't go on with the business of the committee," it's a heck of a precedent having to do with every committee that sits in the Legislature at all times.
I would say we move on. As to the comment made by the member, I understand what he's trying to say, but I think it's a little bit on the strong side. As members --
Mr Harnick: It's not on the sly side at all.
The Chair: Hold on. Mr Harnick --
Mr Harnick: On a point of privilege, Mr Chairman: There is an allegation that a comment I made was on the sly side.
Mr Bisson: That's not what I said.
Mr Harnick: Well, that is what you said.
Mr Bisson: That's not what I said.
Mr Harnick: Mr Chair, number one, I ask him to withdraw that remark; number two, I ask him to read the brief, because it's a very significant brief.
The Chair: All right. Mr Harnick, you made your point. Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: I said "a little bit on the strong side." If the member would take the cotton out of his ears, he might be a little better off than he was when he started this.
Mr Harnick: I heard "sly."
The Chair: I'm sorry, I can't hear now.
Mr Bisson: I said "on the strong side." If the member understood "sly," I apologize, but what I said was "strong."
To carry on and finish the point I'm trying to make, we sat and listened to the members across for the last 15 minutes talking about the importance of this brief. I would agree with them: It's a brief we need to read and to look at. But we also need to keep in mind that, as committees met throughout this Legislature over the last 100-odd years, you don't start postponing the business of the committee because yet another brief has come forward. I would say we move on and deal with the business of the committee.
Mr Curling: You said "move on." We have decided to accept this brief, and if you want to consider it in its true sense, how could we move on? If you move on, you're saying, "Send your brief in, but we'll ignore it anyhow," because this is what we'd be doing.
The comment made by the parliamentary assistant -- Mr Chair, you're shaking your head, but let me remind you what he said. He said, "If we get another brief, what are we going to do?" I'm sure you have a process in place to say that submissions will stop as of that day and if it's late, it is late. Don't tell me now that if tomorrow another submission comes in you'd put forward to us that we will consider that one. We know that a deadline for submissions is either over or not. You gave the indication to Lakeport Brewing Corp, a very significant company, that their submission would be seriously considered when it got here.
It seems to me there is some sort of hypocrisy here to say it is submitted but we're not in any way going to look at it. We haven't read it. How can I or my party intelligently respond to this, make it relevant to this so make an amendment, if necessary?
I suggest to you, Mr Chairman, what we could do is to rule that this is out of order and throw it out, and let us proceed. Then we can tell this group that the submission is late and we will not consider it. Or if we rule that we're going to accept this, then I'm asking you, a plea to the Chair, that we get some time to read the submission.
1610
The Chair: It's regrettable that the submission is here at this late hour. Without diminishing your comments or the submission, they were aware of the time lines. They didn't choose to depute. They sent this submission, and it was sent late.
Mr Curling: Then you should not have accepted it here.
The Chair: I listened to both sides. If you want to move that in a motion and have the vote, we could do that, but I'm not sure we need to hear any more discussion one way or the other, because I think we've heard enough. Do you want to move that?
Mr Harnick: May I make one last comment?
The Chair: Is it a different --
Mr Harnick: Oh, it's totally different.
The Chair: All right, go ahead.
Mr Bisson: I have another comment too, Mr Chair.
Mr Harnick: The concern I have is that I've asked the parliamentary assistant and I've asked the gentleman from the ministry whether there is anything in this act which impacts on the concerns set out in the brief. Quite frankly, they really didn't know. All I would like is some comment from the ministry, after they've had an opportunity to review the brief, just telling me whether there's anything in this bill that will impact on the concerns Lakeport Brewing sets out in its brief. That's all I'd like.
The Chair: Mr Harnick, you've asked that question and it's been answered, unless Mr Bourgeois wants to add something different to his previous comments. Otherwise, it's been dealt with.
We've discussed this on the basis of a suggestion. If you want to move it as a motion so there is a vote on that, please do so. Otherwise, we will move on.
Mr Curling: What I'm asking you for, basically, is direction.
The Chair: I have given direction.
Mr Curling: No, you have not. I've asked you this: Is this submission acceptable here? If you can tell me whether it's acceptable or not, we can move one way or the other.
The Chair: This submission is before you. Yes, I know you haven't had enough time to review this document.
Mr Curling: You're the Chair. You must know when you're going to cut off the time for submissions. If a submission comes in tomorrow --
The Chair: But I've already given my answer, Mr Curling. If you wish to move a motion as to what you had suggested so we can have the vote, please do so. I think we've had enough discussion on the matter.
Mr Curling: Wait a second. I'm asking you a simple question. If another submission comes in tomorrow -- I'm asking you that.
The Chair: If another submission comes tomorrow and we've dealt with this in clause-by-clause, then a different process has to take place, obviously. If there's another submission coming after today, we have a serious problem. Don't you agree?
Mr Curling: I just want you to say, "There shall be no more submissions as of today." There must be a time when you decide to deal with this.
The Chair: We have had a time, and those who were interested in making a submission or giving a deputation could have done so in order to have them considered for clause-by-clause.
Seeing that there's no motion on the floor, we'll move on. On section 1, any discussion?
Mr Curling: What are you saying? I'm going to put my motion.
The Chair: Mr Curling, I'm trying to help you by being as clear as I can. I said we have discussed your suggestion. If you want to move something based on your suggestion, do so. Otherwise, we are moving on.
Mr Curling: Mr Chairman, I asked for your clarification, and before you even clarified it -- you were fuzzing all over the place on this. You did not clarify whether this is the last submission. I said if you could clarify that, I'll move into my motion. The fact is that this submission just arrived here today. It can't be considered because we haven't read it, and you said so. If it could be considered a part of this discussion and a part of the amendment, then I would move the motion. You couldn't decide for me whether another submission could come in tomorrow. You keep telling me it's a serious problem. I sit on many committees and there's a time when we say, "No more submissions," because we have to get on with the other phase of it. If you're saying this is a submission that will be considered in this, then I remove the motion.
The Chair: Mr McClelland, I'm not sure whether you want to participate as well, but I'm ready to proceed on this section. I'm not sure that commenting on Mr Curling's remarks would be helpful to him or to this committee.
Mr Curling: I have a motion. We can't go into --
The Chair: Mr Curling, I was trying to help you. Three times now I've asked you whether you want to put your suggestion as a motion, and you're not doing that. Move something so we can consider that again.
Mr Curling: I moved the motion before --
The Chair: What is your motion, Mr Curling? Move it in words. Move something.
Mr Curling: I'm saying we should suspend the clause-by-clause until we have an opportunity to read this submission, because it's quite likely it may have some impact on the amendments.
Mr David Winninger (London South): You could have read it five times by now.
The Chair: Do you want to suspend it for a particular time: a day, a week, a year?
Mr Curling: Just a day. Give us until tomorrow.
The Chair: One day. Let us begin debate on the motion again, for those who have something new to add.
Mr Curling: May I speak to my motion now?
The Chair: Sure, go ahead.
Mr Curling: I just want to make it formal because of the motion being moved. Considering that a submission has just arrived on my desk and my colleague's desk and it's going to have some impact on Bill 113 and the clause-by-clause amendments, and considering too that the parliamentary assistant could not respond to whether or not it has any bearing or impact on the bill, I feel we need that extra time in which not only myself but my party would get the opportunity to read this submission and make the necessary amendments. I hope the government and my colleagues could consider that, that we can at least say to Lakeport Brewing Corp we take its recommendations seriously.
Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I was at another meeting in the building and I regret coming in late, partway through discussion, but from what I've been able to determine from the debate, if the committee on balance is not disposed to accepting the motion moved by my colleague, Mr Curling, I think it would be incumbent on us, perhaps yourself as Chair, to at least respond to the people who have submitted, namely, the Lakeport Brewing Corp, and advise them that regrettably their information had arrived beyond the deadline and accordingly we're not able to have substantive consideration in the debate; that their points, although received, were not taken into account in a formal sense. All I'm asking is that in the absence of giving us an opportunity to review it, the company that made this submission be advised --
The Chair: This room is not conducive to additional noise when someone is speaking. Mr McClelland.
Mr McClelland: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I've stated my position: in short, that I hope we might have an opportunity to review the submissions. My colleague, Mr Harnick, has indicated that there are some interesting, substantive issues raised in the brief. I have not looked at it. If we look back in retrospect, unhappily, and said, "Gee, we should have thought about that," that would be a shame.
On the other hand, I recognize that notice was given in the usual way by the clerk. All I can say is that I hope we'll take that into consideration as we dispose of and deal with the motion put forward by my colleague. Thank you, Mr Chairman, for your indulgence.
1620
Mr Bisson: Mr Chair, for the sake of those members who didn't have an opportunity to read this brief, I've had the opportunity to go through it in some detail while this argument has been going on. To put it in context of what the act does and what they're asking for in this brief might help you make your decision in understanding what we need to do here.
The bill before us, Bill 113, deals with two things. Just for the sake of the record -- not so much for you, because I know you understand it -- the bill will enable the government and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario to require Brewers Retail Inc beer stores to sell imported beer subject to the same terms and condition that apply to domestic beer. That is a question that has been brought before us because of what happened at the GATT. I think we need to understand where that's coming from.
The second thing the bill does is deal with people who are distillers, who make alcohol.
In reading the brief from this company, Lakeport Brewing's argument is the amount of money they would have to pay as a distribution fee through the BRI system, which is an argument between the BRI and this particular brewer. The bill, as I understand it from going through it, and I conferred in order to make sure, would not affect their ability to deal with this matter. If anything, it would allow us to deal with it in a little better way, if anything.
This whole argument we're having is somewhat academic, because what the bill does and what's actually inside this submission are not fairly well meshed together. In short, they're asking for a mechanism to have a better rate with Brewers Retail Inc, the distribution system of beer throughout the province of Ontario, and that is a matter between the BRI and that particular company. This bill would not impact upon that. Take your time to read it and you'll see that's what it says.
Mr Harnick: I have a question to the parliamentary assistant, and my question is very straightforward. How come Mr Bisson can answer my question, but you can't?
Mr Duignan: I thought we answered the question, frankly, earlier on.
Mr Harnick: You haven't. If Mr Bisson's right, and he's not an exalted parliamentary assistant in all of this --
Mr Duignan: He is, actually.
Mr Harnick: How come he can answer the question and you as the parliamentary assistant and the gentleman with you from the ministry can't answer the question? Now I would like to know, is Mr Bisson right? If Mr Bisson's right, I'm happy to move on. He didn't say what you said when I asked you the question, nor did the gentleman from the ministry. If Mr Bisson's right, I'm happy to move on. If Mr Bisson isn't right, maybe we should adjourn this for a day so you can go back and ask the minister or the deputy minister whether there's anything in this bill that impacts on the concerns that are set out in the brief. It's very simple.
Mr Duignan: The questions have been answered. It's up to you whether you want to accept or reject what Mr Bisson says. But as I pointed out to you earlier on, the question has been answered by both myself and the ministry, and if you want to take the answer from Mr Bisson, fair for you. You have three answers: Pick one.
Mr Harnick: And one of them might be right.
The Chair: We're ready for the question now. All in favour of Mr Curling's motion? All in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Moving on to section 1, is there any discussion on section 1? Seeing none, shall section 1 carry? All in favour of section 1? Opposed? That carries.
Section 2: any discussion? Seeing none, all in favour of section 2? Opposed? Section 2 carries.
Section 3, any discussion on section 3? I understand there are amendments.
Mr Harnick: I move that subsection 4.1(1) of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by striking out "the Liquor Licence Act" in the fifth line.
What this does is respond to the concerns of the Ontario Restaurant Association. Quite simply, the restaurant association said, why should someone licensed under the LCBO be investigated by both that body and another body which is really duplicating what the first body is doing? You can take a look at the brief they provided, and that was their main concern. Their main concern was the duplication: this expansion of LCBO power and overlap with existing LLBO power. All I'm doing is making an amendment so we don't have each body duplicating the services of investigation of the other body. It's a perfectly reasonable amendment, and I think every member should support it. That's the recommendation of the Ontario Restaurant Association, and I know Mr Bisson, who's looking puzzled, has read their brief as well as the Lakeport Brewing brief --
Mr Bisson: I'm puzzled with you, not the brief.
Mr Harnick: Lots of people are puzzled with me, but what we're dealing with here is the Ontario Restaurant Association. They have to face the wrath of both the LLBO and the LCBO in terms of investigations, and they say, "Look, just have one body investigating us, not both."
Mr McClelland: If I might add to that, I think the amendment put forward by Mr Harnick on behalf of his party makes sense for other reasons as well. I've heard from time to time that not only within one scheme are there inconsistencies, to be very candid, it's a function of human nature -- if I could be expansive here, Mr Chairman, if you and I were charged with like responsibilities and given guidelines, our responsibility under legislation as an inspector may be to ensure compliance, but there is always an interpretive element. Regardless of how specific one attempts to be, both in setting out guidelines and setting out the responsibilities of the inspector pursuant to the act and regulations, if you look at experience and case history, after you do all of that, looking at all the tools you have, there is still a tremendous amount of subjective analysis and a subjective element to rulings that are made.
To the degree that that creates uncertainty, I think we have a responsibility to eliminate that where possible. I don't think it should be necessary to say, but I suppose we should put on the record and indicate that one of the frustrations all businesses have -- and it does not fall at the feet of the current government; it's of all governments -- is that there is this concept that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing and things change from time to time and there's no certainty. One of the things that businesses want is certainty and a sense of predictability.
God knows, there are enough pressures the restaurant and hospitality industry are under right now. If we can make their life a little bit easier, help them deal with the paperwork and the compliance and say to them, "Look, we understand your concern about paperwork" -- a lot of businesses say they spend an inordinate amount of time just complying with government regs.
I don't want to get off on a tangent, but I just use some experiences that businesses have where they have two different ministries and they have to do essentially the same compliance. They hire consultants to respond, to fill out forms and take the same data and translate it and present it in a different format to meet ministry requirements. I think what we're doing here is multiplying that burden. We're saying, "We're going to give you uncertainty upon uncertainty," in terms of not only the subjective element of personnel who come in and have different interpretation but also a different process and a different body to do the investigation and compliance requirements.
There is a legitimate role for government to monitor and to ensure the compliance, and most responsible operators want that so they're playing on a level playing field. But at the same time, surely each one of us sitting around this table has heard from people in our own constituencies and interest groups that one of the things people want in business is the elimination of uncertainty, to give them a sense of predictability, to let them know what the rules are and to stick to them. I think that we move, albeit a small measure, towards that end if we accept the motion, the amendment, put forward by my colleague. I would hope we'd give that careful consideration.
I'd be interested in hearing from either the parliamentary assistant or legislative counsel -- legislative counsel particularly from a technical point of view -- if there is any particular reason that would not be workable. From a policy point of view, which is appropriate for the parliamentary assistant, I guess, why not? Why can't we do this? If there's a good reason, I'd like to hear it.
1630
Mr Bisson: You've seen the question I would ask, and we can deal with it at the same time. Is that okay?
The Chair: All right. Go ahead.
Mr Bisson: I question the amendment brought forward just on this basis: We have the Liquor Licence Act as the act that gives permission to a restaurateur or a hotel to sell beer, wine, spirits etc. Am I correct? If you were to take the Liquor Licence Act out of subsection 4(1), wouldn't that also mean you would not be able to withdraw or pull a licence in the event there's a contravention? Isn't that what this would lead to?
Mr Duignan: Not in this particular case. The liquor licensing board would still have the authority to do that. But some of the issues raised by the critic for the Liberal Party will be dealt with by a memorandum of understanding, where you won't have two sets of inspectors going into one premise; there will be just one set of inspectors.
The other important aspect of this is that if we strike these words from this particular act, the liquor control board would not have the authority to go into a premises that manufactured alcohol such as beer or spirits etc, and therefore would not be able to follow the flow of beer and would not be able to follow its obligations under the GATT agreement.
Mr Bisson: If we were to take subsection 4(1) as amended on the part of the Conservatives and put that in place, wouldn't that take away the power of the people, through this act, to be able to go out and enforce the act with distillers etc?
Mr Duignan: That is correct.
Mr Bisson: In short.
Mr Duignan: In short.
Mr Bisson: So you would have an act with no teeth.
Mr Duignan: That's right.
Mr Bisson: Okay. I thought that's what he was up to.
Mr Harnick: It seems to me rather strange for a government to legislate to accomplish a particular goal and then take it back by a memorandum of understanding which may or may not get completed as between one board or one tribunal and another.
I just want to read, for the purpose of those who weren't able to be here the other day, what the Ontario Restaurant Association is concerned about.
"The ORA is concerned both about the application of the search-and-seizure requirements, but, more importantly, the transformation of the LCBO from a retailer of beverage alcohol in Ontario to that of a body empowered with enforcement and inspection capacities. The Ontario Restaurant Association is concerned that granting these powers to the LCBO is a major and fundamental departure from current and historical practices."
But what seems to me of even more significance is this comment that the restaurant association makes:
"The Ontario Restaurant Association is concerned that what will be created by departing from the traditional role of the LCBO of retailer is a double regulatory burden on licensed establishments. The potential exists that a licensee will face an inspector from the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario coming in to inspect their facility and then, a day or two later, seeing an inspector from the liquor control board coming in and doing the identical type of inspection or search and seizure. The Ontario Restaurant Association sees this as simply duplicating existing regulatory services, which in turn will use up scarce resources and place an additional administrative burden on the small business operators which comprise the licensee community. As well, Bill 113 will eliminate the clear distinction, which is important, between the liquor control board and the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario."
It seems to me that all of those reasons are very basic to the difficulties all governments are having now -- trying to eliminate duplication of services, trying to make each of the roles of government more responsive to citizens -- and here you have a government in Bill 113 creating a situation of duplication and then saying, "Well, we'll take it away with a memorandum of understanding," which may or may not be signed.
That's the basis of my request for this amendment, which I hope you'll support.
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I have listened to Mr Harnick, and I was here for the presentation by the restaurant association. I'm struck by the fact that there's been, for one thing, a very strong commitment on the part of the ministry to confirm with the restaurant association that there will be no duplication.
If I recall, and this is really a question more to the parliamentary assistant and the ministry staff, I do not believe there are many hundreds of employees we were talking about. I believe in one instance -- I've forgotten under which act you're talking about -- there were about six employees and I think under the other you could probably give the rest of this committee a better idea of how many people are employed in those capacities.
You're not going to have that kind of duplication. There's just not enough staff to do this in the way that's being described. If Mr Duignan could give me clarification of what's involved here, I think it very much answers the point Mr Harnick is trying to make.
Mr Duignan: First of all, we're dealing with six inspectors at the liquor control board. I'm not sure of the exact number of inspectors who are employed by the liquor licence board, but we'll endeavour to get that information for you.
Ms Haeck: But you're not talking about many thousands of employees who are bumping into each other on the street whose sole purpose in life is trying to duplicate the services for various restaurants and licensed establishments across the province.
Mr Duignan: It's very clear that we will have a memorandum of understanding, and we're quite willing to consult with the Ontario Restaurant Association and other stakeholders regarding the wording of that particular memo as well, so there is not going to be any duplication and there will be a clear distinction.
Mr McClelland: I don't know the odd number and it's probably not helpful just to speculate. I know there are a significantly larger number under the LLBO, which just makes sense, obviously, inasmuch as there are literally thousands of licensed establishments in Ontario. It'll be interesting to hear those exact numbers.
Regardless of the numbers, I think that what we fail to understand is that, notwithstanding the best intentions, and again I want to remove a partisan element from this, there's a sense in the business community that government just doesn't understand and doesn't care. I think we can send a collective message to people who in many cases are not only fighting hard but struggling to get by that, "Yes, we want to listen to you and we want to begin to hear what you're saying, not to pay lipservice to you coming before this committee and expressing a concern but to say, `Here's a tangible, practical way of demonstrating that we understand that you're tired of government interference, duplication and inefficiencies.'"
It is not only the fact that we are creating potentially a two-tiered system. I accept what Ms Haeck says, that the government has the best intentions of not allowing the system to grow and multiply and become a burden. I am sure we could go back, with not a great deal of effort, and look at like conversations on the record of previous governments that set up agencies and commissions and monitoring boards and all manner of processes by which governments seek to get their fingers into the mix. They are countless. I can think of a couple right offhand.
If you look at a small developer in the parliamentary assistant's jurisdiction who wanted to do a small development, he would have to contend with the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and countless other probably regulatory requirements. There are 30-something agencies, boards that you have to deal with in the greater Toronto horseshoe, the area that Mr Duignan and myself represent: 30-plus agencies.
1640
What does this government say? This government makes a lot of fanfare, appropriately so, and says: "We want to go out and we want to consolidate. We want to streamline. We want to make ourselves more efficient and more effective." The Treasurer says: "We want to send a message on May 5 that we are pro-business. Small business is important." Three days prior to that, we're sitting in a committee saying: "That's what we want to do, but by the way, what we're doing is we're giving you something a little bit different this time. We say we want to make life easier, but we're going to do something that's just a little bit different."
We have an opportunity. It's not a big deal right now, but it's representative of an attitude of government that says, "We'll not only get you once, we'll get you twice, and just to be doubly sure, we might even throw in another layering of administrative interference in the operation of your business."
If the government has a legitimate role, and I submit in this case it does, to monitor the conduct and the compliance of a licensed establishment, so be it. Let's do it simply, cleanly and with efficiency, and remove to the extent possible the subjective uncertainties that will, without doubt, be generated by duplication of service and duplication of personnel.
It's not, I suppose, going to change the course of history, but I suggest to you that by giving some consideration to the amendment put forward by my colleague, it's going to send a message and the message will be: "We heard you. We appreciate your coming here, and we've taken into consideration your amendment or your suggestion from the restaurateurs. We're going to act on it." The other message will be: "Not only are we saying that we're concerned about our interference in business; we're actually doing something about it. We're not just going to talk about what we're going to do. We're actually going to do it."
I think herein lies an opportunity for us to do something not only worthwhile, but that makes abundant common sense, and I ask again if I could have an answer from the parliamentary assistant, is there a policy reason why this would not be viable? and perhaps from counsel, is there a technical or administrative reason why this is a necessity?
I wonder if they would be good enough to provide us with that answer.
Mr Duignan: Again, I can get legal counsel to comment on this; it's the same answer as he gave before. If you remove this particular wording from the act, we would not be able to go into the brewer for example to inspect the manufacture of beer or alcohol etc., and would negate our responsibilities under GATT.
I'd like to remind you that basically the restaurant association agreed with the ministry statement when they were here last week, somebody saying that the possibility of duplication of inspections has little or no chance of happening.
But I also want to point out from this particular organization that whereas they didn't want any LCBO inspectors going into their premises, they were quite willing to have the LCBO inspectors go into the you-brew premises. They didn't want it for themselves, but were willing for it to happen to the you-brew premises.
Mr Harnick: That's because they already have their own inspectors. It seems to me that about three and a half years ago, we were in this justice committee debating the support and custody orders enforcement bill. At that time, I moved an amendment and I said on my amendment: "Why are you bringing into the system a large group of people who are already complying? They don't need to be in the system and if you leave them out, you'll be able to focus the resources available against those who should be in the system, put them in the system and deal with them." In fact, we saw the figures that came out last week in question period which indicated that there were 50,000 people in the system, 75,000 people outside the system and the bulk of those paying are the people who were paying to start with.
You're just doing the same thing here. You're creating a greater bureaucracy to do what you've already got in place. I'm saying, don't duplicate. You don't have to.
The comment was made about you-brews. I point out to the parliamentary assistant that the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario is there already inspecting licensed establishments. The LCBO would be then available to not waste time inspecting where there are already inspectors doing the job, but it in fact would be able to go to the you-brews, to the manufacturers or to places that the LLBO doesn't inspect. But don't take the LCBO inspectors and tell them to go to the same places that are already being regulated. That's all you're doing and it doesn't make sense. So that's the reason for the amendment and I move the question be put.
Mr McClelland: Mr Chairman, could we get this recorded, please?
The Chair: Sure. All in favour of Mr Harnick's motion to amend subsection 4.1(1)?
Ayes
Harnick, McClelland.
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Akande, Bisson, Duignan, Haeck.
The Chair: That motion is defeated. Mr Harnick, on the next section.
Mr Harnick: The next sections that I proposed amendments for, which are 4.2(2), 4.2(3)(a), 4.2(3)(b), 4.3(2), 4.5(2) and 4.5(3) -- and I think 4.2(2), if I didn't say that; I think I did -- are all the same; 4.2(1), as well. They're all effectively the same motion that we just argued and I suppose there's no point arguing those, so I'll withdraw them, if that's the way the government wants to treat these sections. The only one left is 4.5(3).
Mr Duignan: I was just going to say 4.5 --
Mr Harnick: Subsection 4.5(3) is different.
Mr Duignan: We're prepared to accept that amendment.
Mr Harnick: You're prepared to accept 4.5(3)?
Mr Duignan: Yes.
Mr Harnick: Okay.
The Chair: So Mr Harnick is withdrawing all those motions that are very similar to the one we have just dealt with. He's withdrawing that; that's right.
So we'll move on to the other subsection that is different, and that is subsection 4.5(3).
Mr Harnick: I move that subsection 4.5(3) of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by striking out "the answer shall be given on oath, upon affirmation or" in the fourth line.
Mr Duignan: We're prepared to accept that amendment.
The Chair: Fine. All right. All in favour of Mr Harnick's motion? Opposed? This motion carries.
Shall section 3, as amended, carry? That carries.
Section 4, any debate? Seeing none, shall section 4 carry? Carried.
Section 5, discussion? All in favour of section 5? Opposed? That carries.
Section 6, all in favour? That carries.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? It carries.
Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Agreed.
Okay. Ordered that the Chair report Bill 113, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act, as amended, to the House? Agreed.
Mr McClelland: Mr Chairman, a small housekeeping point: I don't want to be contentious here. I just wonder, out of courtesy, if you could advise Lakeport Brewing Corp of the fact that its submission arrived. I just think out of courtesy, inasmuch as it was tabled, that they should be advised in writing in terms of the sequence of events and the timing that effectively -- and I don't say this in a pejorative or derogatory sense -- shut them out of the particular debate, taking into consideration the points Mr Bisson made, just out of courtesy to let them know what happened.
The Chair: Just to be fair -- because you said they were shut out -- they were advised of this.
Mr McClelland: That's why I tried to qualify. I recognized as I spoke that that was a poor choice of words, because that has sort of a negative connotation. I don't mean it in that context. That's why I was quick to try to correct that. I said, recognizing what Mr Bisson said and others, if we could advise them in an appropriate fashion that we received it after the time frame. I think just out of courtesy, I'd appreciate that.
The Chair: We will do that. We are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1652.