Legislative Assembly of Ontario

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1996

CONTENTS

Wednesday 3 April 1996

City of Ottawa Act, 1996, Bill Pr42, Mr Guzzo

Garry J. Guzzo, MPP

Jerald Bellomo, director of corporate law and solicitor, city of Ottawa

James Sevigny, commissioner of planning, economic development and housing, city of Ottawa

Stéphane Émard-Chabot, councillor, city of Ottawa

Pierre Labelle, owner and manager, Château Lafayette

Michel Roy, president, Business Action for Markets

George Stairs, Business Action for Markets

Jay Acton, Business Action for Markets

Bob Chorney, executive director, Farmers' Markets Ontario

Gerard Rochon, president, By Ward Market Growers' Alliance

Philip Waserman, president, By Ward Market Business Improvement Area

Joan Wong, councillor, city of Ottawa

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Chair / Président: Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Smith, Bruce (Middlesex PC)

*Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC)

*Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

*Boushy, Dave (Sarnia PC)

*Hastings, John (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)

*O'Toole, John R. (Durham East / -Est PC)

*Pettit, Trevor (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Pouliot, Gilles (Lake Nipigon / Lac-Nipigon ND)

*Pupatello, Sandra (Windsor-Sandwich L)

*Rollins, E. J. Douglas (Quinte PC)

Ruprecht, Tony (Parkdale L)

Sergio, Mario (Yorkview L)

*Shea, Derwyn (High Park-Swansea PC); parliamentary assistant

to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

*Sheehan, Frank (Lincoln PC)

Smith, Bruce (Middlesex PC)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Boyd, Marion (London Centre / -Centre ND) for Mr Pouliot

Lalonde, Jean-Marc (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L) for Mr Sergio

Morin, Gilles E. (Carleton East / -Est L) for Mr Ruprecht

Parker, John L. (York East / -Est PC) for Mr Smith

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Hon Norman W. Sterling, Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations

Kelly Yerxa, solicitor, legal branch, deputy minister's office, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Clerk / Greffière: Lisa Freedman

Staff / Personnel:

Laura Hopkins, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1005 in room 151.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1996

Consideration of Bill Pr42, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Good morning. I wish to welcome everyone and call to order this meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills for today, Wednesday, April 3, 1996. I wish to call the first and only bill today, Bill Pr42, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa. I see that the sponsor and the applicants are present. I would ask the sponsor of this bill, Mr Guzzo, MPP, to briefly introduce himself and say a few words, and I would ask the applicants if they could also introduce themselves when they make their opening remarks.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): First of all, I might introduce the deputy mayor of the city of Ottawa, Councillor Joan Wong. Also here are Councillor Stéphane Émard-Chabot from the city of Ottawa; Mr James Sevigny, the commissioner of planning and economic development for the city; and Mr Jerald Bellomo, the city solicitor.

By way of introduction, I spelled out in a letter which was forwarded to each member of the committee in March that this issue, as I see it, is an issue as to who should govern the city of Ottawa's two markets, one that has operated in the city for 160 years on city land and another that has operated for in excess of 70 or 75 years. I think my submission, in putting forward the bill, is that it is a municipal matter, it's a matter that belongs in the hands of the municipality.

Unfortunately, a court decision by Mr Justice Cosgrove has placed it here before you today. I should draw to your attention that in the intervening period, in my opinion, Bills 26 and 20 have altered tremendously the position taken by Mr Justice Cosgrove. But if Mr Justice Cosgrove is correct and that is the law of Ontario today, then it applies not to just to the market in Ottawa; it applies to every similar market across Ontario and it may apply to situations such as trade fairs etc that other municipalities hold from time to time, including things like Christmas craft sales where individual cities are involved.

You've obviously heard the arguments that go beyond the municipal issue, and if you are dealing with those today, I have to be honest and tell you that as a member of the council that drafted that first market bylaw, there are definitely two sides to the story. I tell you that a vice-president of my riding association is here today, a businessman on the market, opposing this particular bylaw. There are definitely two sides to the story, two sides to the issue, and over the years from time to time, as the bylaw has been amended with different councils, there have been times when I have agreed with it and times when I haven't. As a ratepayer in the city of Ottawa, that's of some significance to me. On the other hand, it is a matter for the city and it is a matter for the democratically elected council of the city, a council that voted 9 to 2 to come here and ask for your help, for the powers to go about its business.

It's a very, very significant matter for the city. This is the first or second most important tourist attraction in the city of Ottawa for six months. It is a major economic generator. It spins tremendous dollars throughout the community and it is a source of livelihood for a number of the businessmen and a number of people. I can recall, when the first bylaw was drafted, the issue of people owning fruit stores and businesses on the market paying taxes. In those days, Zunders Fruitland was paying $126,000 a year in taxes to the city of Ottawa, business taxes and realty taxes; and Slipacoff Meats $114,000. These people were being confronted with competition by people who rented a stall, in those days, for $8 or $12 a day. It was for that reason that the council of the day took some action. Over the years, as I say, the bylaw has been amended.

The mayor has given an undertaking, as have the councillors, that provided they are given the legislation today, they will immediately move to have a committee hear from the stakeholders' different points and to prepare themselves to draft a bylaw for 1996. But it is drawing to the point where we're hoping that market will open some time in May, and time is of the essence.

For the willingness to deal with this issue and the timely manner in which this committee has agreed, we thank you. I would like at this point to turn it over to Mr Bellomo and ask him to take it from here.

Mr Jerald Bellomo: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, Mr Guzzo has introduced our delegation. The only other point I would add is that what is before you today is really the survival of two markets. The Parkdale Market is represented on council by Councillor Joan Wong. The By Ward Market is represented by Councillor Stéphane Émard-Chabot.

The purpose of the bill is very simple. It's to give the council of the city of Ottawa the required enabling legislation to permit it to regulate the By Ward and Parkdale markets to ensure that they remain faithful to their heritage as producer-based farmers' markets. Why is the bill before you? This was indicated briefly by Mr Guzzo. It's here because of a decision of Mr Justice Cosgrove, who quashed Ottawa's prior markets bylaw, bylaw 55-95, on the very narrow basis that the city of Ottawa simply did not have the enabling legislation to do what it wanted to do. However, Mr Justice Cosgrove was, I would suggest, quite complimentary of the city's intent.

He said bylaw 55-95 was the culmination of extensive, exhaustive study by the city to come up with a way of supporting, enhancing and regulating the farmers' markets, of supporting and encouraging local farmer products vending in these markets. In ruling that the bylaw exceeded the city's statutory power, however, the judge recognized that the legal problem could be corrected by provincial intervention when he said that presumably the government of the province of Ontario has a continuing role to play.

That's why we're here before you today. We're asking for you to give us the power to do what council wishes to do. The application before you is in keeping with a fundamental principle that has been enunciated quite clearly by this government. The intent is to give municipalities the power they need to control and regulate local issues. The two markets are clearly local issues. The future of the markets is a matter for local decision-making and this bill is required to enable our council to make those local decisions.

Bylaw 55-95, the previous bylaw, and this request for special legislation clearly have the support of the substantial majority of our council. There have been several votes on these issues, and consistently the vote has been 9 to 2 with the mayor among the majority. This bill was filed in November. Since that date, we have continued the process of consultation with business groups, community groups and provincial staff, and these consultations have resulted in, among other things, two amendments that are going to be put forward by Mr Rollins before the committee today.

One is really a simple, technical amendment to clarify that the bill only applies to the By Ward and Parkdale markets. This amendment addresses a specific concern raised by the board of trade in Ottawa and we are consenting to this amendment.

The second amendment clarifies that the legislation is not intended to discriminate against farmers outside the immediate Ottawa area. The second amendment takes out the phrase "points of origin." That concern was raised, among other people, by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Again, we are consenting to the deletion of that particular phrase.

I've been asked to be brief and I will be brief. We are here to ask your support in our efforts to preserve an Ottawa tradition and a cornerstone of the economy of the Ottawa Valley farming community. Make no doubt about it, this is an important issue for the city of Ottawa. We need your support.

I would now ask our commissioner of planning and economic development, Mr James Sevigny, to add a few words.

Mr James Sevigny: As you've just heard, I'm the commissioner of planning and economic development for the city of Ottawa. I'd like to put my economic development hat on at this time and ask this committee to consider our request for special legislation in the context of Ottawa's local economy. At this point in time, the city of Ottawa and the surrounding district are in the process of absorbing the effects of the largest single job layoff in the history of Canada. I'm talking, of course, about the federal downsizing, where in one fell swoop our local economy lost 15,000 jobs. You can imagine the effect of that on that economy. Where we normally have a healthy economy and healthy statistics, the unemployment rate has now risen significantly above the national average, the vacancy in downtown offices is at an alarmingly high rate and retail sales in our local economy have plummeted.

What this means is that we must maximize our opportunities in other areas in order to balance out our economy and keep it healthy. One of those strengths is indeed the By Ward Market, which is a major engine of growth and economic activity for our local economy. The retail sales in the immediate By Ward Market area are approximately $325 million annually; $45 million of that amount results directly from farmers' market activities. You've already heard that the By Ward Market is one of three top tourist attractions for the Ottawa area. On an average weekend, there are 100,000 visitors to the By Ward Market area.

There are many successful businesses in the By Ward Market. Listed among them are restaurants, entertainment, retail trade, other tourist attractions and of course the farmers' market itself. But our studies have shown that the successes that have been realized in all of these other industries are directly due to the farmers' market, that it is the essential ingredient in everything that is happening in the By Ward Market. It's our strength, it's our market niche, it's our competitive edge. That's why we feel so strongly about what we're coming forward with today.

You can imagine our concern from 1975, when we had 107 growers on the market, to 1985, when that number dropped to 94, and to 1995, when we saw a further erosion to 59. You can imagine what our concern was over this prospect, as well as over losing many of our food retailers, some of whom had been century-old institutions in the By Ward Market. What we were seeing was that the authenticity and the viability of our farmers' market were slipping away, and so was our customer base.

What this prompted city council to do two years ago was to put a strategic plan, a business plan in place that would address the long-term viability of the market. What I have to suggest to you is that the legislation that is before you this morning is one of several tools intended to help us move towards the long-term viability of the By Ward Market. It's nothing more and it's nothing less. I would ask you to consider this legislation in that context.

It's my pleasure now to introduce our final speaker with the city of Ottawa delegation, Councillor Émard-Chabot.

Mr Stéphane Émard-Chabot: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for hearing us so quickly in your new agenda for this session.

You've heard from Mr Bellomo the legal situation, where we're at right now because of the interpretation by Justice Cosgrove of the Municipal Act. I think one point is important to stress. People keep asking: "Why is the city in this business? Why are we doing this?" About 100 municipalities in Ontario run farmers' markets, and the reason is quite simple. For the better part of this century, the Municipal Act has made it a municipal responsibility. It is up to cities and townships to run markets with the rules that they see fit for their area.

1020

No two are identical. Some are purely producer-based, where the only people who can sell things are the people who grow them. Others, like By Ward and Parkdale, have a great mix. We have people in By Ward and Parkdale who are 100% producers, who only sell their own crops, we have people who supplement a bit, people who supplement more and people who are pure dealers. It's the coexistence of all these different types of businesses that really makes By Ward successful for its customers and the city and the 350 businesses in that area that depend on the volume brought to the area by the market.

It is a municipal responsibility and always has been. What we have been doing at the city for 160 years by managing this, by putting rules in place to balance the different interests -- and we also have craftspeople. The markets are very complex things, very dynamic organisms that have to be managed. What we have been doing for 160 years is putting rules in place to balance these interests.

We find ourselves right now with a court decision with a very narrow interpretation of the act, saying, "What you've been doing for the last century, you can't do." Even if we wanted to go back to the bylaw before the one that started all this, we don't have those powers. That's quite simple. What we have right now is an interim bylaw that allows for the sale of all the things found in the market, that is, arts and crafts, refreshments, produce, Christmas trees, Christmas decorations -- all those are usually handmade -- sod, plants, flowers, you name it.

In the past, those things have been more or less segregated into areas where you have different types of activities, but what has happened now, because we cannot create different categories, is that anybody can sell anything listed in the bylaw. We could have, foreseeably, one person selling refreshments -- that includes Cokes and chips -- next to crafts from South America, next to sod. That is certainly not the vision for anybody. That's basically what we're left with under the interim bylaw, that we cannot create different categories nor assign geographic locations, which is part of the problem.

We're here to ask for the powers we thought we had, that I'm sure other municipalities think they have. It's really in line with the efforts of the government over the last few months, which is giving municipalities more responsibilities and more accountability to their local populations.

I'll stop here for now. I know there'll be a lot of questions, and we've been told that questions will come after. This is basically where we are. There have been a lot of things said, that we want to kill some business, that we want to throw some people out of the market. We would have to be very foolish to take something that generates $325 million in sales annually and try to displace it or kill it or change its character radically. The strategic plan we were going ahead with was developed over many years of consultation, and we're not going to create a Disneyland. Farmers' markets are alive and well all over Ontario, and for a large city to have something like this is an asset. It's the longest-surviving market, without interruption, in North America.

We have started a consultation process on a new bylaw, of course on the assumption that we will get the powers we need. If we don't get them, we can't do any more than what we've already done, so the whole point will be moot. I have committed to the people who were not happy with the old bylaw that the new bylaw will not be the infamous 55 of 95 with a fresh coat of paint. We are starting with a clean slate. We will not go through the aggravation and the antagonism of last summer. We have no intention of making people feel ill at ease. We from the city have a huge task in regaining the confidence of the people who are angry with us, and that is our work and that is what I am committed to doing. You will hear their grievances. As I said, there are points of contention, but there are also about a dozen points we all agreed on but that we cannot bring back. I think that's something that has to be considered very strongly by this committee.

I will end here and wait for questions. After you've heard from the other delegations, I will happily come back.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Émard-Chabot, and thank you to the applicants for those comments. We will now ask the parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs, Mr Shea, for any comments from the government.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Obviously, what is before us is that the city of Ottawa is seeking enabling legislation, which it thought it had until the 1995 bylaw was put to the test in the courts. Mr Justice Cosgrove indicated that in his opinion, the legislation did not provide the grounds for the city to do what it thought it had the power to do. They're back before us now, asking for that legislation to be improved so it's very clear. As Mr Guzzo put it very clearly, who has the right to control and to regulate local matters? And that's very much in keeping with the spirit and the intent and the legislation of Bill 26 and Bill 20.

You've had comments from the deputants about the problem with the last piece of legislation. Clearly it is contentious, and there were several concerns the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing expressed. It would appear the applicant has brought forward amendments which address the concerns that either municipal affairs or the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism had.

I'd like to very briefly, though, indicate the concerns. From the Ministry of Municipal Affairs there is no objection, from the local government organization. The Minister of Agriculture did point out very clearly that there have been some concerns with the management of the market over the last several years, and the city has been attempting to deal with that in an effective fashion. He believes that the passing of this bill, at least in so fa ras he understands Pr42 at this point, will enable the city of Ottawa to put bylaws in place to deal with those problems.

There was another serious concern expressed by a number of members of the House and by citizens, that this had a serious impact in terms of trade restriction, certainly under the agreement on internal trade. I have a response from MEDTT which reads in part: "In particular, section 3(1)(e), which would enable the city of Ottawa to pass a bylaw to prescribe the types of agrifood products sold based on their point of origin, runs counter to the non-discrimination provisions of the AIT. The removal of the phrase `point of origin' could alleviate the discriminatory aspect of the bill." That is an amendment that I have heard is going to be put before us and certainly has been recommended by the applicant.

With those comments, any objections the government may have seen to this bill have now been addressed, and there are no further objections.

The Chair: Before we hear comments from interested parties, all three political parties have requested some opening remarks. I wish to begin with Mr Morin.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): We are discussing today two distinct yet closely related items. The first concerns the farmers, their produce and the marketplace as their chosen place of commerce. The second item is the market itself, its place and function in Ottawa. Should it be considered a quaint relic of the "olden days" to be preserved in a static form, or can it remain a vital component of the urban landscape and lifestyle?

I believe the latter is possible, and it is not a question of nostalgia. It has to do with supporting members of our community who have chosen agriculture as their livelihood, and with providing the residents of any community with quality, choice and diversity. Do we really want small farmers to disappear, leaving consumers at the mercy of mega-food producers who alone could determine what will be sold, at what price and in which condition? Considerations such as these should not be ignored. Decisions made today will not be without impact tomorrow.

The first item concerns the farmers, or vendors, if you will. The market obviously represents a significant source of revenue for them, or else they would not choose it as a place of commerce. The By Ward Market's 160 years of existence testify to its success, and to the fact that despite other alternatives, many persons still prefer to buy fruit and vegetables at an outdoor market.

Markets, both indoors and outdoors, are successful because people continue to appreciate not just the fresh food but the spirit and feeling of the market, with its many sights and odours. In this sense, a market can definitely compete with supermarkets and specialty shops.

1030

Yes, it is important to stress that much of the produce sold is local. This is a strong selling point. However, I see no reason local produce should not be supplemented by produce not readily available in eastern Ontario. It appears unreasonable to me to oblige farmers to sell only what they can grow themselves. A concerted effort should be made to offer consumers produce which is local, thus fresher, as much as possible, but without sacrificing the diversity and choice which are also very attractive to consumers. If selection is reduced, it will simply not be worthwhile for area residents to drive down or even walk over.

The concerns expressed by the farmers are thus very real. Farming is a difficult business in the best of times. Why make it harder? I honestly don't understand the mayor of Ottawa's argument that without special legislation there will be chaos. I agree there is need for some regulation, but it should be carefully considered. For example, some foods used to be available at the By Ward Market but are no longer considered suitable for sale for hygienic reasons. These regulatory changes have had a significant impact on the farmers' livelihood. One day you're selling head cheese, the next day you're not.

This is not to dismiss the usefulness of regulations or standards. Nevertheless, excessive ill-considered or misguided regulations can only impede growth. In the current economic context we should be promoting growth and job creation as much as possible rather than taking measures which kill opportunity and jobs.

The second item at stake in these discussions is the market itself. I said earlier that markets can represent a dynamic force in our community. The fact that the By Ward Market is the third-largest tourist attraction in the capital area speaks for itself. Will the proposed changes actually improve upon this? People's tastes are probably the most difficult to determine. One can't legislate everything; however, one can undo a good thing with inappropriate policies.

This should be a main consideration when discussing the future of the market. It seems to me that the whole point of the exercise is to bring people into the market area, to give people a reason to go to the market. Not only is that good for the vendors but also for surrounding businesses. At this time it is unwise, in my view, to proceed with this legislation. The city of Ottawa has simply not demonstrated the capacity to deal with the issues in a manner which respects the farmers' concerns and the long-term interests of the By Ward and Parkdale markets. For this reason, I would request that this committee either delay consideration of the bill until further amendments can be brought or dismiss the bill, thus obliging the city of Ottawa to review its current policies in this respect.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): First, I would like to thank the people who took the time to come today to hear what happens before this committee. Obviously, there is a lot of concern. I guess it's fair to say there is probably an attempt on both sides to make the right thing happen, but there seems to be a difference of opinion about how that happens.

Let me try to get to the point here. What I see happening is that the municipality finds itself in a situation where the justice struck down your bylaw and you've come before us asking us to give you the power to pass a bylaw within your own municipality to regulate the business of the market.

On principle, we agree that the municipality needs that ability. Obviously, as the province, I would not want to be the one to tell you how you do your business regulating that particular farmers' market. On the other hand, I am quite concerned about some of the communications I've received from farmers in the area who really worry about what this bylaw is going to do to them.

I'd be really interested in hearing from both sides a little later your views of what this bylaw would mean in terms of individuals presently in the market doing business. Simply put, will this mean the small farmer or farming community that presently has access to the market may in the future be shoved aside to make room for the larger agricultural businesses that are corporate entities and not family farms and family businesses? If that's the intent of Ottawa, there's no way I can support this.

The only other thing I find a little bit bizarre is that -- maybe it's because Bill 26 wasn't written at the time you came forward with this bylaw -- the way I see it we can pass or reject this bill today and in the end you, as a municipality, can do what you want to do under Bill 26.

I wonder why we're at this point, because under the licensing provisions of Bill 26 and the general licensing powers, it's fairly explicit under section 257.2 that the municipality has the power to do what it is you're setting out to do under this particular bill. So good, bad or indifferent, I think that's the reality.

If you take a look at what the bill says, the bill says "the council of a local municipality may pass bylaws for licensing, regulating and governing any business carried out within the municipality,

"(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the power to license, regulate and govern a business under subsection (1) includes,

"(a) the power to prohibit the carrying on of or engaging in the business without a licence;

"(b) the power to grant or refuse to grant a licence;...

"(c) the power to define classes of businesses and to separately license, regulate and govern each class" etc.

It does pretty well what we said it was going to do with some of the concerns we raised when Bill 26 was being brought forward. There are two things I'd like to hear from both groups: What's going to happen to the individual farmers who are presently selling within the market should this bill pass, and I need some very clear information on that, and the second thing, if this thing is defeated, I take it the municipality will just pass a bylaw under Bill 26 and I'd like to have your comments on that. Short of that, we have some amendments we'd like to bring forward later that might deal adequately with some of the issues raised by the farmers.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'd like to thank members from my party who are members of the committee. As you know, I'm not a member of the committee but I have a right to speak on this matter.

Having been born and raised in the city of Ottawa, and having spent the first 22 or 23 years of my life within I guess 10 blocks of the Parkdale Market, I am very much aware of the nature of the market and the long history of it. I also am quite aware of the very significant economic impact that particularly the By Ward Market has on the overall economy of Ottawa-Carleton.

I represent an area which is to the south and west of the city of Ottawa, which includes perhaps the high-tech centre of Canada, the city of Kanata, but also within my riding I have many farmers. Mind you, not many of them would be utilizing the By Ward Market and the Parkdale Market, but some would from my area.

This issue, to me, is one about what we should be doing here at the provincial level and what city politicians should be doing at their level. I get angry from time to time when city politicians start discussing issues which are not within their purview. I read about it in the paper and I say, why are they wasting their time dealing with such-and-such a matter when they have no legislative powers in that area and, quite frankly, it's not their business? That's the business of the federal government or the provincial Legislature or whatever.

When I look at this issue and you look at the history of the By Ward Market and the Parkdale Market, our city politicians have been very successful in regulating that area for a period of over 100 years. The rules have changed over that period of time on a number of occasions, as Mr Guzzo indicated to the committee. They have been successful, in terms of what has happened in the past, with regard to developing the By Ward Market, in particular into a major tourist attraction. I think the city councillors of the past should be congratulated on the regulatory framework they put forward. But I believe good politicians not only can look to the past, but must look to the future and see what is happening to their assets.

1040

I believe that had I been on city council and voted on the particular bylaw, I might have been on the minority side on this particular matter, but I don't know whether I would have been on it because I don't know enough about the issue.

When politicians make decisions, they have to balance the various interests that are involved in bringing forward a regulation or a piece of legislation. There are the interests of the farmers. There are the interests of the tourist and economic potential of this particular aspect. They have to consider the property taxes businesses have to pay where they have full-time stores as opposed to having stalls at the market. I believe that's the job of city politicians, to balance those interests and come up with the right answers. So on the bottom line, I give this bill my unqualified support. I trust the politicians of the future to make the right decisions in reaching the proper balances with the marketplace, because they have done so well in the past.

The Chair: At this point I ask the applicants if you could vacate the witness table, and referring to our agenda, we have a number of interested parties who wish to speak. The first person on our agenda is Mr Labelle.

Mr Pierre Labelle: Good morning and thank you. My name is Pierre Labelle. I'm the part-owner and manager of the Château Lafayette hotel in Ottawa. The Château Lafayette is a small family tavern run by members of the family.

There are three major stakeholders here: There are the consumers, the farmers and the businesses on the By Ward Market. One thing that has been said about the By Ward Market is that it's the third-largest tourist attraction of the city, but one thing that has been left out is that the By Ward Market is the only farmers' market in Canada that operates on a seven-day-a-week basis for a period from April 15 to approximately November 15, 12 hours a day. It's very unique.

You'll hear from other people after I have spoken, like Mr Philip Waserman who's the chair of the BIA, the business improvement area for the By Ward Market. He will state that the businesses fully support the city of Ottawa's position on Bill Pr42. My associate George Stairs and I have gone to the businesses on the market, door to door, all storefront businesses, and canvassed them and asked them if they supported the city's position. They do not. We have a petition of over 200 businesses that have signed and said they do not support the city's position. Businesses do not support the city's position.

Also, you will hear from Gerry Rochon, who is a self-appointed president of the By Ward Market Growers' Alliance, who says they have an association. We have an association. The small family farmers who have joined us here today have an association called BAM. There are 121 of them whose livelihood here is at stake. They have stated and signed how many years they have been on the market and how many acres they farm within the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. They've also signed a petition stating that they oppose this legislation.

The biggest thing when we walk through the market and talk to our neighbours is that we have to wonder why we are such special consumers in Ottawa that we need a municipal government to legislate to us what we can buy, where we can buy, when we can buy, how we can buy and at what price. We took a petition of the consumers and the shoppers on the By Ward Market last year for a two-week period. This is the result of it. There are 30,000 consumers who shop on the By Ward Market who say, "No, we don't want this legislation."

The three major stakeholders have spoken: the businesses, the farmers and the people. We urge you to listen to them. The real people here, the farmers, have a lot at stake. If this legislation is passed today -- we want to kill it at the committee level so it doesn't go any further -- you're looking at the small family farmers from the Ottawa area out of work. That is not the agenda for this committee, to put people out of work.

The city of Ottawa does not need special legislation to govern the By Ward Market. We do not need municipal trade barriers so that product from Leamington, picked in Niagara, Durham, other parts of the province, cannot enter the market. Let the consumers decide, tell us, dictate to us what they need on the market, not politicians. We urge you to kill this bill today.

The Chair: Before we go to the next interested party, there are questions for Mr Labelle.

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Thank you, Mr Labelle. I'm just wondering, in your view, why do you think that -- how old is the market, 150 --

Mr Labelle: Approximately 160 years old.

Mr Pettit: Why do you think the city feels it needs to have these special powers to run this market after this length of time?

Mr Labelle: That question has been asked of me at least 100 times over the last two days here in Toronto and unfortunately, I do not have an answer for you.

Mr Pettit: Okay. Can you give me some idea of the numbers, the membership as far as the BAM and the BIA are concerned?

Mr Labelle: The BAM, which is the Business Action for Markets, has a membership of 121. We canvassed over 200 store front businesses on the market and the BIA, I believe, claims to have a membership of 350.

Mr Pettit: The BIA?

Mr Labelle: The By Ward business improvement area, which is basically the --

Mr Pettit: Is the entire BIA in favour of this bill?

Mr Labelle: No, they are not. Unanimously, they are opposed to it.

Mr Pettit: What was the public reaction to bylaw 55-95?

Mr Labelle: Thirty thousand people said, "We don't want it."

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I have one quick question, Mr Labelle. In this bill there are two areas that if they were removed, deleted or altered, you might be comfortable with it, and it deals with the issue of produce that is sold that is not grown by the farmer directly.

In all the submissions that were made to me, and I'm sure all the committee members, if those areas, if those clauses were changed or removed, it would still allow the city to have the kind of control that it wants and may eventually get through Bill 26 anyway, in terms of the layout, of the restrictions. It seemed to me that the biggest comment was the issue of farmers not being able to sell produce they didn't grow, and if that's the significant issue, that they can still bring it in because they need to have additional revenues when their own products are out of season etc, they've got to maintain a cash flow and it's just not viable for them to do otherwise. If we were to make those changes in the bylaws, would you feel comfortable with this bill?

Mr Labelle: No, we do not feel comfortable with this bill at all. We do not feel that the city needs or requires special legislation for a four-block area of a city. That is totally out of the question as far as we are concerned, and the business people within the market have said so. They do not support the city's application for Bill Pr42.

Mr Bisson: I will ask you the question I wanted an answer to in my previous comment, which is, if this bill passes, does this mean that small independent businesses will be jeopardy of larger agricultural businesses coming in and taking over the market?

Mr Labelle: That seems to be the intent of the city with this, to bring in the mega-farmers and do away with the small family farmers.

Mr Bisson: All right. I would follow up by saying, if we were to put forward an amendment that said, clearly, that can't happen, where would you be at then?

Mr Labelle: I still don't support the application for Bill Pr42. There is enough in the Municipal Act, as you have pointed out, that they can legislate to run this market effectively and efficiently. It has for 160 years without special powers.

1050

Mr Bisson: But here's my fear: Let's say Pr42 is defeated today. The municipality will have the power to do what it wants under Bill 26. Would you not be better served if we were today, under this bill, to put in some safeguards that ensured the viability of the local farmers and the local businesses that are relying on the market?

Mr Labelle: That's a hypothetical question at this point and it's very difficult for me to answer without looking at both points and really studying them. If I could have some time to look at it, then I would be in a position to answer more fairly.

Mr Bisson: I'll pass and I'll talk to you in a minute.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Mr Labelle, if you're opposed to the bylaw, if you're opposed to any of the amendments that either party could bring forward, then what would be your specific alternative in terms of common talking points that the councillor mentioned, that there are some common elements of agreement? What kind of an arrangement would your folks be amenable to if it could be worked out with the city?

The city I was a councillor in for many years does not have a bylaw, but it has a specific contract worked out with each of the specific craftspeople or vendors who come there every Saturday, and they must abide by those elements of that contract, including advertising. The types of products must be grown by or made by the folks who are exhibiting them. They must stay the hours etc. You can't just have no rules. So what kind of rules are you in favour of if you're not in favour of any kind of bylaw, special or otherwise?

Mr Labelle: The bylaws are in place right now for the city to act and govern its own market. This is what we are opposed to. We are not opposed to bylaws; we are opposed to a restrictive and discriminatory bylaw such as 55-95.

Mr Hastings: Mr Bisson has made a very good point with regard to Bill 26. Bill 26 gives the municipalities, under the new powers, considerable latitude in the types of bylaws they can introduce determining consumer behaviour, determining the types of arrangements they can have as to farmers' markets through the licensing powers contained in Bill 26. Mr Bisson is raising a concern that if this particular bill goes down the drain, you're going to end up having the city have wider powers under Bill 26 and it's going to be able to impose even more rigid criteria than this special legislation. I'm wondering if you're really acutely appreciative of that viewpoint, even though you may not have read Bill 26.

Mr Labelle: I have not read Bill 26, but as a businessperson and having been on the market for many generations, what concerns me the most is how a municipality can try to enforce a 40-page bylaw for a four-block area. This is why we are opposed to Bill Pr42. We have seen amendments, we have seen 40-page documents of bylaws that are totally unenforceable.

Mr Hastings: I know what you're opposed to. What are you in favour of? What specific things could you work with, and with the city of Ottawa, so that you end up making a vibrant market vital to all the folks involved? What are the common elements you can work towards?

Mr Labelle: Let the bylaws that are in place now govern the market.

Mr Hastings: That's a half-answer.

Mr Labelle: No, it's not really, because there are guidelines such as L-6, which was introduced in 1994 or amended in 1994, to safeguard from chip wagons taking over the market, to safeguard from Michelin tires being sold on the market. Those guidelines are in place.

Mr Hastings: I tried.

The Chair: I'd just ask for some advice from members of the committee. We now have 10 questions just for the first interested party. We have seven or eight interested parties to speak this morning. I would just ask for a word of advice, given the time constraints.

Mr Morin: If you don't mind, just give us a chance to ask him a few questions in line with what the others had.

The Chair: Oh, certainly. You have a word of advice?

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): I wanted a question.

The Chair: I have you down. I would suggest perhaps we could coordinate the questions a bit.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): The only suggestion I'd make is that perhaps we could go into a time limit for questions. That would make us rethink whether or not it's valuable.

The Chair: We normally don't have a time limit in this committee.

Mr Shea: Let's just keep at it.

The Chair: All right. Mr Lalonde or Mr Morin?

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): Having worked in the market for many years in the past at A.J. Freiman and seeing the achalandage that was going on there and seeing the farmers moving in very early in the morning, I wonder, if we were to support this new bill, how many of those farmers who are there -- some of them have been there for as long as 100 years, because we're going back four generations -- will be prohibited from continuing to sell in the market.

Mr Labelle: Under the present system, all of them, except for maybe two of them, would be prohibited from selling on the market.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Your concern about whether or not the representations of the business people in the area have been correct really troubles me, because you're saying that although we have letters of support from a number of groups which purport to represent the business people, that's not correct and that is overridden by the kinds of petitions and letters you have. That puts us in a troubling situation, because I know that some of the people who have purported to be representing those business people are going to be testifying. I wonder if you could just explain to us where this discrepancy comes in.

Mr Labelle: This is how George Stairs and I got involved in this matter, when a letter came across my desk which had been addressed to the Honourable Noble Villeneuve, Minister of Agriculture, emphatically stating that the BIA, the business improvement area, fully supported the position of the city on Bill Pr42. When I read that, it alarmed me. I had never been consulted; I had never received a phone call from anybody asking my opinion. This is when I, by myself, and George Stairs undertook to go to the different businesses, the storefront businesses, and ask them if they supported the city's position on Bill Pr42, and they did not.

Mr Morin: My question is somewhat in line with what Mr Hastings has been asking. You have perhaps a bit of difficulty in expressing what you really feel, and I'm trying to help you here. To do away with regulations, I mean, don't dream of that.

Mr Labelle: Not at all.

Mr Morin: You need regulations. However, it seems that there exists at the moment a confrontation between the farmers and the city. It seems to me that it has reached a point where you can no longer discuss. What if the city was to agree to take a breather, like you would agree to take a breather, un moment de relâche, to say, "Okay, let's sit down, let's settle our arguments so that we can create a bylaw which will be satisfactory to the city, which will be satisfactory to you and to all the business people"? That takes a little while, because if the regulation was to be passed immediately, you and all the farmers would be totally destroyed or disappointed. But if you were to look at it again -- because it seems to me that you can no longer communicate -- whatever is proposed, you'll object to it.

1100

Why not delay the matter for a few months, perhaps, if the city is willing to do that, because it has the power, as Mr Bisson has expressed, through Bill 26, and it may implement something which is even worse than what you have now. So to sit down with the city -- I'm sure all politicians, in my opinion, do like to sit down and come to a conclusion which is agreeable to everyone, and we see this every day. Then it's a question of saying maybe the city isn't there yet to respond, but back off a bit, cool your tempers, come back and come out with something which is agreeable to everyone. Perhaps that is a solution. What do you say to that?

Mr Labelle: It's difficult for me to speak for the farmers. You'll be hearing from Michel Roy in a moment on that. I can only speak from a business point of view and emphatically state that we as business people on the market need the farmers to survive.

Mr Morin: We all agree with that.

Mr Labelle: I know we all realize that, but I can't speak for Michel, who is president of BAM, and say, "Are you willing to negotiate with the city?" It's very difficult for me to answer that question for him.

Mr Morin: Sure. Is Michel here?

Mr Labelle: Yes, he is.

Mr Morin: Could you ask him? Michel, would you come forward?

Mr Bisson: Chair, afterwards, I have a question of legal counsel on the bill, when we get the opportunity.

The Chair: State your name, please.

Mr Michel Roy: Michel Roy.

M. Morin : Michel, est-ce que vous préférez que je vous parle en français ou en anglais ?

M. Roy : Ça n'a pas d'importance. Bien, en français.

M. Morin : Laissez-moi vous expliquer ce que j'ai raconté à votre collègue tout à l'heure. Si par exemple, au lieu de passer le règlement ce matin de façon concrète ou encore de le rejeter, la ville acceptait de prendre un moment de répit, un moment de repos, un moment de calme, parce qu'il semblerait qu'il y a de la difficulté, que les communications ne sont plus là. Personne ne veut se comprendre. Mais s'arrêter avec la bonne obligeance de la ville, se détacher pour une période de peut-être un mois ou deux mois, discuter encore avec vous pour que vous puissiez arriver à une entente qui soit agréable, qui soit acceptable par la ville, par les fermiers et par les «businessmen», de cette façon-là du moins avoir peut-être quelqu'un qui sert au lieu de vous et pour transiger, tout ce que je verrais dans cette question-là, c'est que tout le monde serait heureux. Tout le monde aurait le temps, mais une situation parfaite n'existera jamais.

Par contre, donner l'espoir à la ville d'être capable d'arriver à une conclusion, parce que je suis assuré que les représentants de la ville ont le même but que vous d'arriver à une conclusion qui est agréable, qui est acceptable pour tout le monde, qu'est-ce que vous pensez de l'idée ?

M. Roy : Dans le passé, et nous sommes la majorité des fermiers, nous avons demandé fortement à la ville d'Ottawa de nous entendre. Ils ne nous ont pas écoutés l'année passée. Cette année, un lundi au mois de mars quand il y a eu une réunion à l'hôtel de ville, nous avons spécifiquement demandé ce que vous disiez tantôt, qu'il y ait un temps de relâche, qu'il y ait un temps pour nous d'aller au marché, de faire une année complète et que ce soit reporté au mois de novembre 1996 pour qu'on puisse discuter toutes les parties non discutées à ce moment-là. Présentement, c'est presque impossible d'en parler pour les prochains mois ou deux mois parce que nous sommes dans nos serres, nous allons être dans nos champs, nous allons être au marché ; vous savez qu'on travaille 12 heures, plus que 12 heures, des fois de 15 à 20 heures par jour, sept jours sur sept, pour les prochains six, huit mois.

Nous avons fait cette demande à la ville d'Ottawa et ils ont carrément dit non, donc je suis d'accord pour que la ville d'Ottawa puisse nous parler, puisse parler à toutes les parties impliquées.

M. Morin : Il s'agirait tout simplement de demander l'autorisation à la ville. La ville reviendra tout à l'heure comme témoin.

It would be our responsibility to ask them if they would be agreeable to that. I understand your situation. You are growing things at the moment, it's the busiest time of the year, but at the same time I'm sure the city has heard now that you would be willing to sit down and come to a conclusion which would be agreeable to everyone. But for this, because I'll repeat again, it seems to me there is a confrontation that nobody wants to listen any more, and it's not by pushing things or making it difficult for you that you'll agree with it, if I make myself clear.

Mr Roy: Could I add some comments?

Mr Morin: Yes, certainly.

Mr Roy: I'd like to point out also that there is a bylaw right now that exists. It's existed since October 6, 1995. It's called bylaw number 191-95. Last year, after this bylaw was in place, there was nothing wrong with the market; in fact the market revived. The people, the customers, came back to the market and they were happy to see the vendors or the farmers in their stalls. The customers could have choice. The prices were right and also everybody was happy. This bylaw still exists at this point in time. The reason why we don't want Bill Pr42 to be accepted is that it returns bylaw 55-95 that was in place last year. It has all the indications in it for which we will present to you eventually that it's the base of bylaw 55-95, and that's what we're afraid of.

Yes, we have asked the city to listen to us. We have asked the city many times to sit down with all the parties involved, and they have said no because we're not probably in Ottawa, we don't reside in Ottawa. I have yet to see farmers in Ottawa itself, you know. We are the fourth or fifth generation at the market that worked this market up for 160 years. What was wrong in the past we don't know, and now, with those regulations that Bill Pr42 asks for, it will kill the market, it will kill our businesses, it will kill all the generations that we've -- we have 120 members, and that's it.

Mr Morin: Just one minor, little point. If I understand you well then, you would be willing to talk to the city again, cool-headed and come out with a solution which is agreeable to everyone?

Mr Roy: Yes. Only in the fall. We don't have time right now.

Mr Morin: It's up to the city to decide, but don't forget that if the bill doesn't pass here, they also have another tool which they can use and the situation may not be as good as this one. So I'm saying we'll be asking the city to see if they would be agreeable to do that.

Mr Sheehan: I have a point of clarification: Under the existing bylaw, does it govern the use of the stalls, does it govern the allocation of the stalls, all these things that are prescriptive in this thing? Do they cover that area now?

Mr Roy: It covers the bases to have a strong, viable market, yes, it does. I have the bylaw here in front of me, and it has all the city needs to have to be able to function the markets.

Mr Sheehan: I hate to admit a little bit of ignorance, but under Bill 26, are we not just really giving the municipalities the right to charge fees for the various processes or services they provide?

The Chair: Is that directed to Mr Shea?

Mr Sheehan: Derwyn, I think, please.

Mr Shea: We were counselling here. I'm sorry.

The Chair: Would you repeat the question to the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Sheehan: Mr Shea, I stand to be corrected, but under 26, does it not permit the municipalities to charge fees etc, but it doesn't allow them to get into this prescriptiveness that is being set out in this act? Am I correct?

Mr Shea: Yes, and that's part of a question the solicitor is dealing with right now for Mr Bisson. Maybe we could ask her to respond to your question directly so the entire committee can have the benefit of that question. Would you phrase it again for the solicitor?

Mr Sheehan: My understanding is Bill 26 permits the municipalities to charge various and sundry fees for whatever services where they're providing for the inhabitants. It does not permit them, it is my understanding, to get into writing prescriptive bylaws such as presented here this morning. Am I correct or have I missed something?

1110

Ms Kelly Yerxa: I think you're partially correct. What Bill 26 does is allow municipalities to charge fees, and that's a lot more open than it used to be, as a result of Bill 26. It also allows municipalities to regulate in a more open fashion than was allowed before. However, my understanding of what Bill Pr42 is doing goes beyond that, and what this bill is doing is giving the municipality the authority to establish the market in the first place, so in that respect Bill 26 does not cover this off, but I expect Mr Bellomo will want to speak to that.

The Chair: Are you finished, Mr Sheehan?

Mr Sheehan: No, but you just blew my question. Give me half a second. Maybe it will come back to me.

If they're precluded from setting out this thing which seems to me to be overly prescriptive, I have a problem when they say they'll admit to one amendment to clause 3(1)(e) but they didn't propose amending clause 3(1)(l) which covers off the point about "who have not grown." Do you have a solution for what Mr Hastings is saying, any way to get at this, or can you explain to the committee what your perception of the city council's moves are?

Mr Labelle: Are you asking myself or Michel?

Mr Sheehan: Either one of you, or both.

Mr Labelle: Do you want to answer the first part, Michel?

Mr Roy: Can you repeat the question, please?

Mr Sheehan: I need some help. You're down there, we're not. What is going on in their minds? If they say they're prepared to amend the bill by getting rid of "based on their point of origin," but they overlook removing another section which talks about "have not grown them." Maybe you'd explain to the committee -- perhaps this is a better way: What happened to the wild berries when this bylaw was passed? Can you help me out there?

Mr Roy: There are many points to this Bill Pr42 that we don't agree with. Their "point of origin" is only one simple item in this paragraph, but if you looked at the paragraph in its entirety it still says "and prohibit or restrict any type," and then they strike off "based on their point of origin," but they still have "and prohibit or restrict any type, the time of year, the percentage actively and directly produced or created by the person who is applying for the use of the market stand or any other criteria established by the council of the corporation." "Any other criteria." What is that? It could be still the point of origin afterwards. Any other criteria is a big bag that could have a lot of things in it. Striking off only one item, "on their point of origin," does not take everything off.

The Chair: Mr Lalonde, and state who your question is directed to.

Mr Labelle: May I respond to another part of Mr Sheehan's question?

The Chair: Yes, briefly.

Mr Labelle: You alluded to the fact of wild berries in your question, and that's a very good question. Under 55-95 last year, as we all know, wild berries are wild, nobody grows them. That means nobody can sell them; nobody can grow them.

Mr Lalonde: I will have to come out with some French words at times because I have respect for those people who came all the way down from my riding especially and do not understand English properly.

Pour les points soulevés par mon collègue Gilles Morin, je voudrais apporter l'attention des députés sur le fait que ce serait sage de retourner avec la ville d'Ottawa puisque, à la discussion que j'ai eue avec plusieurs personnes qui appuyaient le projet de loi hier soir surtout, la majorité des personnes n'ont pas vu le projet de loi.

They haven't seen the bill, the people who have sent letters supporting this bill, and I take by going back to the city of Ottawa if they agreed with and also that they could meet with all the people, this person especially by the first name Denise, she says: "I want to make sure we don't kill the market." The Cléroux family have safeguarded our market a few years ago when the market was down. Especially one person from way out, probably 50 miles away, she says: "I'm in the market two or three times a week, but the rest of the time I'm in Montreal." If the city of Montreal was to pass a bylaw similar to this one or come up with a bill similar to this one, she would be prohibited to go to Montreal.

The people are not concerned, they're not aware of what the content of this bill is, and this is why what my colleague Mr Murray came up with -- it's very important that we go back to the table and inform every one of them who is involved in the market at the present time what the content of this bill is.

Mr Bisson: I'm going to go to legislative counsel. If I can just ask legislative counsel for the benefit of what's happening -- just before I get to that, the concern, what you're worried about, is that the small business operators who are in the market now, or small business operators who may want to establish businesses in the market -- I'm not talking about chains, but independent people -- may be put in jeopardy in order to make room for a larger chain sort of operation. That's the fear here.

Mr Labelle: That's correct.

Mr Bisson: In this bill as it stands, if I understand it correctly, it doesn't specifically say that's what's going to happen, but is there a way to clarify, to make sure that this bylaw reflects that the market has to keep its sort of ambience that it has now of small independent business people and farmers who make a living there? In other words, sort of prohibit the large chains from moving in.

Let me rephrase: Does the bill allow the large chains from coming in now? That's what I'm asking.

Ms Laura Hopkins: The bill doesn't speak one way or the other to whether large chains can come in and can move local farmers out. We can draft into the bill a provision that states your intentions about that or states the city's intentions about that.

Mr Bisson: Okay. Because I take it -- and we need the city. I'd really like to get the city back at one point. I can't believe the city would want to push out of the market the very people who are there now and the type of ambience that the market has. That would make no sense whatsoever and I can't see the city -- if my community in the city of Timmins was to do that, I can tell you it wouldn't be me leading the charge, it would be everybody in my community trying to oust the people out of city hall. It seems to me that we all want the same thing here, but what's happening for whatever reason, there's miscommunication or misunderstanding in regard to what's happening.

I guess I would really urge, because my fear is -- and I'm going to go back to what I said originally. I believe if you read Bill 26, Bill 26 gives very strong powers to the municipality to do what it wants to do when it comes to the regulation of what happens in the market. I would think it would be to everybody's best interest, quite frankly, that if we were to try to work this out under this private Pr42 bill, the concerns that you have to make sure that the farmers and those independent businesses that are in there now are protected and we keep the intent of what the market is all about in place so that we're not in the end in a situation where the larger sort of chain operations can come in and take over.

I'm sure if we can get the city back at one point, the city wouldn't have a problem with that. If they're prepared to do that, are you able to live with it? If they're prepared to do that and to be explicit in their private bill here that they would not put you guys in jeopardy or the flavour of the market, would you be okay?

Mr Labelle: From a business point on Bill Pr42, the real danger of it is that it does establish municipal trade barriers. It gives too many powers to the municipality. We would rather deal with the Municipal Act, where it states that you cannot discriminate.

Mr Bisson: I'll wait until the city comes back, because I think we need to hear from the city on this point.

Mr O'Toole: First, recognition -- I'm pleased to see that Mr Bisson is recognizing the value in Bill 26, and I mean that sincerely.

Mr Bisson: No, no. On a point of order: the danger, not the value.

Mr O'Toole: No, the empowerment to the local municipality that was given under Bill 26 and other areas. I won't prolong that discussion, but I think it's worth noting.

I really have two questions. The first question is to you, Mr Labelle. You operate, I gather from your stationery here, a hotel or tavern.

Mr Labelle: It's a tavern.

Mr O'Toole: That tavern has been in business for how long?

Mr Labelle: It's been on the market in the same place, same location since 1849. It's one of the original businesses on the market still in existence. We're the only original one.

Mr O'Toole: So you're there 12 months a year because of the physical structure.

Mr Labelle: That's correct.

Mr O'Toole: You're not there just during the market time; you're there for the long term.

Mr Labelle: That's right.

Mr O'Toole: I gather you would pay business tax, a property tax, of a considerable nature, if you care to talk about that.

Mr Labelle: Our municipal taxes since 1992 have risen to the amount of approximately $4,800 a month -- excuse me, every 30 days.

Mr O'Toole: A month? That's $60,000 a year. Is there any question about the amount of avoidance in tax that the itinerant, if you will, merchants on the street would be paying? They would pay a stall fee or some other right-to-sell fee.

Mr Labelle: In my canvass of all the businesses on the market -- and I'm quite active within the community -- that is never a concern because we realize --

Mr O'Toole: They help each other.

Mr Labelle: Every business is dependent upon the other business to survive. That's the type of marketplace we are.

Mr O'Toole: One draws the other and the other supplies the other, so they've coexisted. But they wouldn't pay anywhere near $5,000 a month in tax or licensing, would they?

Mr Labelle: You'd have to ask Michel, but I believe they pay half of that amount for a yearly or a seasonal stand.

1120

Mr O'Toole: Mr Labelle has commented. Mr Roy, perhaps I could direct the same question to you. You do business in a part-time or seasonal way, if you will, at the market. What sort of BIA tax, business tax and other fees would you pay, approximately, if you care to divulge that?

Mr Roy: We don't pay taxes directly to the city of Ottawa, we pay rent to the city of Ottawa. But we do pay taxes on our properties in Gloucester or Cumberland or any other municipalities. We also have big expenses that count as taxes, if you want. We have greenhouses, we have tractors. There's lots of overhead.

Mr O'Toole: What sort of fees would it be? I'm getting down to the nub of the whole thing, the imbalance. The city's ability to collect taxes is a foregone conclusion. It's a variable source of revenue, the licensing fees that the municipality would have. What would that amount be approximately per stand annually?

Mr Roy: The rent we pay to the city per stand is in the area of $300 to $400 per month.

Mr O'Toole: That answers the first question. My second question, again, is to Mr Roy. You're in, if you will, a market. The agrifood industry is an expanding, emerging, important sector of the Ontario economy, the whole Canadian economy, dealing with all sorts of free-trade-type issues, whether it's in poultry or whether it's in forestry products, you name it. My question to you is this. Are you prepared to compete at the By Ward Market or across the whole economy of Ontario or North America? Are you prepared for the competition?

Mr Roy: We have for the last 160 years.

Mr O'Toole: So you're very satisfied that whoever big comes in or small comes in, whoever can afford to do business is the person that should be there?

Mr Roy: I strongly believe there's a place at the By Ward and Parkdale markets for anybody who wants to sell fruits and vegetables, whether they're small or large. But by restricting or having Pr42 in place or any other restrictions preventing us from selling produce from our neighbours, even from our neighbours, and also from other parts of southern Ontario, then we cannot compete because our farms are too small. But we have in the last 160 years kept those farms, from anywhere from five acres to 20 or 25 acres, by supplementing our products with the neighbours, with southern Ontario, with any other parts of Ontario.

Mr O'Toole: Just one last point. I'm from the riding of Durham East and in my riding there's one particular producer, a rather young, innovative agrifood fellow or family -- I guess it's a family business -- Link Greenhouses, and they have a greenhouse where they grow year-round tomatoes and all sorts of produce. I'm sure they will be in your market in the future as he expands his operation. You're prepared to compete. That's really the point I'm making.

Mr Roy: Absolutely, but I can tell that those big farmers usually don't want to be in the market anyway, because it's a market of small family farmers. That's what it is. They sell to us or to other people who will sell for them. They don't have time to go to the market and be in the fields at the same time, with a mega-farm.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate your being here today and I thank you very much for your candidness. Thank you for the opportunity.

Mrs Boyd: There are two things. First of all, the preamble to Bill Pr42 clearly states that the purpose of the corporation in wanting this is that the corporation considers it desirable to maintain and promote its markets as strong, viable and attractive traditional producer-based farmers' markets. Preambles don't count for much sometimes but certainly the purpose is to try and do it.

It seems to me, as my colleague said, that the goals of the two opposing groups do not really seem to be that far apart. The way in which you achieve that is what seems to be at issue here, and I'm quite concerned because there seems to be this reluctance to recognize that, even without Bill 26, the municipality has used bylaw power to regulate this market in the past.

The particular regulations they wanted to come forward are regulations with which you disagree. But you're saying you believe they already have the power. Somebody remarked that Bill 26 is nothing to worry about, and the reason we think it's dangerous is that it gives this power to the municipalities.

My colleague read some of the things. Let me just read some of the other powers that the municipality has under Bill 26.

Under clause (f): "the power to impose conditions as a requirement of obtaining, continuing to hold or renewing a licence, including conditions," requiring the payment of licence fees, restricting the hours of operation, "requiring the persons carrying on or engaged in the business to allow the municipality at any reasonable time to inspect places or premises used in the carrying on of the business and the equipment, vehicles and other personal property used or kept for hire in connection with the carrying on of the business."

Then clause (g), which is the crucial one from my point of view: "the power to impose special conditions on a business in a class that have not been imposed on all the businesses in that class as a requirement of obtaining, continuing to hold or renewing a licence of the business." In other words, explicitly in Bill 26 the very discriminatory powers that you are objecting to in Pr42 are already law.

Mr Labelle: So why do we need 42?

Mrs Boyd: That's a good question, but your issue is you don't want 42 because you don't want the municipality to have those powers, and my point is that the municipality already has those powers under Bill 26. Whatever we think of the ability of a municipality to apply licensing situations in a discriminatory way, they already have that power.

What we're trying to say to you is, you may be safer to have this special bill, if we can get built into it some of the conditions that will meet the concerns you have rather than just have the municipality go ahead under the power it has under Bill 26. In other words, it may be to your benefit to try and work with those of us who would like to see a few changes in Pr42 to protect exactly what you're talking about. That might be to your benefit as opposed to just having the municipality proceed under Bill 26.

Mr Labelle: That's a very difficult question to answer because I'm not a legal mind, and I'm not totally familiar with Bill 26, only having made myself totally familiar yesterday with Judge Paul Cosgrove's decision, which clearly stated that you cannot discriminate under the Municipal Act when you enact a bylaw.

Mrs Boyd: But you can under the revision to the Municipal Act that became law on January 29.

Mr Labelle: That's why I say I'm not a good legal mind.

Mr Bisson: She was the AG.

Mr Labelle: I realize that.

Mrs Boyd: I'm not a legal mind either.

Mr Labelle: You are.

Mr Bisson: She was the Attorney General.

Mr Labelle: I know.

Mrs Boyd: I'm proud of not being a lawyer and being the AG.

Mr Bisson: It gives you a different perspective.

Mrs Boyd: It does give you a different perspective, and it should be understandable to everybody. Mr Justice Cosgrove ruled on the act as it was. The act has since changed remarkably and specifically allows discrimination among classes of businesses, and it seems to me that the very argument he was putting forward under the old act and the way it was no longer would apply.

Mr Roy: Can I respond? I have some questions regarding Bill 26 which we are not aware of. We're simply farmers. You have to understand that we're not looking into the details. Specific classes: I say either you're a small farmer or a big farmer or you're selling fruits and vegetables. Okay? This is one class it seems. Does it allow in there to discriminate within the same class?

Mrs Boyd: Yes.

Mr Roy: It does.

Mrs Boyd: Let me read it to you. In clause 257.2(2)(e) the municipality has "the power to define classes of businesses and to separately license, regulate and govern each class." So they have the power to define the class and then they have the power to license under the class.

Section (g) says, "the power to impose special conditions on a business in a class that have not been imposed on all of the businesses in that class as a requirement of obtaining, continuing to hold or renewing a licence of the business."

What I'm saying to you is that, although you won a court case under the old act, the appeal that's going forward will look at the act as amended, and you may be wiser to try and get some of the protections that you want in Bill Pr42 rather than to let this simply go forward under the Municipal Act as it is.

Mr Roy: Could I just ask opinions from Jay Acton, who is helping us in this matter, because she has more legal background or any other background.

The Chair: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Roy: I have a question. I'd like to know if we can continue with the agenda and discuss the other matters afterwards.

The Chair: What was the question again? You're asking if we can continue with the agenda --

Mr Roy: If we could continue the agenda with the people who are on it, to be able to make our presentations, and then, afterwards, answer some of the questions that are raised.

The Chair: Yes, that's fine, if you want to delay that.

Mr Shea: And come back again?

Interjection: Come back with the answer.

Mr Shea: Then everybody has a right to do the same thing then.

The Chair: I would like to go on to the next question.

Mr Pettit: On a point of order, Mr Chair: It seems to me that, according to the agenda, we have three or four or five people all from the Business Action for Markets. Could that not be restricted to one presentation? Are there going to be two or three more representing the same group coming forward?

Interjection.

Mr Pettit: Just the timetable. Are we stopping at noon? That would mean that we're going to have to come back another week.

The Chair: That's correct.

Mr Pettit: We are stopping at noon, but we don't normally have four or five people for each group. Do we not do it as one presentation? In this case here --

Interjection.

Mr Pettit: I'm just curious, because it seems like there are three or four or five, whatever number of people coming forward for the same group, and it would seem that we could alleviate the problem by having one person or at least have them all do it at the same time as opposed to individually.

The Chair: I'll ask the clerk with respect to the listing on the agenda.

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lisa Freedman): This committee works slightly differently than other committees, because it's actually written in the standing orders that if the interested parties contact my office they have a right to go on the agenda. This is the only committee that's bound by standing orders with respect to witnesses before a committee, the normal practice of this committee being if people contact my office, their names automatically go on the agenda.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): Mr Chairman, everyone should know that if we're going to stop at 12 o'clock, then we're going to have a meeting and we're going to bring them all back next week, everyone is going to speak --

The Chair: My understanding is if we go past 12 o'clock -- we'll wait till we get there -- we reconvene next week.

Mr Bisson: Just on the further point in regard to where we are on the agenda, if members wanted to hold back their questions in order to keep on to presentations, we can decide that as a committee, but I would warn the presenters that's a decision to be made by the committee. How many people do we have on the list at this point?

The Chair: It's about eight perhaps.

Mr Bisson: No, no. I'm talking of members who have questions, because we were in rotation.

The Chair: We have two questions remaining.

Mr Bisson: Maybe we can allow those two members to ask their questions and we can move on, because certainly I'd want to hear what the views are from the other members on this, so we can move ahead.

Mr O'Toole: I want to ask clarification to the presenters, if they all represent the BAM, if they could not all be at the table, because I do not think it's economically or otherwise viable for you to all return next week. You should all have the opportunity to be heard. I'm prepared to withhold my questions until each of you has had the chance to make sure -- if you're not consistent with what Mr Roy has said, it would be important for us to hear the comments. I, for one, can say that I'll withhold my questions to allow you the privilege to address the committee and we've heard a full hearing, and then we can go along ad nauseam and discuss anything.

The Chair: I'm going to ask for a four-minute recess so we can chat about this and reconvene.

The committee recessed from 1135 to 1146.

The Chair: I understand there is agreement to group together some of the other presentations from our first interested party, and I would ask them to come forward now. This meeting is reconvened.

Mr George Stairs: I'll be the first one to speak and I'll make it very brief.

The Chair: Your name, sir?

Mr Stairs: George Stairs, like up and down; escalier en anglais.

Listen, it's simple. This is a problem that should be decided in the city of Ottawa, not here in Queen's Park. Queen's Park passes laws that protect both the municipalities and the citizens of Ontario, such as Bill 26 that we're discussing the merits of. The suggestion that there should be some Pr42 to protect us against Bill 26 is to suggest that one of the parties in this operation is acting in bad faith -- in fact the city of Ottawa -- and that's why we need protection from it. We're not prepared to agree to that. We think the city of Ottawa may have acted in bad faith in the past; we think they will act in good faith in the future. We're willing to live with the same law that every other Ontarian has.

Vote down Pr42 here today. Institute Bill 26. We'll deal with the city of Ottawa. We'll stop coming down here and wasting your time.

The Chair: Is there a second presenter? Your name, please.

Ms Jay Acton: My name is Jay Acton and I'm a businesswoman in Ottawa with a business marketing and community relations business two blocks from the By Ward Market. I've been working with the members of BAM, Business Action for Markets, for 10 months now, for the last eight months as an unpaid volunteer, because what's happening here is unfair and it's an insult to the democratic and the judicial processes of this province.

We don't want to insult your intelligence by asking you to prolong this any further. We are all in total agreement that we can live by the laws, as Mr Stairs has just told you, of this province, and we can work things out in an amicable fashion with the city of Ottawa if you vote this down. Otherwise, we have to get into all the details of this piece of legislation, which is very, very unfair.

The Chair: Thank you. Could I ask you to vacate the witness table. With the permission of the committee, I wish to go on to the next party on our agenda, Bob Chorney.

Mr Bob Chorney: Thank you, Mr Chairman, honourable members. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to speak here. Normally, when I speak to groups around North America about the exciting Ontario farmers' market story, I need two hours. So what I'm going to try to do is do that in about two minutes.

I'm the executive director of Farmers' Markets Ontario, which is the provincial association of Ontario's farmers' markets. Ontario is witnessing a very exciting renaissance of producer-based farmers' markets. In the late 1980s we had 60 farmers' markets across Ontario. Today we have 130 of them, so we've more than doubled the number of markets in the 1990s.

There are three main reasons for that: First, consumers want fresh. They want to be able to eyeball the farmer to find out what went into or on to the product and how to bring it to table. The second reason is that farmers want to market directly. I go around speaking to groups; I just last week was in Seattle and the week before that in Newfoundland. People say, "You sound to me like a guy on a mission." You want to believe that I am, because part of my mission is to help farmers be price-makers, not price-takers. So the second reason we have this boom of farmers' markets in Ontario is because farmers want to market directly.

The third reason we have this renaissance is because community groups are coming forward and championing farmers' markets. Of the 70 farmers' markets which I've helped organize, every one of them has been championed by some community group. We get a business improvement association saying, "We want to re-energize our downtown." We get an agricultural society saying, "We want to make better use of our land and buildings." We get a chamber of commerce saying, "Let's bring urban and rural together." We get a service club saying, "Let's do a worthwhile project in the community," or a mayor and council saying, "Let's create a people place."

Farmers' markets are good for the social fabric of a community. I can give you some very exciting figures for northern Ontario. Mr Bisson will be interested in this. I helped organize the market in Timmins and the one in Cochrane and the one in Kapuskasing, and the list goes on. And I've worked with Mr Boushy's market in Sarnia and am currently with the honourable member's market in Windsor-Sandwich over at Windsor.

In northern Ontario in the late 1980s there were seven producer-based farmers' markets doing total gross sales of $100,000. In 1995, we'd gone from seven to 22 markets, and those 22 locations in northern Ontario did $6 million in sales. So we saw farmers' markets' sales increase 60 times over in six summers in northern Ontario. Very exciting stories occurring in this province, and it's because municipalities are welcoming farmers to come in, to meet consumers in celebration. When one goes to a farmers' market, there's a buzz in the air, there's freshness, there's fun. The northern markets coined the slogan, "Come for the freshness, stay for the fun." That's in fact what happens at farmers' markets, and we don't achieve that with hucksters and pedlars and non-farmers at markets.

The province of Newfoundland has engaged me to help them put a program in place, and you can rest assured it's going to be a producer-based program. I've spoken in every province in this country and the story is the same: They want farmers coming to town in celebration. We shouldn't forget that. I've done farmers' markets in New York state, in Quebec, in British Columbia. They want farmers coming to town. That's really what the city of Ottawa is saying: They want farmers at their market. It's as basic as that. They want farmers who produce the goods coming to market.

I'm going to end now, because you're really pressed for time. I ask you to vote in support of what the city of Ottawa wishes to do. The city of Ottawa is a very exciting market. It has perhaps begun to lose some ground because the farmers have not been allowed to come in in the manner in which they would like to come in. Think of Windsor. The honourable member for Windsor-Sandwich would be interested to learn that on March 18, mayor and council -- I was at that meeting in Windsor. Mayor Hurst and council, in a vote of 10 to 0 -- the meeting went from 7 pm till 1 am. They were dealing with a relocation issue, but the most important decision that council made was -- two decisions: number one, they want to stay in the market business; number two, they want to return to their roots. They want it to be a producer-based market.

I'm off to Windsor this afternoon to begin discussions and to begin working with them to begin to turn that market around. You've all kinds of silly things happen when you're not producer-based. The member from Windsor will be shocked, but I'll tell you the story: Twice in the last month a vendor at the Windsor market has gone over to Detroit and has taken tomatoes off the hands of a vendor at the food terminal over there who would have had to pay dumping fees or tippage fees to get rid of the tomatoes. Those tomatoes came back into Ontario, to the Windsor market, and were sold at that market: 30% of the load was sold at market in Windsor and the other 70% was dumped because that vendor at the Windsor market doesn't have to pay tippage fees and dumping fees. All kinds of funny things happen at public and farmers' markets. I can tell you some horror stories. What the city of Ottawa wants to do is to put some proper rules and regulations in place and take hold of the market they've owned for 160 years.

This is a picture of the Seattle Pike Place Market. It is probably the most successful public and farmers' market in the world. I can pass this around, but their signage says such things as, "Meet the producer: Farmers' Market." That's what the city of Ottawa's saying: Let's meet the producer at market.

I plead with you to support what they're trying to do. If you don't, you're going against the flow of what's happening in this province. Go with the flow, please.

The Chair: Any questions?

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you, Mr Chorney. I appreciate your comments, particularly as it relates to the Windsor area. You must know too, then, if you were participating, that the tenants of the Windsor market are also very unhappy right now with outcomes. Many of them of course are farmers and they're not happy.

I just wonder if you can comment on the difficulty you must find yourself in, given your position with the organization and association and the fact that the majority of people who are farmers in the market are not pleased with the direction it's going in, and yet you do represent farmers as part of your association. I know it's difficult. This isn't an issue I think anyone is enjoying, but there are so many testimonies, I guess, that the farmers need the ability to at some time bring produce to sell other than what they grow, but that obviously their mainstay is what they grow and therefore what they sell. I'm thinking in terms of them being consumer- and market-driven.

When I go to the market, I'm looking for particular things. If I'm going to not be able to find things simply because it's not grown in Essex county, then I'm going to go to Loblaws or I'm going to go to Dominion, wherever I'm going to find it, and that's the very thing that markets are trying to avoid. So the very essence of keeping Sandra going to the market are the things that you potentially will take away. Markets around Ontario, as you mentioned, have faced issues like the super-supermarkets and all kinds of competition, and yet markets have remained strong and in many instances have found a way to be market- and consumer-driven. So you must find yourself in a difficult position, because you must not have the support of all the farmers who are currently selling at the market. How do you respond to that?

Mr Chorney: I realize we're dealing with Ottawa, but I think Windsor is now where Ottawa will be five or 10 years from now unless they clean up their act, and I think they're attempting to clean up their act. The farmers and the vendors in Windsor are unhappy because of the location they want to go to, which is not in harmony with where the city wants them to be, but I don't think there's much argument that they have to return to their roots of producer-based.

I was at a meeting on Foodland Ontario yesterday and they spent $140,000 -- well-spent dollars, in my opinion -- on consulting fees to determine consumer and usage attitudes. One of the things the Ontario consumer is saying is: "We want fresh. We want Ontario." You all see the Foodland Ontario ads: "We want fresh. We want Ontario."

In your riding, Dr Alfie Morgan of the University of Windsor was commissioned in August 1994 to do a study on the attitudes of consumers in Essex county, and it's no different in Ottawa. I suggest to you that we could do a study in every county in Ontario and come up with the same result: 98.1% of Windsorites said, "We want local produce at our farmers' market." In an alternative, 91%, "It must be at least Ontario," not the garbage we're bringing across from Windsor, or not the stuff we're bringing in from Montreal.

Interjection.

Mrs Pupatello: You meant Detroit, didn't you?

Mr Chorney: From Detroit, sorry. Pardon me, Ms Boyd. Thank you. So Ontarians want fresh, and we do that with farmers at market.

I won't get into all the problems in Ottawa, but in my sense, the city of Ottawa is working very hard at trying to make things right.

Mrs Pupatello: But just in terms of my question, the restrictive nature of some of the elements of this bill and that it puts the very farmers you represent at odds with it, and your position in terms of the association and the farmers in the market who aren't pleased with it, this bill prohibits tomatoes from Leamington to be sold in Ontario in some places, namely, your two markets in Ottawa. As an Ontario legislator, then, how can I support Ontario produce from my end of the province being restricted somehow for sale in Ontario? Your association represents Ontario produce and promotes Ontario produce, and this bill is restricting the sale of Ontario produce in some places. I see that as a diametrically opposed version of your association's mandate.

1200

Mr Chorney: I do not, in fact. I think what we're dealing with at Ottawa is people coming to market posing as farmers who perhaps have one acre of land and bring 50 acres' worth. Those are the sorts of issues they're trying to sort out.

Mrs Pupatello: You do agree that Leamington tomatoes would be prohibited from sale at your market in Ottawa?

Mr Chorney: It's my sense that would be the case in season, correctly, as they should be.

Mr Bisson: I have three questions. I take it what you're saying is that you want the city of Ottawa to be able to regulate the practice in the market to make sure you have a good way of doing business so that you don't have some of the horror stories you referred to happening in the Ottawa market.

Mr Chorney: Absolutely.

Mr Bisson: You're satisfied that this bill will do that?

Mr Chorney: Yes.

Mr Bisson: The second question is on the point of origin, and I just pick up on the point that Mrs Pupatello made. I understood that the bill would prohibit produce from being brought in from outside of a 70-mile or 70-kilometre radius.

Mr Lalonde: Seventy-five miles.

Mr Bisson: A 75-mile radius. I have some difficulty with that, because I would like to see Ontario not have a bunch of trade barriers within it. What's your view on that, or am I misunderstanding what's in the bill?

Interjection: It's been removed. It's in the amendments today.

Mr Bisson: Okay, that's what I'm saying. With the amendment --

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: I have the amendment here and it hasn't been tabled. All right, so if the point of origin is taken out, you're okay?

Mr Chorney: Yes.

Mr Bisson: The last question is: Do you fear that this legislation could put at risk independent farmers who operate at the market in favour of larger, mega-operations?

Mr Chorney: Not at all. Last summer there were 10 strawberry farmers at the By Ward Market; for the first time in years, 10 local strawberry growers selling at market. There was a heck of a celebration occurred there. It hadn't happened before. If you're suggesting that small farmers will become at risk because of this particular bill, not at all.

Mr Bisson: So you don't worry that the people who are there now may be pushed aside over the long term in favour of larger, mega --

Mr Chorney: Not at all.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate very much what the questions have been. Specifically at By Ward, would you think that there would be an appropriate time for grapes from Niagara to be sold?

Mr Chorney: Yes, I would think that --

Mr O'Toole: Then you're into regulation, and it's into someone else saying this is or couldn't be a local crop. The government of Ontario is not in that business of micromanaging.

Mr Chorney: That's right.

Mr O'Toole: If I look at some of the prescriptive attitudes in this bill, "prohibit the sale or offering for sale of agrifood products by persons who have not grown them," I put to you the question, "Who grew the wild blueberries?" What if I'm growing vegetables and my next-door neighbour is growing vegetables and we've mutually decided, "I'll grow the carrots and you grow the onions"? Who gets to sell them? Both of them or one of them? It's so prescriptive that I don't think, from a provincial standpoint, we should be micromanaging every -- I think there are requirements to regulate which I've heard in the previous bylaw were satisfactory arrangements. I'd like to see the municipality work it out with the three constituent groups, which they have a duty to do, or we'll see you at the polls. The province should not be prescriptive and should not set something for Leamington or Windsor-Sandwich or Durham East. The market prevails, and I agree that producers create the excitement, the synergy you're talking about, and I'd question, where's the fish from, if it happens to be Atlantic fish?

I've made my point, and I question if your presentation is not the same at Windsor or Peterborough. Yet it's by nature emotive. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Mr Chorney: Yes.

Mr O'Toole: When I'm there and I have a stand and I've legitimized myself through the bylaws and I'm selling carrots and corn and all the rest of it, and I'm able to get very good Ontario produce from Leamington or from Durham East if I can transport it and pay the costs and do all the stuff to get it there and make sure it's fresh, those are business decisions that are best made by the business people, not by some person sitting behind a desk in Ottawa or certainly in Toronto.

Mr Sheehan: I just have one question because Mr O'Toole grabbed my speech, I think. Very good, Jack. You use the Seattle market as pre-emptive and you say meet the producer, but I've been to that market and they've got two of the best fish markets I've ever seen. I know for a fact that those people don't go out and cast their nets, and there are a lot of other producers where I'd really question whether or not they were producers as set out in this act.

Mr Chorney: Were you there in summer when the farmers were in?

Mr Sheehan: Yes.

Mr Hastings: Mr Chorney, does your group or do you not subscribe to the idea of caveat emptor in the marketplace, meaning "Buyer beware"? I'm particularly referencing the use or misuse of the Foodland Ontario designation. That's my first question.

Secondly, if it is being abused extensively or on a narrow base, is there not a local way in which, through the contract, bonding or any other mechanism that's arrived at between the two parties, there can't be a substantial penalty placed on a vendor who is bringing in stuff that is not Ontario-produced or Ontario-crafted, rather than your approach which is that only from Queen's Park shall we do this?

Mr Chorney: I guess we're back to allowing the city of Ottawa to do what's right, and perhaps you should give them that opportunity. I don't understand your reference to Foodland Ontario, I'm sorry.

Mr Hastings: You were referencing the Detroit example of where produce is brought in internationally. Wouldn't the border and customs people have been able to detect that, or am I too naïve to assume that there's so much leverage going through that border point and other points that you have to have a Queen's Park solution in terms of using the Foodland Ontario designation for produce that's produced in Ontario versus that which is imported, and then they sell it under the Foodland name? Is that not your concern? Is it not a better way of doing that, protecting that Foodland Ontario name for products produced in Ontario, than simply through specific, special legislation?

Mr Chorney: I'm not suggesting that the vendors in question who imported bad tomatoes were selling them as an Ontario product; not at all. But I do suspect that the consumers didn't know where the tomatoes were coming from. I didn't for a minute suggest that the product was sold with the Foodland Ontario banner hanging overhead.

Mr Hastings: That is true, but there is an inference in most of the material I have read about the use of the Foodland Ontario guidelines and what's produced. If there is a violation of the designation, is there not a better way, a local-based solution, if somebody is caught bringing foreign produce, Quebec or wherever it's from, into a local farmers' market, than simply by a Queen's Park special piece of legislation? Can't it be built into a contract?

Mr Chorney: Absolutely. I think the solution should come forward at home, locally, and not in this room. I guess you have an opportunity to dispose of this matter by telling Ottawa to go ahead and do what they have to do and perhaps send a signal to other groups across Ontario that you don't want to see them here again.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Chorney. You have a question of whom?

Mrs Pupatello: Of counsel. I can't ask the table, but I think it's specific to the amendments. When Mr Bisson put the question regarding the 75-mile radius, the response was that the amendment that was presented managed that. I only have two amendments so far that were officially presented, and the one I'm assuming relates to the 75 miles then, their point of origin.

Ms Laura Hopkins: I think the reference to point of origin in the bill would be the power that would be relied on for the 75-mile radius.

1210

Mrs Pupatello: Would that mean there would be farmers from Quebec who would be allowed to continue to sell at the market but that produce, for example, in southwestern Ontario then would be prohibited and Quebec produce would be allowed?

Mr Bisson: If you allowed that, then without the amendment.

Mrs Pupatello: There is Quebec produce a mile away from the market that then would be within the 75-mile radius.

Ms Hopkins: I believe that if the words "point of origin" are taken out, the city probably doesn't have the authority to stipulate where the products come from.

Mrs Pupatello: If it's passed -- it hasn't been moved or whatever -- with the 75-mile radius, then you would take other provinces' produce for sale but not from southwestern Ontario, for example, because it's so far outside.

Ms Hopkins: My understanding would be that you can't establish the 75-mile radius once those words are taken out of the statute.

Mr Pettit: By the way, the first group from the city that did a presentation, we didn't get to question them.

The Chair: They're coming back.

Mr Pettit: They are coming back? All right, because I would like to pose the same question to you that I was originally going to pose to them.

Mr Chorney: Should we ask them to come up here?

Mr Pettit: No, they're coming back, but I'd like to ask you this too. We've gone through all these various technicalities etc, producer-based and on and on it goes, but it seems to me we still haven't had the question as to what the motive is. This market has been running for 160 years, it would appear to me from all indications effectively and profitably, and for the most part everyone was happy. So why, after all this time, does the city or the region feel it needs these special powers to run this market?

Mr Chorney: I think increasingly farmers --

Mr Pettit: What is the problem that brought this to fruition in the first place?

Mr Chorney: The court case.

Mr Pettit: I realize there was a court case which the judge ruled against the city, but what started the whole process in the first place?

Mr Chorney: I think the number of true farmers was decreasing at an alarming rate and that it was becoming more of a reseller-, huckster-, pedlar-based marketplace.

Mr Pettit: Who was unhappy about that? Who brought this forward to the city? Who got the whole thing going in the first place to get the bylaw started?

Mr Chorney: I know the first people who would be unhappy with that would be discriminant shoppers, and most of them are. When we help organize farmers' markets in small --

Mr Pettit: I have a big problem with that. I find that somewhat insulting to the consumer. Speaking for myself and some of the people I've spoken with, I don't know anyone who goes to a farmers' market -- we do have one in Hamilton -- who actually asks sellers if they grew it themselves. They're there to determine what they want, whether it's a good product, what the cost is. I think Mr Hastings brought that up on the caveat emptor, and I think that's a very valid point that really needs to be answered.

The Chair: Is there a question, Mr Pettit?

Mr Pettit: That's it.

The Chair: Perhaps one final question for Mr Chorney.

Mr Lalonde: You've just mentioned that at the present time we're facing a decrease at an alarming rate, but I'm looking at the sales at the market, and they are $45 million, from the stand holders. What was it four or five years ago?

Mr Chorney: I'm talking about a decreasing number of farmers at market, not the sales volume.

Mr Lalonde: Very rarely have I seen an empty stand at the market, though.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Chorney. With our agenda, I would ask Mr Rochon to come to the witness table.

Mr Gerard Rochon: The need for special legislation for the By Ward and Parkdale markets. Members of the committee, thank you for allowing us time to express the views of agricultural producers regarding this special legislation. My name is Gerard Rochon. As president of the By Ward Market Growers' Alliance, I represent agricultural producers with a combined production of 1,500 acres and 250,000 square feet of greenhouses. We sell all sorts of commodities -- produce, meat, maple products, horticultural products -- at Ottawa markets. Many of the families that form our group have farmed for generations and have sold at the markets for generations.

Why do we need this special legislation? Justice Cosgrove, in squashing bylaw 55-95, ruled that the Municipal Act allowed the city to establish, operate and regulate public markets. This is not enough for the markets to continue operating successfully. All the regulations that ensured the success of the markets have been declared illegal by a court decision. Everyone in this room is stuck with this interim bylaw. This may be acceptable to some because it allows anyone to sell anything and everything, but this is not good for the long-term viability of the market.

With special legislation, the city could adopt a bylaw which would provide a good environment for us to do business. We need stability for our business. We have to deal with such things as weather on a day-to-day basis and consumer trends which change regularly, to name two. But our plans are long-term when investing in land, equipment, buildings, machinery, greenhouses and training. We need rights for renewal from year to year for our stands, something we have always had. We invest a great deal of time and money in our crops.

Concerning our large startup costs involved, we need to ensure continuity for our farms. Previous bylaws allowed us to transfer our market stands to our spouse, sons or daughters in the event of death or retirement. This provided for continuation of the family farm. It made good business sense.

We need flexibility in rental contracts we sign with the city. Right now we only have daily and monthly contracts. We have lost term contracts which we had before. We have to wait in line for extra stands we need. What happens when we have a good crop growing but we can't get a decent stand to sell it when it's ready to harvest?

I'm a farmer and I represent farmers who sell at the markets. I am proud of this and I don't mind being identified as a farmer. In fact, it's good for my business. Without special legislation, the city cannot identify me as a farmer. I am a market vendor, just like everyone else. The same goes for artists and craftsmen who sell their art at the market and for all other categories of vendors. How can the consumer identify farmers at the farmers' market without special legislation? It makes no sense.

All these things are essential to ensure that the markets are a good place to carry on business. All these things evolve from good common sense, as the Conservatives like to say, and became regulations in previous markets' bylaws. We need special legislation to bring them back.

On the product restrictions, the city of Ottawa introduced a bylaw in 1995 that gave an edge to the farmers. All the bylaw said was when a crop was available by local growers, for example sweet corn, only local growers could sell their production. No supplementation of sweet corn was allowed for that specific period of time. Vendors were permitted to sell sweet corn before the local crop or after. This was done to promote local production and give producers fair competition.

In the real estate business the buzzword is "location, location, location." In the farmers' market business the buzzword is "local, local, local." This is what customers expect to find at the markets: local, fresh produce. This is why they shop at the markets instead of the supermarkets.

The produce-based concept -- the presence of farmers -- is what gives the markets their edge in the competitive business of food retail. We, the producers, want our own niche in the industry. How else can we compete against free parking, easy access and convenient hours? Customers will shop at the markets to buy exactly what they expect from us farmers: local, fresh produce.

This encouragement of local farmers is a good boost for the local economy. We are entrepreneurs working for our local economy. We grow our crops, spending on seed, trays, tractors, equipment. We do greenhouse production, spending on heating oil, electricity, fertilizer. We plan deadlines for transplanting, risking Mother Nature. We plan our product mix: vegetables, fruits, flowers etc or a mixture of these. We plan diversification to accommodate consumer needs and we plan expansion or specialization. We are employers.

1220

Estimated sales of the market are $45 million. Why should half of this money leave the area to support farmers elsewhere? Can we blame the city for trying to get back some of that money for its own local economy?

All these aspects were identified by the council of the city of Ottawa when it adopted its plan to revitalize the markets. The drop in total attendance of customers at the markets, the loss of frequent shoppers, the gradual loss of farmers attending the markets -- that is why the city took measures to re-establish its markets by encouraging farmers. These same farmers have always had the support from the people of the Ottawa region. There is room for everyone at the markets. We need to create incentives for local farmers in the area. This is why the By Ward Market Growers' Alliance supports the city of Ottawa's request for special legislation. We encourage all growers to join our team.

The Chair: Thank you. Does the committee have any questions for Mr Rochon?

Mr Hastings: How many farmers in your alliance?

Mr Rochon: We have 30 farmers.

Mr Hastings: What's the difference between your group and the other group that's here? They call themselves farmers too.

Mr Rochon: We grow the majority of the produce we sell ourselves.

Mr Hastings: Whereas they do not?

Mr Rochon: I don't wish to get into this catch-22 situation.

Mr Hastings: Fair enough, all right. I'd like to go to the practical case. I'm a consumer. I'm at your booth. I buy some tomatoes or onions that day. I've never met you before. How are you going to prove to me that you're a local producer, through a bureaucratic approach? Are you going to have on each bag or on each tomato or on the permit that you are the local producer, you grew the food and not somebody else? How are you going to be able to tell me that unless I ask? I'm taking it the other way this time.

Mr Rochon: Let me put it this way. When we grow something, we're proud of it, and when we sell it, we're proud to put on the sign, "This is from my farm."

Mr Hastings: Right, agreed.

Mr Rochon: The case in point was put a while ago, why can't we sell Ontario produce and this and that? I think it was your question. When I take this tomato and I take it out of the container and I put it out in the stall, I want somebody to tell me where that tomato came from after it's out of the container. A tomato is a tomato, and it will be damned hard for someone to come along and tell me, "This is from Leamington," "This is from Montreal," or "This is a US tomato," or "This is from your farm." So we need special legislation that says when local tomatoes are in season and there's a sufficient amount to supply the markets, only the farmers who grow them can sell them.

Mr Hastings: Are you telling me then that the prime motive for me buying that tomato will be location, not quality, not price, not texture?

Mr Rochon: I can ask the committee, why do you go to a farmers' market if not to buy from a farmer? In the last 10 years, the supermarkets have done an excellent job. I commend the Loblaws and the Dominions on the freshness and the quality of their product. We have major competition in these areas, and if we cannot prove to our customers that it's from our farm, we have big problems. Why go to a farmers' market when I can buy the same thing at a supermarket?

Mr Hastings: I can think of other reasons: friendly interaction etc. Thank you very much.

Mr Pettit: Just a quick one. I'd like to define "producer" here. Is the producer defined as the legal owner of the farm?

Mr Rochon: No.

Mr Pettit: How is it defined then, in your view?

Mr Rochon: The producer is the person who grows the product. I can own 1,000 acres --

Mr Pettit: Who grows it then? The Ottawa market I believe is six, if not seven, days a week.

Mr Rochon: It's seven days a week, yes.

Mr Pettit: If you have to be there selling it, then who's growing it?

Mr Rochon: Who's growing it? I'm growing it, and my wife. We are family-operated farms.

Mr Pettit: You're at the market selling it.

Mr Rochon: My wife is, yes.

Mr Pettit: Your wife is?

Mr Rochon: I'm on the farm producing it and she's selling it.

Mr Pettit: Do you see what I'm saying though? There's a little bit of a technicality there as to exactly how you define the producer.

Mr Rochon: Exactly. I could own 1,000 acres and grow one acre of vegetables, and I could still call myself a farmer. I could own five acres and double-crop and do 10 acres --

Mr Pettit: So you're planting it, harvesting it and selling it all by yourself?

Mr Rochon: Yes, we are.

Mrs Pupatello: This was somewhat addressed, I guess. Mr Rochon, you're coming to a provincial level of parliamentarians who are responsible for Ontario farmers and produce that we want to promote, Ontario produce, and the very intent of the bill will prohibit Ontario producers and farmers in some respects. Our intent as legislators has to be to look after Ontario farmers, so when we see things that come before us that would somehow prohibit or limit Ontario farmers, wherever they might come from, we would have a problem with that. How do you respond to that?

Mr Rochon: You say you want to protect Ontario farmers, and you said a while ago that we were one mile from the Quebec border. Where do you think the glut of vegetables comes from when they buy it? It's not from Leamington; it's from Montreal.

Mrs Pupatello: Actually, depending on which submission I read, it comes from a number of places, because everyone has their own individual case. But we did speak to a number of farmers who --

Mr Rochon: Yes, but what we're saying is, when it's locally grown and in season and there are sufficient amounts to supply the market, not one person growing it, let the local producers sell it. Strawberries are in season three weeks to a month. You can buy and sell strawberries two to three months before the season and you can buy and sell strawberries three to four months after the season, but for those three months let the local producers sell their production. That's Ontario produce.

Mrs Pupatello: There was a submission made to us that said in the last couple of years, or after bylaw 55-95, local farmers were financially hurt. Some just broke even and the majority lost money. That is someone's opinion in terms of what happened, that 50% of the stall operators closed. Do you think that's good for the farmers' market?

Mr Rochon: I'd like to see where the 50% of the operators closed, because I've only heard of one person closing his stall, because he was retiring.

Mrs Pupatello: Would you agree that the majority lost money or just broke even, or did the majority in the market do well in the last couple of years after bylaw 55-95? I've got a note here telling me the following changes occurred after the bylaw was passed: 50% of the stall operators closed; local farmers were financially hurt; some just broke even and the majority lost money. Would you agree with that?

Mr Rochon: To a certain extent, yes, I would, because when you grow on one or two acres and you are intent on not following a bylaw, you will not go out and invest; you will not go out and plan a product mix; you will not go out and plan diversification to accommodate your consumer needs. We have big homework ahead of us before we start a season.

Mrs Pupatello: So if you agree with what has happened as is indicated here, then by supporting this legislation, you'd be getting that back.

Mr Rochon: We have had 40 new growers come to the By Ward Market and Parkdale. They have applied to come and sell in the markets. We have had 40 new growers come and apply to sell in the markets. Instead of going from 107 vendors 20 years ago to the 60 that we are now, we had 40 new people come and apply to sell in the markets. I think, instead of the market shrinking, the city finally has done something to try and expand the markets, because we have gone from a beautiful, vibrant market to one strip, one little street.

Mrs Pupatello: Mr Rochon, it's a little bit disjointed for me, because you've agreed with this statement that local farmers were financially hurt, some just broke even and the majority lost money after bylaw 55-95. That bylaw was struck down by the courts, and this legislation is intended to put it back in, which will put you back in the situation where local farmers were financially hurt, some broke even and the majority lost money. Why are you supporting that?

Mr Rochon: I'm supporting it because it would help the incentive for the farmer to farm again. Instead of saying, "I'll just put in one acre and I can supplement 50 acres," now they have to grow 30 acres and supplement maybe with 10 acres.

1230

Mrs Boyd: Let's just pursue that a little bit, because that is the whole purpose of this in terms of economic development. The purpose of the bylaw, I gather, was to encourage that diversification on local farms by requiring it to be producer sold. Is that correct?

Mr Rochon: That's correct, yes.

Mrs Boyd: That's my understanding, that, yes, people who were not doing that, who were relying on being able to purchase large amounts under the bylaw found themselves in difficulty. And those are the people who found themselves in difficulty.

What the city is saying to use is that they're trying to encourage by their bylaw, and obviously by Pr42, the ability of those local farms, the requirement, really, for those local farms to diversify so they're producing locally what is sold in the market, and obviously some people don't like that?

Mr Rochon: That's right.

Mrs Boyd: And some people do?

Mr Rochon: Yes.

Mrs Boyd: In terms of Mr Pettit's question, the act defines what a Niagara food producer is. It says, "...means a person who is actively and directly engaged in the production of agrifood products to be sold or offered for sale on the markets." So they have defined it within the act as being a connection between the direct production and the selling to the extent possible.

My understanding of all this is that when, for example, cauliflower is not in season in the Ottawa area, anyone who has a stand would be able to purchase cauliflower and sell it?

Mr Rochon: Exactly.

Mrs Boyd: But when cauliflower is in season in the Ottawa area, only what is raised locally could be sold? Is that correct?

Mr Rochon: That's correct. But in sufficient amount, enough to be able to supply the market, not just one grower coming in and saying, "I have cauliflower today; I don't want to see any more cauliflower on the market." No. Can you supply the market?

Mrs Boyd: Just help me with that. That doesn't mean that one producer would be the only person who could sell cauliflower. It would mean that each producer would have to be able to have a sufficient amount of cauliflower to satisfy the market on that particular day.

Mr Rochon: Exactly, that's right.

Mrs Boyd: How do you make that determination? How do you know?

Mr Rochon: You have applications at the beginning of the spring; you have all your cauliflower producers and you call them up, "When is your production ready?"

Mrs Boyd: You know when the planning happens, you know how many acres have been seeded and you know, generally speaking, probably within the limits of crop insurance, what you can expect to be the yield, given the amount that's been planted.

Mr Rochon: And as 55-95 said, they wanted a seven-day leeway period. You had to say, "Next week I will have cauliflower ready," and they would contact other growers to see if their crops were ready also.

Mrs Boyd: Just one last question: In your history with the market and so on, up until Mr Justice Cosgrove struck down the bylaw on the ground that the city didn't have the right to put that bylaw into place, who has regulated the markets?

Mr Rochon: As of last October 6?

Mrs Boyd: No, before October 6 of last year, what entity regulated the By Ward and the Parkdale Markets? Who did that?

Mr Rochon: It was the city of Ottawa through their markets office.

Mrs Boyd: Since the bylaw was struck down, who has been regulating the markets?

Mr Rochon: The same people, with an interim bylaw, which can be struck down at any time. I can bring this new interim bylaw to judgement, to court and, with Mr Cosgrove's decision, say it is discriminatory and tomorrow morning we all have to stand in line for stalls day by day. You can't even get monthly contracts.

Mrs Boyd: So your concern is that the vacuum that's created by the judgement and by the lack of ability of the city to set this regulation causes uncertainty for you in carrying our your business.

Mr Rochon: Great uncertainty.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much. I appreciate the very thorough dialogue, because this is getting down to the complex nature of this, which should be decided, I think, by the city of Ottawa. It has been there for 150 years. I think they're all getting the signal that they have to work this thing out.

Two or three very specific questions: Are you a member of a marketing board?

Mr Rochon: Yes, the asparagus marketing board.

Mr O'Toole: That regulates supply and price and stuff like that. Okay, that's the first one.

You support the marketing boards, whether it's tomatoes or eggs or whatever it is.

Mr Rochon: Yes.

Mr O'Toole: That's good, I suppose. Second, do you sell in any other market?

Mr Rochon: No, I sell only in the By Ward Market.

Mr O'Toole: How about in Hull or Quebec?

Mr Rochon: I do not sell in Hull or -- I can't even go to sell at the Montreal markets.

Mr O'Toole: What do you do with your surplus? The cost of production is a complex thing. You've described very well the whole process of business planning, and if you were to get into kind of a greenhouse operation, over the period of time you may expand your production on one side to reduce your unit cost. What would you do with the surplus if you're locked into this kind of fixed, regulated -- do you understand what I'm saying?

Mr Rochon: Yes, I understand what you're saying.

Mr O'Toole: Are you going to buy quota at the market? Should we buy futures at the market, the quota market? Do you know how futures work?

Mr Rochon: Yes, I do.

Mr O'Toole: Okay. Futures also determine these unknown things about supply, where demand will be and timing. At certain times the price --

Mr Rochon: I think I know what you're getting at here.

Mr O'Toole: So you're for supply-side and demand- side control.

Mr Rochon: Take for example, cauliflower. We have a bad year in Ottawa; we have no cauliflower.

Mr O'Toole: So nobody in Ottawa gets cauliflower.

Mr Rochon: Nobody in Ottawa gets cauliflower. It's never declared in season by the city.

Mr O'Toole: So what if I'm the only one who has it.

Mr Rochon: Do you have sufficient amounts to supply the whole market?

Mr O'Toole: Who's to say what the demand is? Maybe people are just turned off brussels sprouts, or whatever it is.

Mr Rochon: But what I'm saying is that if it's not declared in season, you could bring it in from Leamington, you could bring it in from Montreal; you just call the wholesaler and say, "I need a transport-load of cauliflower" -- because I'm allowed to supplement with it -- and it's there within three hours.

Mr O'Toole: I'm not trying to trivialize it. I understand your costs are exposed: You've got the greenhouse and the gas that's going into it, all the fixed cost stuff.

Do you sell at the side of the road? I mean it's so convenient. Your children are home from school. You've got these extra tomatoes.

Mr Rochon: No, I don't.

Mr O'Toole: Do you think anybody should?

Mr Rochon: Yes, I do. I'm not against anybody opening up another market in the Ottawa area at all. I'm for that. It's like opening up a second store.

Mr O'Toole: One last point.

The Chair: Is it a point or a question?

Mr O'Toole: It's a question really. You're suggesting we support this private member's bill because it gives Ottawa back some kind of power, which it has anyway, in my view; it's just a matter of working it out with the partners.

The other thing is, in the proposed amendment it's going to strike out the point of origin, which really lets the person from Leamington come right back in.

Mr Rochon: Let me tell you something: I don't mind competing against another grower if he's from Leamington or Montreal, but let that grower come to the market who has the same costs, the same hardships -- weather -- and come and sell his produce on the market.

Mr O'Toole: I think they tried that in Russia; it didn't work too well.

Mr Rochon: I'm for fair competition. It comes down to the basic philosophy. It's a farmers' market. Do we want farmers on the market or do we just want it to be a retail produce outlet?

Mr O'Toole: One last comment: The whole concept that was provided here previously, supplying the producer and supporting that producer, I think that gives you the whole synergy that happens in a market. I completely concur with that. I've been at the By Ward Market when my daughter went to Carleton, and there used to be fighting about, "This wasn't locally grown."

That goes on and I don't think it does good PR for the vendors. I see the dilemma, but I don't think Toronto should be making your decisions.

Mr Rochon: No, I don't. I think Ottawa should be making decisions.

Mr O'Toole: I hope you're all going back well informed on the various arguments. We're well informed.

Mr Rochon: I sure hope.

Mr O'Toole: Now we are.

The Chair: The next presenter, interested party, on the agenda is Mr Sutter.

Mr Labelle: I believe Mr Sutter has stepped aside.

The Chair: The next interested party on our agenda is Mr Waserman.

1240

Mr Philip Waserman: My name is Phil Waserman. I'm the chairman of the By Ward Market BIA -- an elected chairman. I have been since its inception in 1993. I'm the owner of two restaurants in the By Ward Market and I am the immediate past chairman of the Ontario Restaurant Association where I served an unprecedented three one-year terms.

I'm here not just for myself. We have carrying letters of support from the Ottawa Tourism and Convention Authority and several community groups, which I believe have been distributed to you. Our members pay approximately $5.5 million a year in realty and business tax to the city of Ottawa.

For the past several months, the By Ward Market BIA has been developing a strategic plan for our organization. The market stalls are located within our boundaries, but they're not actually members of our BIA and they don't pay dues. As part of our process, we hired a market research firm and conducted a survey of 605 residents, which is a fairly large group. The research findings support the producer-based concept by our customers as outlined in the city of Ottawa's 1992 strategic plan.

Essentially, the study revealed a direct correlation between visitors' perceptions of market vendors and their visiting habits. Put plainly, if a visitor believes that a vendor is not a bona fide grower, they are less likely to visit By Ward Market. Since 60% of visitors shop for food in the By Ward Market according to our study, this has serious implications on the survival of not only the farmers' market but for the entire commercial area if the city's application for special legislation is not approved.

Moreover, the findings suggest that the recent decline in business last summer of about 20% or 30% can be attributed to the public's loss of confidence in the farmers' market. That number has gone down from 1992 -- the city did a study -- when 43% of our customers believed that everything was grown by the farmers in the By Ward Market. In 1995, 5% of the population, or 4%, believed that's the case now. So the myth has been exploded.

These figures reveal a significant reality that impacts all of our communities. If By Ward is to maintain its strength and continue its legacy, it must remain a real farmers' market. This is more prominent than ever since the general public is far more educated and aware of the proportion of vendors who currently buy and sell produce as opposed to those who actually grow their own.

The public has indicated that it wants variety and freshness, to purchase their fruits and vegetables directly from those who grow them, to know what is in the product and how it was grown. If a genuine farmers' market is not supported, this 160-year tradition will cease to exist. Our continued quality of life will be greatly affected if By Ward reverts to an outdoor retail store, or worse, a flea market. More importantly, since this is not the trend supported by our customers, By Ward's ultimate survival would be in question.

The opposition to our support for the local farmer is BAM, Business Action for Markets, which represents -- it's now a disclosed number of vendors; we've never seen that list before and we're quite pleased to see it shown again today -- vendors and fruit and vegetable wholesalers in the market, the majority of whom supplement their product with wholesale produce or they deal exclusively with wholesale produce.

I'm looking to this committee for its support in the application for special legislation. Not only does the future of By Ward depend on this legislation, but our community as a whole could feel the effects if the farmers' market fails to restore confidence in its authenticity and maintain its viability.

I'd also like to remind you that city council on several occasions, by a vote of nine to two, has supported this, and I believe they need the legislation to carry out their duties in this regard. I remember Norm Sterling, as you heard, gave his unqualified support as well.

Mrs Pupatello: Mr Waserman, were you aware of the implications of Bill 26 and what the city of Ottawa could do?

Mr Waserman: No, I was not.

Mr Lalonde: Mr Waserman, you have issued a communiqué, a press release -- I don't know what date, because I don't have the date on it -- that we have in our package here. You refer to the coalition, the founding organization that is supporting the proposed bill. Have those groups received a copy of this bill?

Mr Waserman: I'm not aware if they have or not.

Mr Lalonde: Last night I got on the phone and called many of them. Of all the people I spoke to, none has seen the bill, and especially one person said, "If it is going to reduce traffic at the market, we are not going to support it." What really struck me is the fact that they said they'd never seen the proposed bill. How can you say you have the support of this group when those people haven't received or seen the bill?

Mr Waserman: They supported the strategic plan. This is not a bylaw you're approving today; this is enabling legislation. The bylaw would be developed in the city with full consultation from dealers, farmers, the business community and members of our coalition. All the information in the bylaw would be given at that time. This is not a bylaw.

Mr Lalonde: The answer I got from people is, "If it is going to take away or cancel some of the farmers we have in there at the present time, we are not in support of it."

Mr Waserman: I don't believe the business community would do anything that would affect their livelihood.

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I've sat here all day and listened to a discussion of things that I as a legislator don't feel we should be making a decision on. The city of Ottawa has run that market for 160 years, you tell us. I feel there are farmers who want to produce their product there; there are buyers who want to buy corn there. It doesn't matter whether it's grown within five miles or whether it's grown in Leamington. I think this is something you people have to decide for yourselves, to be able to get together as people cooperatively and make the decision to keep that viable operation of a market in Ottawa. Your business people have told us that it does generate a lot of business. Your farmers have told us that they've gotten rid of a lot of product. It's a win-win situation. So for goodness' sake, can we not follow from the very first speaker who said here some two and a half hours ago, "Can we not get together and make this thing work?"

I don't believe that as a legislator I should sit here and tell you people out there, "You've got to do this and you've got to do that." All I should have to do is go out there and work, and that's the kind of cooperation I think this committee could see. I can support this bill because it does put the onus back on Ottawa, which does own the property where it is, but the farmers have got to cooperate too and the people from Ottawa have got to cooperate with the farmers to make sure they're viable. We don't want to hurt anybody and I don't think that as legislators we want to sit here and hurt anybody. Those are my wishes. I would like to think I could support our colleague Mr Morin and make sure that comes to pass.

Mr Waserman: I totally agree with you. We welcome the participation of BAM if they're prepared to do it. So far they've not been.

Mr Rollins: I'm sure, from hearing from these people, that there's got to be some cooperation here. We've got to have it.

Mrs Boyd: There were certainly some allegations, Mr Waserman, that you don't represent a lot of the people who are part of your organization, and that concerns me. There was an allegation that people didn't understand what was going on. I think that's what Mr Lalonde was trying to get at. That concerns me and I'm sure it concerns you, since you are the elected chair of a group.

Mr Waserman: Yes, absolutely, and as recently as March 12 we sent a full information sheet to all our members. We held a public meeting on March 20 and we explained exactly what was going on here today and the objectives of it. We had some people, mostly people who had inquiries. A couple of the BAM spokespeople came to disrupt the meeting. We are constantly consulting. Back in the spring of 1994, when the city was drafting the last bylaw, we sent out information to all our members. We communicate with our members probably no less than six or eight times a year, and if you ask the councillor for our area, with our board even more frequently. We are extremely consultative. I have never seen this petition before. I have, however, seen a previous petition which that particular gentleman circulated regarding an illegal sign he had put up. That one purported to contain 150 names, and in fact there was the hand of perhaps three or four people who wrote it. I haven't seen this one, so I can't --

Mrs Boyd: I'm certainly not going to touch that allegation with a 10-foot pole. I gather you are here to say that you agree with those members here who have said that Ottawa ought to make this decision.

Mr Waserman: Yes, we're supporting enabling legislation.

Mrs Boyd: They're here because of a court decision that told them that even though they'd done this for 160 years, they didn't have the right to do it. So they're here to get the enabling legislation to enable them to do what they as a council have agreed, by majority, I gather a number of times, to do. Is that correct?

Mr Waserman: Yes, we're here to support the enabling legislation. We're not here to work on the details of the bylaw.

1250

The Chair: This completes the presentations on our agenda. I would now ask the applicant, the city of Ottawa, if there are any final comments. I'll ask your names again for the purposes of Hansard.

Mr Bellomo: Jerry Bellomo. I'm just going to address one issue, the issue that was raised by Mr Bisson relating to the ramifications of Bill 26, which admittedly has been enacted since bylaw 55-95 was struck down. The question is essentially, "Doesn't Bill 26 give you everything you need?" The answer to that, quite clearly in my opinion, is no, it does not. The Municipal Act prior to Bill 26 always contained a provision that allowed us to regulate, license and manage markets. Under that general provision in the Municipal Act, we passed bylaw 55-95, and it was struck down by the courts. In my opinion, if we again attempted to enact a bylaw that attempts to do what we want to do, which essentially is to distinguish between producers and non-producers, that would be struck down for the same reason that bylaw 55-95 was struck down, that we don't have the specific enabling legislation to do that and to do many of the other things we want to do that are set out in the legislation.

Bill 26 no doubt empowers municipalities, but in this specific situation dealing with markets and dealing with an attempt by the municipality, for example, to distinguish between producers and non-producers, it doesn't, unfortunately, give us that power. If we did pass a new bylaw simply under Bill 26, there's no doubt in my mind that it would be challenged again and we would have to come back before you one year from today, and that's what we're trying to avoid. We're trying to avoid the relitigation of this matter.

Mrs Pupatello: I know we spoke prior to today about the kinds of amendments you would have been prepared to deal with. If we could change the bill so that the farmers have a sense that their produce is not being affected and that they would be allowed to bring in produce from other jurisdictions, at least in Ontario or what is going to be feasible for them, but the balance of the bill addresses those kinds of controls that you need for the overall market management but didn't affect the producers, would you be prepared to forward that?

Mr Émard-Chabot: Stéphane Émard-Chabot, city councillor for the By Ward Market area. The preamble states clearly what we're trying to do, and that is encourage a producer-based market. One of the points that was raised, an opinion that was given, was if this enabling legislation is passed, will people be kicked off? Will we lose people from the market? That's simply not true. The bylaw will have to be discussed, and it is a clean slate. Some people fear the return of the old 55-95. I stated clearly at the beginning, to make it very clear on the record, that we're not bringing back that bylaw with a fresh coat of paint. We are working with something which I hope will be different.

Mrs Pupatello: Is it different to the extent that farmers are protected in terms of how they choose to sell produce?

Mr Émard-Chabot: This is not a two-sided issue, and I guess it's a point I really want to stress to all the committee members. You do have farmers who only sell what they grow; you have farmers who supplement to some degree; you have people who are pure dealer operations, who do nothing but buy and sell produce, not necessarily from Ontario or Canada, for that matter. You also have stores that sell fruit and vegetables that pay literally thousands of dollars in taxes a year to the city of Ottawa, the region and the school boards. They have to be taken into account. If you're asking me, am I willing to open the floodgates and let people on the street sell anything they want because they also happen to be farmers, the answer is no. I have store owners who scream at me because they have people competing with them. We've lost Zunders, the biggest food store in the area, because they were competing with people on the street who pay a couple of thousand dollars a year. Their business had gone down and they couldn't sell it, is the bottom line on Zunders.

There are more than just two sides. There are people in the streets who sell crafts that they make. I also have stores, because this is a tourist area, that sell Canadiana, crafts that are made in other places in Canada. They have issues with the people on the street because again, the people on the street are competition for them. They don't pay taxes; they pay very low fees for the space they used. That's why we regulate the people on the street by saying, "If you want to sell things, you make them yourselves so the stores can sell other things."

There are so many actors to balance, and I would really caution -- maybe I'm straying a bit from your question. We've been going through this for two years. This is not something that just happened yesterday. We are here asking you to give us the powers we thought we had for the last 160 years. Nothing revolutionary; we've been exercising these powers for this time.

Mrs Pupatello: Which gentleman is the city solicitor? Mr Bellomo?

Mr Bellomo: Yes.

Mrs Pupatello: I thought it was you. Were you making your commentary on the impact of Bill 26 because you've just thought about it in the last little bit today, or are you aware of the legislation? Only then I will tell you that the city of Windsor has used its powers, through Bill 26, to stop out-of-town tow-truck companies from coming into the city of Windsor and operating a business, and they've used various parts of the bill to be very restrictive in terms of licensing and fees etc. I'm interested in your commentary on what you sense is the Bill 26 impact, because I don't know that it's been around long enough that we know.

Mr Bellomo: First of all, we certainly looked at Bill 26 to see if that gave us the powers we needed to enact the type of legislation that we feel is required to ensure a producer-based market and we're of the opinion that it does not. I'm not aware of the Windsor bylaw that you mentioned. Just as a gratuitous comment, that hasn't been challenged in the courts yet so we don't know whether that will stand up. What we're trying to do, as I indicated, is to avoid a challenge in the court by making sure we have the clear authority to do what we want to do.

Mrs Boyd: My question is to Mr Bellomo. You are currently in appeal of Mr Justice Cosgrove's finding?

Mr Bellomo: Yes. We have what we would consider a protective appeal before the courts at the moment.

Mrs Boyd: Have you a date when that will be heard?

Mr Bellomo: No. As you many know, the Court of Appeal has a very lengthy waiting list. It will probably be another two to three years before we get before the Court of Appeal.

Mrs Boyd: So in order to protect the authority of the city to regulate within the market, you feel you need this, given that finding is there by Mr Justice Cosgrove.

Mr Bellomo: Absolutely.

Mrs Boyd: You are not certain that on appeal, the changes through Bill 26 would make any difference anyway?

Mr Bellomo: Right.

Mr O'Toole: It's been a very exhaustive kind of examination. I'm going to refer back to Mr Chorney's remark, "In Ontario, there are 60 or 70 of these new producer-based markets," so your phenomenon is not particularly unique. With that statement I suspect what I see here -- I have a significant problem with some of the language in the private member's bill, mainly to do with this restrictive limitation-type, prescriptive nature. Do you understand my concerns as a provincial writ?

How I'm tying it to Mr Chorney's -- considerations in Bill 26 as well as the precedent set here may set a precedent for all 60 or 70 producer-based marketplaces in Ontario. Do you see that danger? It would use as a protocol to say that now in Sarnia, wherever -- I'm not happy with the particular rule, some of the prescriptive nature in this private member's bill. It's contrary to every Conservative principle I can think of. I ask you the question: Do you think after the full debate that reasonable people can work out reasonable solutions in Ottawa where the reasonable solution should be made?

I'm fully, completely informed now of the danger of the large multinational whatever that may show up in your market and take over control, selling only California fruit or whatever. I heard one farmer speak of his growing tomatoes and wanting the exclusive right to sell only tomatoes or cauliflower. So do you understand our problem?

Mr Bellomo: I certainly understand the problem. But I guess Ottawa has a problem as well, and we need your help to solve that problem. Unfortunately, we're dealing with a decision of the Ontario court that in effect said that, "Ottawa, you need fairly prescriptive legislation to do what you want to do." The general legislation that was in the Municipal Act previously, and even the legislation now under Bill 26, does not allow us to set in place the regulations that we feel are required to ensure that it remains a farmers' market. Unfortunately, that goal requires some prescriptive legislation.

1300

Mr O'Toole: That is the danger, and I don't think we've worked it out here. I appreciate the length of time we're spending on this, but that's exactly it. The proposed amendments rethink the prescriptive nature as it applies to territory or distance or origin of the produce, and if we amend that, technically that's what you're dealing with. Do you understand? If you take away the boundary issue, "I'm from Niagara Falls and I sell grapes and I'm going to be there Saturday," if I had to be a producer to be there -- or does that mean any producer who's there could not sell a product that could not be grown locally? I believe you're fraught with challenges under the current 42; it's got so many ringers in it, it's just unbelievable.

If you look at the whole section on page 2, in fact limit the number of stands, it's all limited: limit, limit, limit, restrict, restrict, restrict. I think my last statement appreciated, I hope --

The Chair: Statement or question, Mr O'Toole?

Mr O'Toole: It's a statement to say that I hope Ottawa council can work it out. It sounds like there's a very competent local representative who now has a full understanding. I also throw it out to the BAM and the other groups: listen or get legislated.

Ms Joan Wong: What we need is legislation.

Mr O'Toole: You can do it. It's my opinion, you can do it.

Mr Émard-Chabot: If I could reply briefly. Without the enabling legislation, we used to, for example, not allow corporations to have stands. We can't do that any more. We can't create categories. We can't discriminate. That's a problem. That means the stores that are right now in the market could expand their businesses outdoors and put a lot of these people out of business. That's something we haven't allowed for the last 40 or 50 years. They can have small boxes along the façade of their store, but they cannot go into the street and have stalls. We can't prevent them from doing that. That would be a big change in what the market is all about and what it does.

To limit the number of stands is to prevent somebody from eventually acquiring 20 of them, which again would be unfair. The market is there because it's chaotic, because there's a variety of people and faces and stalls, and the consumer has a choice. We're not there to operate an outdoor Loblaws.

So without the legislation -- and I realize your apprehensions about a lot of these points -- the way they will be used I think will make sense. The removal of the point of origin, which removes in effect the 75-mile radius that was in the old bylaw, is something which was of concern to the government as far as restricting trade. It's something we don't exactly know what we're going to do with at this point. But we are prepared to live with it, because the province had very legitimate concerns about the city of Ottawa creating trade barriers within the province. So we agreed, remove that, fine.

Mr O'Toole: There is such loose language: "any other criteria as may be seen fit." That's like saying, "All of the above plus some we haven't thought of." I'm not comfortable with that kind of law. It's draconian.

Mr Bisson: Let me ask you the question I asked previously. I just want to make this point clear. Is it the intent of the city of Ottawa to limit the ability for independent producers to sell their goods within that market or to operate independent businesses in favour of a larger conglomerate or a larger business entity?

Mr Émard-Chabot: Absolutely not.

Mr Bisson: Will these people be put at risk of losing their ability to operate within the market?

Mr Émard-Chabot: That is not our intention.

Mr Bisson: Is it your intention, in the longer period of time through attrition, to have these people go out and have the larger business entities come in?

Mr Émard-Chabot: The larger ones, no; producers, yes. Last summer -- and Mr Rochon was heckled when he raised the statistic, but it is true -- we received 40 new applications for By Ward from growers, something which hadn't been seen in a decade in Ottawa. Of these 40, only four were large farms, a couple hundred acres. All the others were small local farmers, a lot of them were monoculture, growing one specific product, and came in when their product was in season.

Strawberries are the best example. Up until last year, the majority of stands in By Ward were held by one person. So although you had the impression you had many different stands, there was one person controlling the majority of them and everything that was sold there was trucked in from Oka or l'Île d'Orléans. Local producers had a hard time, and there was a wonderful newspaper article about a strawberry grower who had a very tough time this summer trying to get on to Parkdale Market. The bottom line is, we brought in strawberry farmers for the first time in decades in By Ward.

Mr Bisson: I plan on moving an amendment under clause 3(2)(b) in order to clarify, but I take it that you wouldn't have a problem in making sure that we clarify that it is not the intent of the city of Ottawa to move these people out over the longer term?

Mr Émard-Chabot: Or to limit the size of a farm.

Mr Bisson: The other point is, I take it obviously you're in support of the point of origin being removed from the bill?

Mr Émard-Chabot: Yes.

Mr Bisson: Okay. That covers off that issue.

In regard to the issue of Bill 26 that was raised previously, I think we need to be clear here. What Bill 26 allows you to do is to regulate a business within your community. Clearly, it allows that to happen. It allows you to discriminate in some cases as well. Where Bill 26, I think, might be at issue -- and it's a question of interpretation -- is the ability for you under subsection (2) that you have in Pr42 to happen, which is the establishment of an entity to allow you to operate a market, but the market is already there so it's a bit of a come-around-the-other-way type of thing. But Bill 26 clearly gives you powers that you do not have now, that you did not have then when the original bylaw had been put in place, and very much so expands your powers as a municipality to do exactly what some people here fear. I just want to be very clear about that.

Mr Émard-Chabot: You may be right, and obviously our legal counsel is giving us a different interpretation with regard to the market. The risk is if we do it under that legislation and it is challenged again and we go back to court, we will be back here in a year and a half asking permission again.

Mr Bisson: I understand your argument, but I just want to make sure that people understand what 26 does.

Mr Émard-Chabot: It could be happening, yes. You may be right.

Mr Sheehan: I happen to subscribe to a lot less regulation is what this country needs, not around this city, but this province. All right? And you are in the process of laying on some very, very prescriptive "Thou shalt not," or that "We will control," and it's said in that act. I think you get your authority to govern from the people you govern. What discussions have you had with the farmers who oppose this bill and the other business people who oppose this bill?

Mr Émard-Chabot: There was a comment made that we refused to meet. There was a meeting last summer with BAM as soon as it was created, and at the time it was called the Wholesalers and Dealers Association. The mayor, the deputy mayor and myself met with the people you saw here this morning, and their bottom line was, "We want the bylaw repealed," and we said, "We cannot do that now." We knew there was some fine-tuning, we knew it was not perfect and a lot of glitches had to be worked out, but we could not simply repeal the bylaw. From that point on they said, "Well, we will go to court." We're here today because of all that.

There was a meeting organized two weeks ago, hastily called, but it was well attended despite the fact that we waited for the legislation to be introduced before calling the meeting, where we made clear -- we are trying to rebuild the trust and that's where we at the city have a big problem to clear, and that's the trust that we have lost from a lot of the people whom you heard this morning. As I made it clear this morning, we're starting with a fresh slate; we want to work something out. This market is too precious. As I said earlier, if you think we're there to kick people off or reduce the number of people who go to the market, you must think we're fools. I mean, $325 million in sales for the area, $45 million of which comes from produce, we would be mad to do anything to hurt this.

1310

The communication process has begun. It will go on. What the final outcome will be, I don't know, and I don't think anybody in this room would know unless you're psychic --

Mr Sheehan: Do you consider a meeting in the summer of 1995 and a meeting in March 1996 as being adequate conversation?

Mr Émard-Chabot: The meeting in the summer was to repeal the bylaw. We said we could not do that and we would revisit in the fall after the first year of it being in place. We wanted to see a full year of operation with the new bylaw. The BAM group was not satisfied with this and went to court and got their victory. We then scrambled to pass an interim bylaw, which we did, and those are the bare bones that are hopefully going to bring us along through the first part of this season.

After that point, we started the procedure to appeal and the enabling legislation. We weren't sure who would introduce it. There were a lot of details to work out, and that's why we waited until the legislation was actually before you before going back to them. Our time frame is flexible. We're not trying to rush anything through, but we know the issues fairly well. I was elected a year and a half ago. The city's been at this for three years.

Mr Sheehan: What conversations did you have with these people prior to enacting 95-55, whatever the bylaw was? Was there any discussion? Was there any public discussion? How many?

Mr Émard-Chabot: Two years.

Ms Wong: Two years minimum.

Mr Sheehan: With the farmers?

Mr Émard-Chabot: Yes.

Mr Sheehan: Yet, notwithstanding that, you passed that --

Interjections.

Mr Émard-Chabot: The judge alluded to that in his decision. He recognized our efforts.

Mr Sheehan: I accept you at your word that you're prepared to negotiate and you come in and you talk about, "We'll make an amendment," and you'll delete clause 3(2)(b), which deals with origin, how would I take you on good faith if you're talking about leaving in 3(2)(l), the one about "prohibit the sale or offering for sale of agrifood products by persons who have not grown them"? Where's the good faith in that?

Mr Émard-Chabot: What that would be used for, for example -- and again this hasn't been decided but this is an idea that was presented at the public meeting we had two weeks ago -- was setting up different areas, one area for people who only sell what they grow and do not supplement and buy things from other places, an area for people who only do that. That's an idea that has a lot of merit. Consumers would know where to go if they want to buy from a farmer. We would be a lot stricter. We could offer incentives to bring farmers in. But to do that, we would have to be able to prohibit in a certain area the sale of things that are not grown by the person who's selling them and have penalties for people who would not uphold --

Mr Sheehan: Who's setting out this marketing plan?

Mr Émard-Chabot: What do you mean?

Mr Sheehan: Well, what you're describing is a marketing plan. You're going to design the floor --

Mr Émard-Chabot: It's just --

Mr Sheehan: Something tells me you've got a bunch of politicians trying to act like businessmen. That scares the hell out of me.

Mr Émard-Chabot: We, under municipal law, run markets. That was a decision that was made decades ago by this province. We run a $45-million grocery store. We don't have a choice, and if we don't run it, nobody else will.

Mr Sheehan: It survived 160 years --

Mr Émard-Chabot: With regulations enacted similar to the ones that we have now.

Mr Sheehan: -- without these regulations --

Mr Émard-Chabot: There were prohibitions on sale of goods.

Mr Sheehan: But you're talking about putting in fairly prescriptive regulations.

Mr Émard-Chabot: They were there. People could not sell crafts --

Mr Sheehan: Then why do you want this act?

Mr Émard-Chabot: Because we can't do it any more, because the judge said we couldn't.

Mr Sheehan: The judge said you couldn't discriminate on price, and that's all he said.

Mr Émard-Chabot: No. He said we can't create categories.

Mr Sheehan: He said you couldn't discriminate on price. Bill 26 -- I checked with counsel -- would permit you to do the discriminating the judge said you couldn't do.

Mr Émard-Chabot: He said we couldn't create different categories and treat people differently, and it is our intention -- the artist cannot pay the same fee as somebody who deals a lot of produce; that doesn't make sense. We have to charge the same fee right now because we can't create categories. This is the type of discussion we're into. This type of discussion -- if you want to substitute yourself for city council, you're welcome to it. But we've gone through years of this, of trying to balance -- and there are not just two sides but 20 sides to this issue, and that's what we're trying to balance. Without the powers that have been used for 160 years -- this is nothing revolutionary. We have prohibited sales, we have limited the number of stands, we have told people where they could set up, what time they could set up, how many days they could set up. There's nothing new.

Most of the new farmers' markets in this province are much more rigid than we will ever be in prohibiting any type of reselling. Most of the farmers' markets created today, the last 70 that have come on line over the last 10 years, say, "It is a farmers' market, farmers only, and that's it."

Mr Sheehan: What I'm trying to suggest is that you should run your own business and not ask Queen's Park to run your business.

Mr Émard-Chabot: We don't ask you to run it. We ask you to give us the powers to run it.

Mr Sheehan: We have given it to you in Bill 26.

Mr Émard-Chabot: Our lawyers aren't sure and the government lawyers aren't sure either.

Mr Sheehan: I suggest, though, in the absence of proof, that you might try the law we put in. We tried to give you the help.

I have another question for you. You mentioned that you do not permit or won't permit corporate farms. Did I hear you correctly?

Mr Émard-Chabot: No, we do not permit corporations. Farmers, if they are incorporated, are allowed. Corporations such as Loblaws, for example, would not be allowed.

Mr Sheehan: I was trying to understand Mr Rochon when he was describing how he was going to deal with the supply of produce when it's in season and when it's not in season. I had a little problem with the practicality of his answer. Can you speak to that?

Mr Émard-Chabot: So do we. That's one of the bones of contention we're going to discuss. Supplementation is one of the two really big issues that have to be revisited.

Mr Sheehan: Since we as a government have said to you that Bill 26 gives you the authority you need, and since the people sitting in the back of the room have indicated a strong desire to deal with you as you would deal with them on their own, why are you reluctant to follow the course of the law that's there now for your use? Why are you asking us to make a special exemption? The next thing we know, we're going to have one for Windsor and then one for St Catharines and on and on and on, and we're trying to get out of the business of overgoverning. Would you mind answering that?

Mr Émard-Chabot: I'll be happy to. I have my lawyer and your government lawyers telling me they're not sure Bill 26 applies to markets. I do not want to enact bylaws that are going to be challenged. All you need is one unhappy person, and believe me, in this business we cannot make everybody happy. We will always have at least one person unhappy. This person goes back to court, gets a judge who says: "My interpretation? Sorry, city of Ottawa, Bill 26 doesn't apply to markets." Then we are back here in a year and a half. We've lost two years, with uncertainty in the market that is our biggest economic generator. As a city councillor I can't afford that.

Mr Sheehan: I had counsel for municipal affairs read me the section. It doesn't seem to say there are any qualifications on your right. Maybe I could ask the lady to read it so you'll hear what it says.

Mr Émard-Chabot: I was here when it was read. I know what your intention was. I'm not sure judges always exactly see the intention of legislation, and that's the problem.

Mr Sheehan: In the absence of that, I suggest you go back to your people and work it out. That's what seems to be coming out of everyone's mouth here. Talk to the people you are trying to regulate. That's my recommendation.

Mr Émard-Chabot: And we will.

Mrs Boyd: Your real issue is, what if you go back and try to work it out and somebody's unhappy and again goes back and gets a judge to say you don't have the right to do that?

Mr Émard-Chabot: Then we're back here. We'll be back here in a year.

Mrs Boyd: Exactly. The issue really is, whatever the intention of government in the past to enable cities to govern markets, you did that for 160 years until somebody decided to take it to court, at which point a court decided you couldn't do it.

Mr Émard-Chabot: I would put it to you that many markets in this province are in the same situation.

Mrs Boyd: Mine certainly is. I understand what you're saying, that because this court covered your particular ability to do it, you are now disadvantaged compared to virtually every other community.

Mr Émard-Chabot: For doing the same thing as we've been doing forever.

Mrs Boyd: Exactly, and others continue to do it. You're saying you need this bill to do what every other city that has a farmers' market currently does and that you were able to do until October 6, 1995, when all of a sudden you were prevented from doing it by a court finding.

Mr Émard-Chabot: It's that simple.

Mr Shea: Mr Bellomo, is it your opinion, Bill 26 notwithstanding, that the courts generally have been of the mind that if a specific wording isn't there, you don't have the authority?

Mr Bellomo: Yes, that's the general approach the courts have taken, that municipalities need fairly specific legislation to do the type of thing we want to do in Ottawa relating to the markets.

Mr Shea: In this kind of specific instance.

1320

Mr Bellomo: Exactly.

Mr Shea: Who owns the property we're talking about?

Mr Bellomo: The city of Ottawa.

Mr Shea: And who speaks on behalf of the city of Ottawa?

Mr Bellomo: Our council.

Mr Shea: And the council has dealt with this how many times?

Mr Bellomo: Several times.

Mr Shea: Then can I ask a question of Councillor Émard-Chabot? Can you tell me, for example, how many meetings individual members of council have had with their constituents on this matter?

Mr Émard-Chabot: With their own constituents? Probably none, on this specific matter. The city, as a corporation, has organized public meetings.

Mr Shea: Has council held meetings to receive deputations?

Mr Émard-Chabot: Yes, a number of times.

Mr Shea: How many times?

Mr Émard-Chabot: Through the whole process, the strategic plan, for two years.

Ms Wong: Yes, through the whole process, and I'm part of the last council too -- many meetings and opportunities to work out situations. Out of possibly 14 items, 11 were agreed on and some were improved to help the community that felt concerns; others in the end were not totally agreed to. But there were two years of consultation, and many good things came out of it, seniority being one of them.

Mr Shea: Am I taking it correctly, if there's been two years of consultation, that somewhere in that period there was a municipal election?

Mr Émard-Chabot: Yes. Between the adoption of the strategic plan and the adoption of the bylaw which implemented it, there was a municipal election.

Mr Shea: Within the spirit of Bill 26, would you accept that the municipal election is likely the best test of public opinion?

Mr Émard-Chabot: Generally speaking.

The Chair: Thank you. The applicant may vacate the witness table. Are the members of the standing committee ready to vote?

Mr Bisson: I'd like to bring forward an amendment.

The Chair: There are some amendments. We'll move them at the appropriate time for each section.

We are voting on Bill Pr42, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa. Shall section 1 carry? All in favour? All opposed? Defeated.

Are there any amendments to section 2?

Mr Rollins: I move that subsection 2(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Bylaws respecting markets

"(1) The council of the corporation may pass bylaws for establishing, maintaining and operating one or more markets within the following areas in the city of Ottawa and for regulating or prohibiting the activities within the markets, which may be different from each market:

"1. The area (known as the By Ward Market) which is bounded by Sussex Drive on the west, Murray Street on the north, Cumberland Street on the east and Rideau Street on the south.

"2. The area (known as Parkdale Market) which is bounded by Hamilton Avenue North on the west, Armstrong Street on the north, Parkdale Avenue on the east and Wellington Street on the south."

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? All in favour? Those opposed? Defeated.

Shall section 2 carry? All in favour? Those opposed? Defeated.

Are there any amendments to section 3?

Mr Rollins: I move that clause 3(1)(e) of the bill be amended by striking out "their point of origin" in the sixth line.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Are there any more amendments to section 3?

Mr Bisson: This is getting stranger by the minute. I have a motion here.

I move that clause 3(2)(b) of the bill be amended by striking out "and which may be based on" in the fourth and fifth lines and substituting "and which must take into account."

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? All in favour? Those opposed? Defeated.

Shall section 3 carry? All in favour? Those opposed? Defeated.

In keeping with previous meetings, we will collapse several sections. Shall sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 carry? All in favour? Those opposed? Defeated.

Shall the preamble carry? All in favour? Those opposed? Defeated.

Shall the title carry? All in favour? Those opposed? Defeated.

Shall the bill carry? All in favour? Those opposed? Defeated.

Shall the bill not be reported to the House? That's carried, that the bill will not be reported to the House.

Mr Shea has one more item.

Mr Shea: At the last meeting, committee members asked to have several items tabled for their information, and instead of taking the time of the committee now, I will table them. Those concerned the status of discussion papers on the Ontario Heritage Act, and relationship of Bill 20 amendments and provincial policy statement to private legislation dealing with development on heritage properties. It also deals with other general items that were brought to the attention of the committee. I file that now for the committee's information.

The Chair: I wish to thank all present. This meeting is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1327.