Legislative Assembly of Ontario

[Report continued from volume A]

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

Continuing the debate on Mr Farnan's motion for second reading of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act in respect of the opening of retail business establishments and employment in them.

Continuation du debat suite a la motion proposee par M. Farnan pour la deuxième lecture du project de loi 115, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours feries dans le commerce de detail et la Loi sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui concerne l'ouverture des etablissements de commerce de detail et l'emploi dans ces etablissements.

Mr Conway: I would like to make some comments on the matter before the House. Certainly it has been one that has occupied a number of public fora in my constituency over the years I have been here, and that is the whole question of the regulation of retail store hours.

I was interested to hear some of the debate earlier today. I must say I am interested to see who is not here today. For those of us who have been around for a while, the walls of this chamber ring to the resonant tones of people like the member for Welland-Thorold and the member for Windsor-Riverside, who went to the wall on sacred ground and sacred principles in this place two years ago.

What we are happily debating today is the new government's policy in respect of the regulation of retail store hours. This policy contrasts, as has been observed by previous speakers, with the proclamations of the party now in government over the years when this issue was before us and it was not in government.

I say quite sincerely that is not a surprise. The realities of office, the discipline of power, do have a sobering effect. But I do observe, and I am sure they are occupied with other things, but who could forget the passionate filibuster of I think it was 1989, when members of the now government party were in the opposition. They could not have been more vigorous. They could not have been more resourceful. They could not have been more dynamic and colourful in going to the wall. When I think of what they did in those debates of two years ago, I am struck by how quiet the debate is today.

I do not remember that debate two years ago as anything of a high watermark in the legislative behaviour in this chamber. In fact, I look back on it with a sense of being absolutely appalled at how flagrantly irresponsible some people were prepared to be in defence of their point of view. I expect before we are finished some of those people will want to come back and rejoin the debate, now perhaps from somewhat of a different perspective.

As I listened to this debate I remembered, upon my election in 1975, I think it was in the first session, the then Davis government brought forward legislation dealing in part with a significant difficulty in the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth where, as I recall the situation, there were a number of suburban malls causing no little bit of difficulty for the traditional downtown core. As a newly elected member, I could not for the life of me understand what the great debate was all about, but I was quickly made to understand just how contentious and difficult, if not impossible, the whole question of retail store hours would be for that government; certainly it was for our government and I do not see it changing significantly under the new government.

It is important now to look at the experience of each of the three main parties in government with this apparently intractable public policy. I do not share the view some people have that this legislation clarifies some of the fundamentals. Anyone who believes that is Pollyanna at best and mindless partisan at worst.

I am struck by how this legislation turns on the basic principle of municipal option. I am not surprised, because this government, like any government, has no choice. The thing I remember about the Tory bill we altered was that in fact it was the municipal option. Only in Ontario could you have a situation where scores of municipalities who happily exercised the municipal option -- called something else, the tourist exemption, but it was for all intents and purposes the municipal option -- people who quite understandably availed themselves of its adaptability and flexibility complained about it as some kind of terrible principle when the debate was joined. I never did understand; I do not expect I ever will.

I represent a large rural, small-town, small-city constituency in eastern Ontario bordering the province of Quebec. In one of the most rural of my townships, and there are some 36 municipalities in the county of Renfrew, in the heart of the county we have a wonderfully rural municipality in which there is situate quite a large commercial concern that has been, since I was a child, always open on Sunday. I could never understand, until we got into this debate a few years ago, how that place ever was opened in the shadow of more church spires than I could count. Of course, it was open under the Davis policy of local option, the tourist exemption.

I just make this point: It is a supremely agreeable, sensible and practical policy for all of us who pile out of the churches on Sunday -- and I am one, because this happy place is on the road to my cottage and the number of my constituents I meet at this facility on Sundays throughout the year is quite remarkable. These are good, God-fearing, churchgoing folk. If I did a canvass of those people, I suspect most -- not most but a goodly number of those people -- while they shop at this facility, would tell me they are opposed to Sunday shopping. I am absolutely convinced of that. The Kitchener-Waterloo Record a couple of years ago did one of these marvellous streeters at I forget which mall. This is one of the things about this policy I enjoy so much, because what people believe and what they think passionately and truly on both counts have not any necessary bearing on what they do. But I repeat, I could sit or stand or shop at this commercial facility, which has been open for years, and be overrun with my constituents on Sunday. I am sure a very significant percentage of that group would tell me the municipal option is terrible and Sunday shopping is worse. But we are all there and I as much as anyone, unlike my friend the member for Durham East, shop a lot on Sunday of necessity. I work on Sunday. I do not particularly like the fact, but for the 16 years I have been a member of the Legislature, Sunday is traditionally my busiest day. It includes a five-hour drive back to Toronto at the end of the day.

1820

If I think about it, I probably do not like to do that, but it comes with the territory. I certainly shop often for nothing particularly glamorous, but I am glad to have drugstores open on Sunday and I am certainly glad to have a certain kind of food store that does not charge the rates I have to pay in the convenience stores that are of necessity forced to charge higher rates because they are open at particularly late hours.

I come back to the main point: This bill incorporates what the Joan Smith bill and the John MacBeth bills of previous parliaments have incorporated as a fundamental; that is, local option. Anybody who thinks it does not is dreaming in Technicolor. As I say, there is no government, whether it is led by the present Premier or Preston Manning, that is going to be able to make policy in this area without that as a core principle.

My friends opposite will say there must be a common pause day. I say to my friends opposite, in 1991, given the cultural complexity of Ontario, if anyone honestly believes that with any degree of effect in urban communities like Toronto, Hamilton and Ottawa, there can be a common pause day that means anything like the 19th century concept to which my friend from Orono was making reference, then of course they are only kidding themselves, and worse, they are kidding the electorate. I understand entirely the ambition. Ontario, as my learned friend the member for Hamilton West will know, in the mid-19th century, was a much more homogeneous community. A lot of things were possible as recently as the 1950s that in my view are not practically possible, however desirable, in the minds of some in the 1990s.

This debate reminds me of another public policy issue that has bedevilled Ontario, not so much recently as it did for decades. That was the great liquor question. Apparently for many people -- I am sure this does not apply in Glengarry -- the idea of shopping for the sheer recreational joy and enthusiasm this occupation or activity inspires is really a worthwhile way to spend a day or a week. I cannot imagine doing it, but I have friends and relatives who love to shop until they drop. This is their idea of a good time. In my community, people travel considerable distances within the community and elsewhere to shop with great enthusiasm and great effect.

What the Legislature has tried to do over the last number of years is to regulate this enthusiasm with a view to economic order and protection, particularly for the working men and women of the province -- a totally understandable objective it seems to me; however, practical is quite another matter -- an effort to regulate in the interest of some kind of public morality. Again, from an idealist's perspective, not an unreasonable expectation, and for certain social objectives which I think flow from that interest in public morality. All of that I perfectly understand, but I say now what I have said before, as legislators we would do well to understand what it is we can easily regulate and what it is we have no hope of regulating, at least to the extent that we would make people believe we might regulate.

Here, of course, the liquor question becomes interesting, because for decades our predecessors in this chamber tried in vain, mostly, to regulate the demon rum. We have still a residue of that moralist crusade that is quite a wonderful, joyous commentary on our beloved Upper Canada. As one of my friends says: "You know, only in Ontario. The way we essentially resolved that great debate was accordingly that you could buy the stuff, but you could only buy it in a government store and you could only take it out of a government store if it was wrapped in an opaque brown bag." We have done it for decades and it brings great comfort to our peculiarly Upper Canadian soul and morality. As far as I am concerned, if it does, who am I to complain? A lot of people who visit this province look and smile an endless smile at this kind of public policy. "Yes, they will drink, apparently, but if they choose to drink in this province, they will buy it from us at world-class prices and we will wrap it in many wrappings of brown paper so that no one out there in Hamilton, Cambridge, Listowel, Kitchener or Iroquois Falls will see the awful, corrupting stuff. They can take it home and with the blinds drawn and the kids in bed they might just have a wee nip."

Anyway, here we are regulating again in the interests of social justice, economic protection and public morality. It is a brave politician who moves into this area, and I look back on the fiasco of our effort in this respect with no little pride. Did we do the right thing? In my view, absolutely. Did we do it awkwardly and poorly? You bet. I accept a fair measure of self-criticism because never in my wildest imaginings would I have expected to be lacerated by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario over the outrage of public policy based on a municipal option when that is in fact what we had had for decades. I see they are at it again. AMO does not like this legislation because, my God, it has as its core component municipal option.

I repeat, the government has and had no choice, and I commend it for the common sense of that. A long distance it is from that which was shouted about two years ago; rather like British Gas, you are quite prepared to put no little bit of water in your wine when the harsh realities of these kinds of pressing issues have to be resolved.

I read somewhere the other day that AMO is upset and I just think, my God, what do they want? Do they want a group of provincial bureaucrats in Queen's Park telling the people of Grattan township in Renfrew county what exactly they can and cannot do around the regulation of retail store hours? I do not believe that has ever been the policy of any government in Ontario for at least the past 50 years, and it would be perfect madness for any government to embark on that as a course of action.

I say to my friends the members opposite, my difficulty with what they have done in this legislation has not anything to do with the vast gap that exists between the actual performance of this policy relative to the promise of yesteryear. I understand why the government cannot do what it said it would do. However, I am very concerned at the encumbrance it has placed on the local option, and I understand why, because of course it must show those people out there that it has tried to put some brakes on what is, in some cases, an unbreakable community interest or individual urge.

1830

But I think this legislation, as has been commented upon by others, will be a lawyer's paradise. As my friend the member for St George-St David has said, this is enough to keep a former Attorney General interested in the practice of law.

I saw something today actually that came across my desk, one of these Lawyers Weekly journals. Members all get it I am sure. Mr Justice Michael George Bolan, QC, late of the Legislature, has granted some kind of leave to have the previous government's legislation tested -- I am sorry, that is on the insurance; it is on the threshold. But I want to come to insurance because they are not unconnected.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Listen, I promised to be brief, but I sat here for months. I listened and watched the chandeliers reverberate with NDP indignation about Bill 112 and Bill 113, or Bill 113 and Bill 114. The member does not want to know what his colleagues did. He does not want to know the kind of tactics that were engaged in. I was thinking about that the other day, but it would be really impolite and impertinent for me to recall.

I simply say that when I looked at what the government has done to the local option, if I were on a local council, boy, I would be pretty ticked off. I would be mad as hell because it has created unnecessary confusion. It has added very considerable expense to the decision-making of a given community. It has certainly, without any doubt, added very considerably to the cost of doing business in this province at a time when we are all hearing -- I was in Niagara Falls the other day and I had a lot of sympathy for those people from the board of trade who were describing what they are confronted with in this legislation. This policy will not sit in a vacuum.

In my community, two and a half hours from the New York state border, scores of people are leaving every Saturday morning, apparently, to shop in Massena and Watertown. And so, for those communities that I represent, a long way from the border relative to Niagara Falls, Welland and other such communities, if I were in the local chamber of commerce or on the city council, I would be looking at this and saying, "Yet more cost, more complication, more confusion."

Again, the government will say it has done so to give effect to the common pause day, worker protection and, of course, that is the argument that will be advanced. I do not believe it is going to do anything to advance materially the position of the previous government's policy, however ill-communicated that policy was.

I say as I look at this that for people to seriously imagine that the criteria -- I am too tired on a Monday to have the fun with this that I would like to on another day. But my friends opposite are smart people. They are good people. I think the member for Nipissing was talking about this. I cannot conceive of any community I represent that could not be open on one or any combination of these criteria.

Again, I do not fault the government for that. That is exactly what Bill Davis and George Kerr and John MacBeth came to conclude as they went around and around looking for a way. Those Tories did not stay in office for 42 years by accident. My friends to my left -- there are not too many left who remember those days -- but I am going to tell the House that if we go back and look at the efforts, particularly in the mid-1970s, they may have said one thing and done something a little different. As I say, I was a member of the Legislature for years before I realized the tourist exemption is like the Delphic oracle: it can mean everything or it can mean nothing.

Again, it taught me something about making public policy. It is like liquor. It is evil; it is all kinds of things. But you can tax it, you can make them buy it from a government store and you can wrap it in a brown paper bag. That somehow settles the nerves to a sufficient extent just to allow everybody to get on with other things. I never learned any of that in graduate school or in elementary school, but I have learned it in the school of politics. Boy, it is a very interesting education.

But I look at this and I think this is the nightmare of this package. The government has tried with great and predicable socialist zeal to get into the business of enumeration. Of course, it has had to cast the net with some degree of flexibility, so we have things like historical or natural attractions, cultural or ethnic attractions, a concentration of hospitality services, sale of heritage or handcraft items, or a farmers' market, access to hiking, boating or fishing, fairs and festivals.

In the presence of my good friend from the public interest group that I think is called Citizens for Public Justice -- a good fellow, smart -- I cannot believe that Gerald is going to look at this and see it for anything other than the tourist exemption that was always there. I would disappoint him because he and I are not going to agree. He is going to want something I cannot deliver, however much I might want to agree with him.

One of the interesting things in a community like mine is that the city in which I live, Pembroke, is by and large closed on a Sunday. My other little community 35 miles away is open. That may violate certain nostrums about uniformity and universality, but it works and it has developed over time to meet different kinds of community circumstances.

What the government has tried to do here now is set out criteria that presumably are going to be litigated and interpreted. I think the opportunity here for judicial review of what councils do and do not do, what chambers of commerce do and do not do, what labour councils do and do not do is endless. It will be painful, it will be miserable, it will be never-ending, as I said earlier, and it will, most importantly, add confusion and cost to a sector that employs tens of thousands of people and a sector that by all accounts is in very difficult straits as a result of local taxation, international pressures and a variety of other things that have been much commented upon.

I simply say, in conclusion, what have we? We have NDP policy that is built on the fundamental principle of local option with criteria that will allow every community that I know and represent to be wide open if they choose. But if they choose, they will now have to go through a set of administrative and bureaucratic hoops that will be very complicated in some cases and especially confusing and costly.

This bill will not provide what was offered, namely a common pause day of any great effect. I respect the instinct of my friends opposite to try to do that. But just as in a society of 10 million people where large percentages apparently will insist as a matter of either economic right or recreational interest to shop on Sunday you will not in any significant way stop that enthusiasm, you are not going to be able in any real way to create the common pause day, for those and other reasons that have more to do with the changing complexity of our multicultural mix in Ontario in the 1990s.

Finally, the government has put municipalities in a position where I have a feeling that, whatever we do in this process, after perhaps 18 months to 36 months we will be back either at their urging or perhaps at the urging of one of the higher courts to try, once more with feeling and once more without any real unanimity, to regulate the unregulable, namely retail store hours in this province.

1840

Hon Mr Farnan: I have to say I always enjoy the analysis of the member for Renfrew North. Articulate as he is, entertaining as he is, and persuasive as he is, he misses the point.

The point is this: He talks about local option. His definition of local option applies quite clearly to the old Conservative law where they had the tourism exemption but no definition. It applies quite clearly to the Liberal administration's local option, which was simply to hand it back to the municipalities and to have no further part in that.

But what we are proposing is something quite distinct and something the member never referred to at all in his presentation to the House this evening. We are talking about a local provincial partnership. We are talking about a responsive local administration together with a responsible central co-ordination. With the sensitivity and the knowledge and expertise of the local community and with the provincial guidelines and the definitions provided, we can get some uniformity, we can get some balance. But we are essentially talking about a partnership.

So entertaining as the presentation of the member for Renfrew North was, it is deceiving because, while we are being entertained, we are not addressing the substance of the issue. The substance of the issue is that this legislation is significantly different, very different from what has preceded it. This legislation is common pause day legislation for families and communities, with provincial guidelines where there were no provincial guidelines before.

Mr Daigeler: I think the member for Renfrew North certainly hit the substance of the issue, and I fully agree with him. As I indicated earlier, the substance is that this legislation has the same effect as ours had with regard to openings on Sundays.

In my comments, though, I do not really want to address the legislative or regulatory aspect of this bill. I would like to mention something that relates absolutely to the philosophy or the thinking behind the whole question of work on Sunday.

Perhaps I am coming from a bit of a different direction than the member for Renfrew North, with all due respect. I think too often, we look at this question as a religious one in the narrow sense or in a 19th-century concept, as the member for Renfrew North spoke of. But, quite frankly, I think we are looking at this question in too narrow a perspective.

I recently read in the Globe and Mail a very interesting article on leisure and what in our society we are doing to the whole concept of -- I use the traditional word -- contemplation, in the sense of doing nothing. That seems to have gone by the wayside. We are so addicted to work and to doing things that we are bypassing that elementary human element which is seeing and admiring things. That is from the Latin word "contemplation." I think that is an essential dimension to humanity and hopefully to our society as well.

I think the whole concept of leisure is something that should enter the debate, not so much about the legislation but what we do on Sundays.

Mr Sutherland: I just wanted to make a few comments in response to the member for Renfrew North, particularly when he was talking about why people shop on Sundays. He talked about how he does not like to shop on Sundays but sometimes is forced to, and he mentioned his family members.

I have often been intrigued about how we have gotten to the point in our society where in many respects shopping has become almost the number one family activity. I think it is a very sad commentary on our society that somehow spending money and bowing to the gods of commercialism is the number one activity people find fulfilling as a family activity.

Having worked in the retail sector for seven years through high school and university, I have never seen why people would want to shop on Sunday. I always enjoyed having that day off to do what I consider true family things, such as birthday parties and those types of things for family members, for mom and dad and nieces and nephews, and anniversaries and what have you. It really is a very sad commentary when the advertising whizzes on Madison Avenue have truly won over people and convinced them that six days of the week are not good enough to run up your credit card to the maximum and be in debt and increase your personal debt. You need to do it on a seventh day.

I find it rather disconcerting that this is where our society is at, and I certainly hope we can change that trend somehow. I do not think we can legislate that, but somehow through education people will realize there are better family things to do than shopping on Sunday.

Mr Bisson: I also echo those issues. The honourable member was not here when we raised a few points before. I was raised in the retail sector; both my parents were employed, not only employed but self-employed in the business sector. I understand full well the implications of parents having to work on Sunday, having lived in that particular thing myself.

At the beginning of his discourse the member alluded to this Legislature when he mentioned that he had to work on Sundays as a politician and that it is one of his most important days. My comment is that it is our choice as individuals to work on Sunday at our particular thing. If we do not, we may not get elected in four years, but it is something of a choice and opportunity. The question I have for him is, should we not give those people who want the opportunity the choice not to work on Sunday? I take it that he supports that particular thing.

The other point I want to make is that one of the arguments used inside this particular debate is that we need seven days of shopping to be able to compete within the marketplace. I too am a little confused on that particular point because for over 120 years since Confederation within this province, we have been basically operating on a six-day or five-day work week even at one time in the shopping sector. When I was a younger lad I remember they used to be closed two days a week, Sundays and Wednesdays, and managed to make money over a five-day period. Now we have diluted it over six, and some people are suggesting we dilute the money the business sector brings in over seven days, which just raises the cost of operation because it is still the same number of dollars out there that we consumers are putting in the pockets of the retail merchants. Apart from the convenience, I really wonder just how much money is to be made on Sunday.

I think it comes to the point my honourable member made a little while ago, that somehow our society has made shopping on Sunday a sort of trendy or in thing to do. It has made going out and shopping a central part of our life, and I do not think that is the issue here.

1850

Mr Conway: I want to take issue with my friend the Solicitor General. The basis of the Liberal policy, which he might disagree with, was without any question local option within a provincial framework which made some reasonable provision for worker protection. In that respect, I do not see the new government's policy as fundamentally different. I repeat, the Liberal government policy turned on the principle of local option within a provincial framework, which included some reasonable measure of worker protection.

I do not share his view, nor do independent analysts, that this policy is qualitatively different from the previous government's policy, although it is different in degree. That is why I do not like it. It encumbers municipalities and businesses with a whole panoply of socialist regulation and cost that I think is going to be confusing at the very least and most likely counterproductive.

Second, a generation ago the debates in this place would have been about the efficacy of Sunday sport and Sunday entertainment and whether there should ever be a ball game. Times change and now 50,000 people parade virtually every Sunday to the SkyDome and there is not a great debate about that. That reflects changing attitudes in the community.

One of the reasons I will be very busy over the next three months in my constituency is that I will be worn out going with hundreds of other people to church picnics on Sunday, irony of ironies. That is where I will be. When I think about this debate, the only thing that is more interesting than municipalities attacking local option are churches complaining about this when I will join thousands of churchgoers at church picnics over the course of the coming months.

Finally, I strongly support local option. I would rather have a more closed than open Sunday, but I think communities should have the right to make that choice.

Mr Carr: I am pleased to rise this evening and contribute to the debate on this very important bill. I must say at the beginning, though, that on an issue like this, I am surprised the government has pleased no one when hopefully at least one side of the issue could be happy. In fact, with this legislation all it has done is make it a lot more confusing.

Normally you would think that if it brought in a bill, it would please one side or the other. However, it has managed to alienate every side of the issue. In the short period of time it worked on this legislation, it has managed to alienate all sides of this issue. It has pleased no one with this bill. I think it is a sad commentary on the government's performance that it cannot get even this right. It cannot make even one side happy. It has to alienate everybody on the issue.

When I look back and reflect on what happened in the previous debates -- I think one of the previous speakers alluded to this -- during some of the debates the Solicitor General actually had a tiny chicken that he brought around for some of the hearings. He put it on his shoulders and brought it around during some of the debate and mocked the previous Solicitor General for taking the chicken way out, as he called it.

So what does he do? He turns around and does the same thing. Then we wonder why in this day and age people are a little cynical and sceptical about politicians. They say one thing in opposition, go around and mock the previous government with little chickens and then turn around and their bill does the same thing. They take the chicken way out by passing it on to somebody else: "It's a tough decision. I don't want to make it, so I am going to lob it on to the municipalities for them to make."

If you look back at the history of the Sunday shopping debate and see what we have gone through -- and I think a couple of other previous speakers talked about it, going way back to 1845 when all activity was banned but churchgoing and certain works of necessity and charity -- through that period we had many changes. In 1892, I guess, the first Toronto referendum on allowing Sunday streetcars was defeated; so this debate on what should happen on a Sunday has gone on and on going way back.

In 1943 the Attorney General, noting widespread disregard for the Lord's Day Act, announced he would no longer give permission to prosecute souvenir stands, hot dog stands, cigarette stands, rental boats, rides in airplanes and Sunday excursions. In 1945 they ended the Sunday movies for servicemen during that period of time. I was reflecting a little bit on this with somebody about a week or so ago. I am not that old, but during that period of time we actually had curfews in some of the sporting events. This debate on whether we were going to be allowed sporting events went back for years.

It is kind of ironic that some of the people who are now saying we should have the right not to work are the same people who go down to the ball game and park. The parking lot attendants have to work on Sunday and they say we cannot shop on Sunday. Those are the same people who then go to the stands and have a hot dog and maybe even an occasional beer. The people serving them have to work. When it comes to their own particular pleasure, they are prepared to have other people work.

In this day and age our laws make it so ridiculous that you can go to one of the farmers' markets and get lettuce, but you cannot buy the salad dressing for it unless you go to a convenience store, a 7 Eleven or one of the other stores. As we sit here today, you can buy it on a Sunday but you have to go to a different store. We are now in a position where you line up and certain products can be bought but other products cannot. The government is trying to regulate everything. As I sit back and reflect on this, I see that there has been no change and no improvement. As I said earlier, every interest group on every side of this issue, whether it be the municipalities, labour or the stores, all are opposed to this particular bill.

I guess some of the headlines say it best: "Wishy-Washy Sunday Plan Angers Cities, Labour and Stores." In Metro, officials said the new legislation would create "a chaotic mess for municipalities and may lead to wide-open Sunday shopping in some of the city's busy districts." One of the local councillors said, "I am disappointed because the province said they were going to decide which stores would open and I naïvely believed them." Cliff Evans, the Canadian director of the United Food and Commercial Workers, said, "I'm very unhappy because it doesn't remove the local municipal option." Here the government has municipalities and labour unhappy with it.

Now I will talk a little bit about what the business community said. This is a quote from one of the people for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business: "I read it as a very wishy-washy piece of legislation, as much as just about any other area in the community could be open." The Ontario Chamber of Commerce says the same thing, that the proposed legislation has put a huge and unasked-for burden on its 168-member organization, a burden that could tear many of them apart.

The business community, labour and the municipalities are not pleased with it. As we sit here, the only ones pleased with it are the group on this side who wrote the legislation, and I suspect half of them are just doing it because it was brought in by their government.

Barry Agnew, the vice-president of one of the Bay and Simpsons stores, said, "Once again this government has refused to take steps that are urgently needed to help retailers in this province be competitive." Some Metro officials who were talking about the interpretation of this bill said it would create a chaotic mess. Through editorial after editorial, as members have been looking through the papers over the last little while, the overwhelming consensus has been that nobody is pleased with this legislation.

I read now what John Winter, the president of one of the associations, said. He is involved in some of the cross-border shopping: "It's incredible that retailers aren't allowed to be competitive. The iron law of marketing is to give the customers more of what they want, less of what you think they need. Somehow we've got the Ontario government violating this fundamental law."

We have got both sides of the issue claiming victory. We have one side saying it is going to make it tougher and the other sides saying it is going to make it easier. Quite frankly, it is now going to come down to the courts to decide. The courts will be the ones deciding it. As in the past, we will have court decisions and court cases after court cases. The municipalities will be forced to take this particular legislation and deal with it as they are challenged.

I received some information from the local municipality of Halton. This is going to mean that people are going to line up before the criteria and try to get exemptions. They will be the ones to have to make the tough decisions because this government is not prepared to do it. The government says it has made the tough decisions on some of the criteria for tourism, and as most of the speakers have alluded to, when one looks at the criteria, if this is a tough decision, then I would hate to see an easy decision, because it has made it so easy for particular groups to take the tourism option.

1900

I think some of the speakers have done this but let's just take a quick look at the criteria again. Almost every community in this province would be able to be claimed as a tourist exemption. So for those who say, "Yes, we've got a tough law and we've made it so that there will be a common pause day on Sunday," that is not true. It is as easy as can be with these particular criteria. It will now be up to municipalities to decide, instead of this government, what shops will open. We are going to have a piecemeal situation where we are going to have some shops open on one side of the street and potentially other ones closed on the other side, so we are going to have a mismatch.

To anybody who is wanting to go out and shop on Sunday we are going to have a situation where they will not know if the municipality qualifies. We now have different levels of exemptions. We are going to have one for the small retailers and one for the large ones. That right off the bat is going to make it so that the larger retailer is going to take it to the court and challenge it. We are probably going to see a period of time when we are going to have appeals and it is going to be challenged as unconstitutional by the large companies. The small companies are going to be challenging it if they do not get the proper ruling from municipalities. Through all this we have got a public out there who is going to become more and more confused.

They say they are tough exemptions for the criteria. When one looks at it, every part of Ontario would meet the tourism criteria. "Historical or natural attractions" -- that could virtually say anywhere in this province. "Cultural or ethnic attractions" -- anywhere from Toronto to downtown Sudbury will qualify for that. "A concentration of hospitality services" -- in most areas, local shops offer plenty of hospitality services, so they are going to be able to qualify in that. "The area predominantly provides for shopping activities" which feature themes or markets or "the sale of heritage or handicraft items" -- again, most areas in the province will qualify for that. It provides access to hiking and boating; we now have in this province a situation where fishing in most lakes and rivers and streams will qualify for that.

What they have done is they have brought in exemptions so that virtually everyone can now be exempt from it, but they have said: "We're not the ones who are going to make the decision; it's going to be up to municipalities. We as a government are not going to decide. We're going to throw it into the laps of the municipalities." It is a little bit ironic that the Solicitor General mocked the last Solicitor General for taking the chicken way out and then turned around and did virtually the same thing.

I will read some of the comments from across the province because I do not think people just want to hear my opinion on it. "The NDP has collapsed back to the old municipal tourism exemption which made such a mockery of the Business Holidays Act," one paper said. Of course as we know, it was the Liberals who were the first to throw the municipal option out there. Another paper said the province planned to exempt border cities from its promised Sunday closing laws, which is what the Solicitor General said. He said: "Certainly that's the goal. Border cities are going to be exempt but I'm bringing in this tough legislation that's going to give a common pause day." He is trying to please both sides and consequently has pleased no one.

As the Premier said, and I will give a quote that was in one of our local papers, "I can't prevent municipalities from doing what they're entitled to do." What is going to happen is he is going to say: "The municipalities can do whatever they want but, boy, I'm tough. I'm bringing in this tough law that is going to leave a common pause day but on the other hand say that it's up to municipalities." As I said earlier, then we wonder why people are a little bit cynical and sceptical about politicians.

Another paper, when provincial New Democrats wanted to drop the requirement for police officers to swear their allegiance to the Queen, told critics: "Get real. This isn't the old colonial Ontario." They said, "This is a multicultural, multifaith place where no one wants to pay homage to some fusty old monarch any more." That was a quote from one of the papers. Here they are saying they are going to consult and leave it with municipalities but, when it comes to issues like that, they do not leave it up to the municipalities. So there is selective consulting and when there is a tough choice to be made, they slough it off on to somebody else rather than making the tough choice.

One of the spokesmen for the Committee for Fair Shopping said the large food stores have always agreed with the principle of allowing workers to refuse to work on Sundays, and I think that is something everybody agrees with. Nobody in this province should be made to work on a Sunday if he is opposed to it, particularly on religious grounds. I think that is what we need to do: ensure that nobody is forced to work.

It was kind of interesting yesterday to get the comments from my eight-year-old son. I said I was going to be standing up and speaking on Sunday shopping. He said, "Dad, why don't we just make it that if somebody wants to shop on Sunday, they can, and if somebody doesn't want to shop on Sunday, they don't have to?"

It is kind of interesting that what we have done here is make it so complicated that the only people who are happy with it are the lawyers. The lawyers are the only ones who are going to be able to look at it and say, "The more complicated the better, because I'm going to be able to collect my money to be able to untangle it and to be able to take it to court when all the court challenges crop up."

The ironic thing is that it will not be this government that will have to pay for it; it will be the municipalities that are going to have to spend the time fighting it in court as they get challenged time and again by local businesses, either pro or con. Regardless of what side of the issue, there are going to be challenges. If you make a decision in a municipality and people are unhappy, it is going to be challenged and we are going to see a tremendous amount of litigation. I think in this day and age, that is the last thing we need.

One of the presidents of the chamber of commerce in Sault Ste Marie said that she is very unhappy about the province's plan. They are not happy up in Sault Ste Marie. The chamber of commerce in Sault Ste Marie is not happy with the plan. They pleased no one.

On the other side of it we see such headlines as, "'Open Sundays Are Inevitable,' Merchants Say." We have a government that stands up and says: "Boy, we're going to have tough criteria. We're going to have a common pause day." The merchants are saying that virtually everyone is going to be open. "'Sunday shopping in Ontario is inevitable despite the New Democrat government's proposed legislation,' retailers in favour of Sunday openings say." So here they are saying, "We're going to have this tough new law to have a common pause day," and the retailers are saying, "Uh, uh; it ain't going to work. We're going to be able to open." Quite frankly, with the municipal option and with the criteria they have, they are probably right.

I think one daily had a headline that said it best: "Passing the Buck on Sunday Shopping." That is really what they have done; they have passed the buck on to someone else. There is a tough choice to be made, so they passed it on to someone else rather than stand up and be counted like a government should.

The legislation is a sign of a government wearing blinkers, of pushing its agenda forward without recognizing the pitfalls of the agenda. They recognized some of the pitfalls, so what they attempted to do was please everyone. Consequently, they have done what most governments should know they cannot do; they have attempted to please everybody and they have pleased nobody.

The president of the Hudson's Bay Co -- and I think our leader alluded to this in one of the questions -- told the company's annual meeting that sales fell earlier this year when Sunday shopping stopped in Ontario and that potentially 4,800 Hudson's Bay jobs were lost during that period of time. Here we have a government that is not prepared to make the tough decisions one way or the other. They have tried to straddle the fence, and consequently I think what they have done is they have pleased no one.

I look at some of the other editorials: "'Protection for retail workers is difficult,' says the Solicitor General." Quite frankly, as Mike Freeman, a spokesman for the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, said, "It's almost impossible to legislate protection for workers." These are union people speaking, so the government should listen to them. I know sometimes it does not listen to the business community. Mike Freeman, a spokesman for the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, said, "It's almost impossible to legislate protection for workers." They are saying it cannot be done, and quite frankly, this legislation certainly has not done it.

The next headline is "'Sunday Bill is Flawed,' NDP Admits." The Solicitor General, when he went on Focus Ontario, was reminded during the interview: "By your own admission, the right to refuse work on Sunday is rather spineless. It's weak. It can't be enforced." This is what this Solicitor General said: "Let me tell you, there is no question that what you said is true." So he believes it cannot be done, yet when the statement comes and he is standing up in front of this Legislature, he troops out, saying, "We're going to be able to protect the workers and it can be legislated." In fact, he agrees with what was said.

1910

"Thousands of retail workers will have the absolute right to refuse work," said the Minister of Labour, but the fact is, the unions do not believe that, business does not believe that, the municipalities do not believe that, and in fact the only one who believes that is this government and I guess that is even a little bit sadder as we sit here today.

One of the retailers said, "At best, the provincial Sunday shopping plan boggles the mind of local retailers." One of the co-owners of a ladies' clothing store, Morning Star, said, "They seem bent on making it harder and harder for us to survive." So again you have the retailers saying they are not pleased with the law.

Since one of the big thrusts has been on the tourism criteria, I thought I would take a look at what Tourism Ontario said. "According to the most recent statistics, Sunday cross-border shopping by Ontarians increased by 32% between February and March of this year following the reimposition of Sunday shopping restrictions in Ontario." That is what they are saying. This is a group saying cross-border shopping increased by 32% during that period of time, and yet we have got a government that says it is taking tough steps to protect workers in this province. It has not done a thing.

As I sit back and look at the history, we have all the amendments that came in and the various things that were happening. We were going to have trolley cars that were going to be able to operate on Sunday and then we got rid of them; we had servicemen who were allowed to go to movies; we had professional sports that were exempt from Sunday but only until 6 pm, so what used to happen -- those who are old enough to remember, and I am not one of them -- is that the game used to be called at 6 o'clock. They used to go home and play the next day and the team used to have to stay over if they did not finish in time.

What this particular piece of legislation will do is make it so the history of the Sunday shopping issue in this province will continue. Instead of making the tough choices to end it once and for all on either side of the issue, what they have done is ensure it will be prolonged for a further period of time. The only ones who are happy with it are the people who are going to be involved in the litigation: the lawyers who see this as a chance to make some money as they argue all sides of the issue in front of every municipality are now going to be swamped. They are going to be swamped at council meetings across this province over the next little while from both sides of the issue, trying to deal with it.

We will not see any outcome that is going to be satisfactory to anyone. We are going to have a piecemeal piece of legislation. We are going to have situations where potentially some parts of our ridings are going to be open and some will not be. Consumers are going to be relatively confused by it. Border towns are going to want it. They are going to be confused by it. Lord knows how long it is going to take for this legislation to go through if somebody does pass it. They have to hold public hearings. When you look at it, what we have is a piece of legislation which, quite frankly, I am amazed it took so long to put together. They spent so much time putting it together, and as I said on one other occasion, even a broken clock is right twice a day, but they are not able to get one piece of legislation that pleases anybody on the issue. Every side of the issue is unhappy with what they have done and yet they stand up here and say, "We've done the right thing." We even hear the Solicitor General championing what he is doing as being correct, and in fact no one in the province believes it. No one in the province is happy with this piece of legislation with the exception of the Solicitor General, who I believe is coming over to consult with me and maybe change some of the points I have made in this dramatic debate. Maybe I have moved him. I think he has moved to this side of the House for the next period of time.

What we are going to have is potentially a domino effect, a patchwork of Sunday shopping, and this bill has done nothing to alleviate those fears, but in fact it has served to increase them.

I think I spoke too long. He is going back to the other side again, so I should have quite while I was ahead.

There is little difference between this NDP piece of legislation and the Liberal piece of legislation, in so much as both dump the responsibility back on the municipalities. Quite frankly, I guess the Solicitor General would be a little bit embarrassed, considering he is the one who mocked the previous Liberal government as taking the chicken way out and then turned around and did the same thing he accused Joan Smith of doing.

The absence of a definition of the geographic area means it is now up to councils to determine if a single bylaw may apply for the entire municipality or for a specific area. So we have complicated it further. We are going to be talking about geographical areas, we are going to be talking about tourism exemption criteria, and nobody but the lawyers is going to be able to figure this thing out. They have got four years in government, or, God forbid, five years, if they take it to the distance. Instead of simplifying, instead of making the tough choices to clarify this issue once and for all, what they have done is muddied the waters and made it so that we are going to be having unclear regulations and criteria for the next little while. I suspect there will be numerous court challenges, adding to both the municipal tax burden and the retail cost. Everybody is going to be defending each side of the issue.

I received a little bit of information from the town solicitor of Halton about it. I guess municipalities are not going to be too happy, because they are going to have to spend all their time now in litigation on this Sunday shopping law, when all the government had to do was to have the political courage to make the tough choices, to stand up in this day and age and make the tough choices. Instead, they have tried to straddle the fence, and quite frankly, they have fallen over the edge.

This is not a good piece of legislation, even after the time it took to put it in place. We waited and we waited. The Solicitor General said, "We're consulting and we're checking and we're consulting and we're checking with this group." He had them all in, and then what did he do? He brought in legislation that pleased no one. He brought in legislation that no one is happy with, and from some of the comments from all sides of the House, including some of the people from the Liberal Party, everybody is looking at this piece of legislation and saying, "We waited so long for it and we're so let down by this piece of legislation."

The history of the Sunday shopping debate in this province does not end with this piece of legislation. It goes on and on, and I suspect, with the number of hearings we have had over the last little while -- there has been committee after committee travel this province; they have heard submissions -- some of the people must be getting sick of making the submissions, because they make the submissions, they make their point, and no government has the political courage to stand up and do what it believes to be right and potentially to alienate anyone.

I am going to enjoy the summer months travelling with my friends on all sides on the justice committee. My friend from Guelph will have a chance to see wonderful parts and hear the debate and will go around and once again listen to all the wonderful things. I guess the only people who will enjoy it are some of the members who will get a chance to see this fine province, because the people who come before us are going to be saying: "Can't you characters down there in Queen's Park get it right? Can't you listen to us once and for all and stand up and take a piece of legislation and implement it and have the political courage to make the right decision?" Instead, we are going to be going around the province again, trooping around the province at a tremendous cost while we listen to people. We listened to people over the last little while --

Mr Mills: That's five times you've said that, Gary -- on and on and on.

Mr Carr: My friend the member for Durham East will be with us, and he will be with us going around the province. In fact, one of the big facts is that nobody out there in the public is going to believe that these hearings are going to change or achieve anything.

It is going to be a lot like what happened in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. They were piled in literally higher than the Treasurer of the day is, although, as he says, that is not too hard to do. That was his comment, not mine. But we pile submission after submission, people come around for these hearings, and then the government turns around and does not listen anyway.

As a matter of fact, I am going to see if the Solicitor General will let me borrow his little chicken to take around. I hope he has kept it. I asked him earlier if he did keep it and he cannot seem to find it, because that is in fact what happened over the last little while. We had a Solicitor General who is not prepared to make the tough choices.

I will wrap up my comments by saying that this piece of legislation we are talking about pleases no one. The people of the province, the people in the stores, the people in the labour movement, the workers, the people who are out there in Ontario; nobody is pleased with this legislation. Let's at least admit the mistakes of this government and at least let's have this summer, when we are going around for some of these hearings, to finally make the tough choices that need to be made to get legislation that will end this debate once and for all.

Even though I will have enjoyed travelling around with some of my friends and colleagues in the justice committee, I still do not want to be here five years from now still trying to debate because of a government that will not have the political courage to make its decision. Just stand up and do it, make the political choice that needs to be done, and then we would be able to get rid of it once and for all. Let's end this debate and move on.

1920

Mr Sutherland: I want to respond to a couple of comments made by the member for Oakville South. He used a quote that one of the people opposed to this said that this legislation does not make retailers competitive. I believe it was a representative of one of the large retailers. I believe it was the gentleman from the Bay who said that. I find that a very interesting quote to use, because I am trying to figure out how allowing Sunday shopping or allowing large retailers to open is going to make them more competitive when all you are going to do is spread their costs out over seven days rather than six days. In other words, you are going to increase their costs. I have never known increasing their costs to make anybody more competitive.

I guess then, if they are not going to be made more competitive that way, what the member was suggesting is that what Sunday shopping is going to do is to squeeze the small, family-owned businesses out of operation, because, as members know, those people have to work six days a week as it is now, and there is no way that any family can work seven days a week. They need to have at least one common pause day. So all that is going to do is to hurt the small, family-owned people. Maybe that is their goal, that they feel somehow through their large purchasing power they still cannot compete with those small business people.

I would also like to draw the member's attention to some comments he made about cross-border shopping. Obviously the member did not hear the Gallup poll today which indicated that in British Columbia, where they have had Sunday shopping for many years, they are leading the way in cross-border shopping, that British Columbians are leading the country in participating in that unfortunate activity. So Sunday shopping is not related to the issue of cross-border shopping; it is much different.

Let me just say, in closing, that we do not really need Sunday shopping. If retailers were like bankers with their old hours, 10 to 3, then maybe we would need it, but I do not think we do now.

Mr Harris: I want to say briefly to the member for Oxford that the business community will be delighted to know that he understands why the Bay laid off 4,800 people better than the Bay does and that he understands the retail business better than the retailers themselves do. I guess it is part of the problem we have that those who have never sold more than a peanut in their lives seem to think they know better how to do business than the business people themselves. Quite frankly, I believe the members opposite do believe that, because I have looked at the legislative agenda, the tax agenda, the budget agenda, and I do think they believe they know better what makes it work.

However, I did want to comment on the remarks of the member for Oakville South and say that I have been astounded how, in such a short period of time, any member could come to such a commonsense grasp of the issues as the member for Oakville South has. I enjoyed his remarks today. There are a number of colleagues across the House in government who have been here for a considerable period of time, but the member for Oakville South, a new member, has quickly grasped the issues, both the legislative issues and the issues surrounding the history of this bill. I wanted to say how delighted I was to hear those remarks and how proud I think all members from all parties of the House would be of the member for Oakville South for that non-partisan grasp and understanding of legislative issues and this bill.

Since my time is waning and the minister is not here, I would like to point out to the parliamentary assistant that right now, as we speak, Windsor is passing the final reading of a bylaw to allow wide-open Sunday shopping in the whole town because they say you can drive a truck through this bill and the whole town is a tourist area.

Mr Bisson: I thought there were a couple of interesting points, and I just do not have the time to deal with all of them, so I will pick a couple of interesting ones.

On one of the points that he raises, the analogy of his eight-year-old son, who had a solution to this problem by saying, "Why don't we just allow those who want to go shopping on Sunday to do so and those who don't not to?" I would have to think that if we carry that analogy to other parts of our society, really it would be irresponsible on the part of any government to turn around and abdicate its responsibility when it comes to dealing with an issue.

Mr Carr: He is more responsible than you are on other issues, too.

Mr Bisson: The member should keep his interjections to himself, please, until he has his opportunity.

The point is that we as governments, no matter what our stripe is, have to deal with the issues that are before us as a government and have to be able to make some distinctions and have to be able to make some decisions. The decision we made on this one, which we maintained as the principle we talked to outside of government before we got here and we maintain now that we are the government, is that we will put in place a common pause day that respects the right of the individual who decides not to work on Sunday to be able to have the opportunity to do so.

I am glad the member for Nipissing is in, because a little while ago, basically he was trying to say, why do we have to put this into legislation? No, that was the point from the other member; I am sorry. It comes back to what I said a little while ago. I lost what the member said a little while ago. Sorry.

Mr Harris: I would be happy to refresh your memory.

Mr Bisson: No, no. It does get giddy here about 7:30 at night.

In regard to the business people, I just want to say one thing very quickly and very clearly. The business community within my riding met with me and we worked together before coming up to this bill about this whole issue. They were concerned about what Sunday shopping meant to them as small business, because they were afraid that if you allowed wide-open Sunday shopping, what indeed you were doing was allowing the larger share of the market to go to the bigger companies and those who were in a small business did not have the opportunity to compete on such a level.

Mr Mills: I was rather alarmed that the member for Oakville South finds this piece of legislation so complicated. I do not find it complicated at all. He said about five or six times that there is no one, absolutely no one, who agrees with this proposed legislation. That is absolutely ridiculous. We have the support of this by Christian churches and lobby groups; we have Tourism Ontario, which is in support; we have Fairness for Families, a broad-based coalition of business, community, labour and religious interests; all favour this legislation.

On a personal note, I can tell the member for Oakville South that I live on Wellesley Street. There is a little drycleaner's there. I was in there the other night. The guy identified me as being a member of the government. He said to me, "Am I ever glad that you guys are sticking with Sunday shopping." I said, "Why?" He said, "We came here in 1960." They work seven days a week, his two brothers and himself, and he says, "Sunday's the only day that we get together as a family." He said, "If this was wide open, the cleaner around the corner, Cadet, would be open, the cleaner around there, Sketchley, would be open, and my family life would be destroyed." So for the member for Oakville South to say that absolutely nobody supports this bill is absolute rubbish.

He said it is being backed on to the municipalities. We have given the municipalities the criteria to effectively come to grips with this. Those criteria are under some severe scrutiny. That is the way it is going to be and it is going to work, I am confident.

The Chair: The member for Oakville South has two minutes to summarize.

1930

Mr Carr: I am pleased in these last couple of minutes to talk about a couple of the points. First of all, it is kind of ironic that some of the members of the government side would actually talk about being fair to small business. This is a group of individuals who, when it came to the situation with the budget, are not taking a look at any tax relief for any small business. They are not taking a look at helping any small businesses with their measures, and it is ironic that they stand up and say they are helping small business when in fact nothing they have done since they have been in government has helped small business in this province.

In the most heavily taxed province in Canada, the most heavily taxed jurisdiction in North America, because they cannot tax any more, they run up this massive deficit. So small business is going to be paying years from now. There will never be any opportunity for tax relief because of what this government has done. They cannot stand up and talk about helping small businesses.

My friend the member for Durham East talks about his friend the cleaner. If it is as close to this Legislature as he says it is, this particular place would be classified as a tourism area, so guess what is going to happen: the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto could say that is a tourist industry and, whammo, that guy is going to have to be open because all the other places are going to be open.

There is going to be a tourism criterion. They will say the Legislature, a little bit of history in this place, is within close proximity, so they are going to be able to open up. Do you know why? Because in Metropolitan Toronto they are going to pass a bylaw that says this is a tourism industry. His friend who opened the cleaners is going to be facing those same competitors who are going to be open and they are going to take business away because the municipality of Toronto can now open because of the tourism exemptions. I think they said it best: They are so broad they can drive a truck through them. That poor person is going to be coming to them a year from now and saying, "You let me down."

Ms Haeck: I wish to participate in the debate. I relish this particular debate because I was one of those people who made a presentation to the Liberal task force that toured St Catharines several years ago. I feel it is important to make some of those same comments on behalf of the workers who would be forced under previous legislation to work on Sundays.

It is essential at this juncture to draw to the viewers' attention, to your attention, Mr Speaker, and to the other members' attention in this House that this particular piece of legislation allows an employment standards officer to apply penalties under the Employment Standards Act, either to a worker who has erroneously made a petition or a complaint, as well as to a work site. None of the other members so far seems to have recognized that this piece of legislation in fact allows penalties to be applied as well as allowing the right to refuse to work, and it is essential we balance the right to refuse with penalties.

First of all, I would like to draw to everyone's attention that the Sunday shopping the members opposite particularly wish to refer to as being such an advantage to Ontario is in fact Sunday working. I want to also draw to their attention that so many of the workers they would like to see working on Sundays are in fact women, who are for the most part extremely low-paid employees, frequently making only minimum wage, who have no access to good public transportation in areas outside the metropolitan areas.

I can speak from personal experience because the people in my former work site, when they were obligated to work on Sundays -- and I also have to admit that was not a retail establishment -- faced two-hour-long bus rides to get themselves from their place of employment back to their homes. I consider that unacceptable, but in areas outside Metropolitan Toronto, Ottawa and Hamilton, public transit is not in the same position. It does not start at 9:30 in the morning; it does not run until midnight. In places like St Catharines, St Catharines-Brock specifically, there is no transit system running between St Catharines and Niagara-on-the-Lake. Any worker, any student, who happens to work at the Shaw Festival has a very difficult process and faces the prospect of hitchhiking. Hopefully, a parent can take time from his day to drive them back and forth to Niagara-on-the-Lake in order to be able to work.

Transit is a major problem for areas outside Toronto or, as I already indicated, Ottawa or Hamilton, because those transit systems are not that well developed. If a woman -- and I will refer back to women -- are low-paid women, which many of the retail workers are, how can they really afford to pay taxicabs back and forth from their work site to home? It is an extremely expensive proposition.

Further, I would like to draw members' attention to the fact that when we say Sunday shopping, as the members opposite seem to imply, is this great necessity and this great economic advantage, how do we deal again with women workers who have young children? Child care is not an option available on weekends; I defy all members opposite to address the issue of supplying infant care on a weekend. It is absolutely non-existent. We talk about what Sunday shopping is supposed to be doing to the economy, but has the opposition truly taken into account the high cost Sunday working imposes on working women? It is a very high cost, frequently requiring single women to leave children in not-the-best child care situations. They are frequently required to pay exorbitant amounts for transportation, where it even exists, and in many areas, to date, there has been no protection for workers at all.

The previous pieces of legislation my colleagues have referred to so eloquently provided really no protection at all. When they framed a piece of legislation, they did not think about the many women they were forcing into unacceptable situations, and I am offended by that. I was offended by that four years ago and I am offended today that they now would like to make this grand gesture and say they were looking out for the shoppers of Ontario and for the municipalities.

The current piece of legislation as proposed by the Solicitor General and our government gives municipalities enabling powers to determine if the tourist areas, so described by the opposition, truly fit within the criteria of a tourism industry and should be approved for an exemption and therefore allowed to open on Sundays. But it has to meet province-wide criteria, and that is an element, I believe very strongly, the opposition has chosen to ignore. By setting down those criteria, by requiring those municipalities and tourism sectors to actually substantiate why they deserve an exemption, is not complicated. It is not confusing, as the opposition would like to portray it. In fact, it is a very simple process.

Is this building open on Sunday? I have to admit I am frequently not here on a Sunday so I am not in a position to speak to that. One of the members opposite said that the dry cleaning store down the road is all of a sudden going to fall within the framework of the tourism sector. I would strongly suspect the dry cleaning store does not truly fall within a tourism sector, since it is a relatively new establishment and, unless it decided to obtain some old dry cleaning technology, I do not think it would qualify as a museum and therefore would not lend a historical perspective to the dry cleaning industry in Ontario. Therefore, from my somewhat learned experience, having worked in the historical section of the St Catharines Public Library, I would venture a strong educated guess that they would not quite qualify under those circumstances.

1940

From that note of humour I would like to return this debate to something a little more serious, to demand that the opposition think of the workers in this province, and not imply that this is confusing or complicated. There are standards. There are many forms of legislation in this province that require standards and this is another one. They are simple, they are straightforward and they are easy to comply with. It is not a difficult process at all. We, as a government, have a strong obligation to protect workers, and this legislation, including the Employment Standards Act, does exactly what it sets out to do: it gives workers the right to refuse, gives workers adequate time with their families and allows people the option of choosing not to work at a time when it could be of great financial and family disadvantage to themselves.

I commend the Solicitor General and the Minister of Labour for putting together the kind of legislation I can very easily support. I can say a good many of my constituents feel likewise, that this is the kind of legislation they would like to see and would have liked to have seen four years ago.

The Speaker: Questions or comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in second reading debate? The member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Sorry? We called first for questions or comments and there was no response, but were some members a bit tardy? The member for Oxford.

Mr Sutherland: I just wanted to pick up on what the member for St Catharines-Brock was saying about the impact of Sunday shopping on women workers. As I mentioned earlier, I worked in a grocery store for seven years and 75% of the people in my store -- and I believe those figures are pretty valid for most of the retail sector, but particularly in the grocery store area -- are women and many of them are working part-time already. Many of them are working a couple of nights, a minimum of two, maybe up to three nights a week already, when they are away from their family. They are also working Saturday. If we allow them to work on Sunday that will have a very negative impact, certainly on their family life and the time they can spend with their children and the rest of their family, and also in terms of having time for other relaxing activities.

I just wanted to re-emphasize that point, because I think it is very valid in the discussion about Sunday shopping. People do not seem to realize that many part-time people are already working many evenings, when the normal work week is the so-called 9 to 5, Monday through Friday. That is a very important point that needs to be re-emphasized.

The Speaker: Questions or comments? The member for St Catharines-Brock is entitled to two minutes, since there has been a comment by another member of the assembly.

Ms Haeck: I appreciate the comments of the member for Oxford, and I know there are many, many women out there working at this very instant who need this legislation to protect them, to give them an option, so that they can look after their families. From my own experience, I really do feel it is crucial and that it is a privilege to be able to speak on this topic this evening.

Mr Tilson: I listened to the comments from the member for St Catharines-Brock. Her comments, like many of the other comments I have heard, specifically from the government side, I question. I understand where they are coming from. They are saying, "We want a common pause day." But as I interpret what they are saying, I do not think they realize what they have done with this tourist exemption.

She indicated that it was impossible for an individual store to be designated a tourist area, in the example of the cleaning establishment, but I think if she reads the legislation a little bit more carefully, as it has been defined, she will find that not only large department stores, but specifically areas or even municipalities can be classified as tourist areas, and hence entire municipalities, entire regions could be technically classified as tourist areas.

I think that is the fear of many of us in this House, that in fact they are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, they say they are in favour of a common pause day, and yet they have not studied their legislation to realize that conceivably we could end up having the entire province -- it is unlikely, but it is possible that large sections of the province could be classified as tourist areas.

I too was present, although I was not a member of this Legislature, when the previous committee went around the province. I think it was under the chairmanship of the member for Brampton South. I too participated as a member of the public in those hearings. At that particular time, I was a councillor for the town of Orangeville in my riding and I was requested by our council to speak against that specific legislation that was being put forward by the previous Liberal government. I would imagine there are many members of the current government who, if they were not elected at that time, took the same position. I have not heard that, but my speculation is that it is the case.

Our particular hearings took place in the city of Orillia, where I spoke on behalf of my municipality. The issues addressed at that time were issues that most members in the government spoke of when they were seeking election or re-election last summer.

One of those issues was the issue of downloading, passing the buck to the municipality. There is the issue of the increased costs to the municipality to administer the previous legislation. There was the fear of litigation, of passing bylaws and having these challenged. There was the fear of the domino theory, in other words, one municipality passing a bylaw and the adjoining municipality passing it and so on and so forth until you had large blocks of municipalities that had passed the previous legislation.

There was no question that our municipality opposed the legislation. We simply did not like it. I guess the question our municipality put forward was, how much can society spend? Can you spend more in six days than seven days? How much more can we spend?

There is the issue of balkanization or the patchwork that was referred to. All these arguments were used by the government members, who were at that time in opposition, and many of us in our party whether you were in or out of the government against the previous Liberal legislation.

1950

When I attended in Orillia I listened to church groups, I listened to retailers, I listened to labour groups, I listened to women's groups, as well as our own representations and other municipalities'. They were overwhelmingly opposed to that legislation.

Yet if members study the current legislation that is being put forward by the Solicitor General, I think they will acknowledge that if the issue of the tourist area is not properly defined, the same arguments government members were trying to avoid, the same problems they were trying to avoid when they were debating this issue around the province or when they were debating this issue in the election last summer, are occurring with this legislation.

The tourism definition could expand throughout the province. It could move from Windsor or from any of the border municipalities. That is where it could start, for example, and then the adjoining municipalities and so on, until we have large regions and large blocks of areas that, simply for economic reasons, have classified themselves as tourist areas, simply to survive, simply to meet the competitive market, to do the very thing that the government is trying to stop. I do not think the minister has thought that out. To listen to him now, it is as if the people in the province are guaranteed no Sunday shopping. Well, they are not. There is no guarantee of no Sunday shopping in this province.

The member for St Catharines-Brock referred to women's issues, and there are issues that are going to develop from that. There are issues with respect to day care, the increased requirements for day care, not only in the private sector but the public sector, as a result of shopping on Sundays that will result from the government's legislation. There will also be increased requirements for transportation services.

All of these issues were put forward by the NDP members and representatives from that party in the last election and when the hearings were going around the province, led by the Liberal government at that time. We are going to hear the same thing. I suggest that before we go out into the province to listen to the hearings the government clarify some of its definitions to avoid that.

The Solicitor General has stated that he does not think it is going to work. Now he is trying to clarify that, but given the very fact that he has made that statement, that he has acknowledged that we are going to have legislation that is not going to work, why in the world are we progressing with it? Why do we not withdraw the legislation and start all over? It is not too late to do that.

I compared the previous legislation to this legislation, because I believe the arguments we are going to be hearing from members of the public and perhaps from the same groups are going to be identical once they realize the effect of the definition the members of the government have put forward.

The tourism exemption will be administered by the municipalities. That is what the government has said. It has said that bylaws will be passed. The government has talked in the past about no downloading, "Don't pass on expenses to the municipalities." They said that in the last election. They have gone into it in other pieces of legislation, and now it is coming forward in this legislation. There is going to be more downloading put forward in this legislation.

When we study the issue and we go over what the tourism criteria are, they are very general. This has been referred to by other members of this House. For example, they list categories, such as historical or natural attractions. I do not know what that means. A municipality could put any definition it wishes on that. It is a very arbitrary type of presentation that a municipality could put forward. You could have an old building. You could have a series of old buildings. That could be classified as a tourist area under this list of tourism criteria.

Second, the area has cultural or ethnic attractions. Our society is becoming more and more multicultural, so is every municipality around this province. Does that mean that if there is a specific multicultural group in any particular municipality, that area can be designated a tourist area? I would submit it does.

Third, the area provides a concentration of hospitality services. I do not know what that means. Does that mean that in a rural municipality if there is one hotel -- I am obviously exaggerating some of these examples, but if we follow the definitions set forth in the act, it is a very real possibility.

In other words, the very arguments that occurred with the previous Liberal legislation are going to come forward. There is going to be a tremendous amount of pressure if a group such as all the retailers in the Eaton Centre decide that should be a tourist area. I can assure members there will be other areas in the city of Toronto, whether it be the Beaches or Queen Street West or other areas, that will say, "If they are designated a tourist area, for competitive economic reasons we should be as well."

We all know what is going to happen then. Other municipalities are going to say, "All our people are going to Toronto to shop, and therefore we should be designated as a tourist area and we will use the very definition -- " You know, number 6, fairs, festivals or other special-event attractions are held in the area.

I do not know what that means. Does that mean that if you have a specific fair in a municipality, therefore the whole municipality can be designated as a tourist area? There is no specific definition as to what a tourist area is, so the domino factor is a very real possibility. We argued it with the past legislation and we are going to argue it with this legislation. Tremendous pressures will be put on municipalities to declare themselves as tourist areas, unbelievable pressures. It is not fair for this government to dump its responsibilities on to the municipalities.

The tourism exemption therefore gives, I believe, and it has been put forward by others, unrealistic powers to the municipalities to do what I believe is the government's responsibility. The definition of tourism is not really clear.

On the issue of balkanization, there could be pockets throughout the province that define the tourism criteria in different ways. There is no rhyme or reason to that. Since these are arbitrary decisions, you could have something in Sault Ste Marie which might be quite different in Cornwall. They might have entirely different interpretations as to what a tourism area is. Again, that is dumping the responsibility on the municipality, and all of the costs it entails, and hence local property taxes will go up to counter the responsibility that has been placed on the municipalities.

Again I submit that, contrary to what members for the government have said, there will be no common pause day. It may take some time. It is not going to happen overnight, but there will be no common pause day, as has been suggested. We do not know how long that will take, but I think if you follow the reasoning process in the same way that you reasoned the previous legislation, you will determine that there will be no common pause day.

The comment that there has been an effort in the legislation to stop employers from forcing employees to work on Sundays is an admirable statement to make. But the fact of the matter is that if employees do not work, there will be other ways. We have seen it happen. I am very dubious that clause will work. Yes, there are fines. I think it is $500 for the first occurrence and $2,000 or $5,000 for the second occurrence after that. That is very admirable, but there are going to be other ways in which the worker will be penalized, in my view, that will be slight and will be very difficult to administer.

It gets back to the Solicitor General's comments. That portion of it will be very difficult to administer. I agree with him. It will be very difficult to administer that specific section. How do you protect the employees? He is right. It is going to be tough to administer that section, and it is going to be tough to protect the employees. There will be blatant examples, but then once you get past those areas, there will be other areas that will make it very difficult to assist the workers. So I do agree with the Solicitor General when he makes those comments.

2000

It gets back to the subject of plazas. Again, I am repeating arguments that were made for the past legislation. Plazas, for some unearthly reason -- if the area provides access to hiking, boating, camping, fishing or other outdoor recreational pursuits that is a very general clause.

Think of the plazas around this province that are near those sources. All you have to do is persuade your council -- the pressure may be on as a result of other municipalities' actions -- and you have got yourself designated as a tourist area, and gone is the closed Sunday. So where is the common pause day? I submit that this government does not have a common pause day.

There is the whole issue that has been raised by other members -- and I would like to comment briefly on it -- the whole subject of legality. We have seen how legislation has been challenged. It has been suggested this legislation may be challenged as well, and I hope it is not. I hope the bylaws are not challenged if the government is intent on pursuing this legislation, because it is going to put a great financial burden on many municipalities.

There is a statement by the ministry that where there is a dispute over Sunday work or an employer takes action against an employee who refuses Sunday work, the employment standards officer will now be able to issue orders for compensation or reinstatement. I am not too sure what that means. Does that mean we are going to be creating a larger bureaucracy of employment standards officers? Is this going to create yet another large bureaucracy? I think it does, because obviously the government is going to have to be prepared for that sort of thing, and what sort of cost is that going to entail for the taxpayers of this province? How many more officers will have to be hired to enforce this legislation, if indeed it can be enforced, and I submit it cannot.

What does the appeal process mean, the imposed appeal process? I do not know what that means in terms of cost. How many more people will have to be hired to enforce that? We have not heard much from the government, and I would imagine that as time goes on throughout the hearings, we will hear exactly what these other little side issues are, the cost of the bureaucracy in administering this legislation. I submit it will be substantial.

In brief, the tourist area will probably start in the border towns and, as a result of economic pressures, move outward. It might start in the Eaton Centre or someplace like that in the larger municipalities, but it will spread, and the pressure to classify tourist areas will be substantial.

The other question I would like to refer to briefly is the geographic boundaries of specially designated areas. How is that going to take place and what role would local municipalities have in the regional decisions on that designation? I will be looking forward during the hearings to hearing some of the regions and some of the smaller municipalities within those regions talk about that, because it could create some difficulties. Specifically, the legislation does not relieve the municipalities of deciding which stores can legally open Sundays and holidays. Stores and even entire shopping districts can apply for tourist exemptions to the law, with the eligibility for this spelled out for the first time in the new guidelines.

I ask some of the members to remember that the issues raised by my friend the member for Oakville South -- his concerns are legitimate and they should listen to him before they set out around the province to debate some of these areas, because he is right. He is absolutely right. People think the government has created a closed Sunday; I am afraid it has given a false impression, because once we start defining a tourist area, we will find it has indeed done the exact opposite.

Again, I emphasize that with this legislation the province has saddled municipalities with the responsibility for granting exemptions to the lucrative tourist areas. They have certainly paved the way. They have prepared for battles between regional and local municipal politicians over Sunday shopping and the whole issue of what is and what is not a tourist area. The battle lines are being drawn, and that is regrettable, because that is what the last government did. These people were supposed to rectify all that, and they have not done that. They are creating a monster that is just as dastardly as the last government's in the type of legislation they have put forward.

I will be looking forward to hearing some of the comments that will be made by the people of Ontario on this legislation because I think it is not as simple as members from the government have suggested. I think they have created a very difficult, unmanageable and unenforceable piece of legislation.

Mr Harris: Let me first of all say I raised a question with the parliamentary assistant when I spoke last and asked him for his comments on the situation in Windsor. I see the minister is here now and I will perhaps repeat some of those concerns and ask the minister if he would care to respond.The parliamentary assistant talked about Sketchley Cleaners, I think, and the cleaner that he had talked to, and how delighted this cleaning company was that we would not have wide-open Sunday shopping. I would ask the parliamentary assistant if he asked this friend of his, that is the cleaner, during the nine months when we had self-regulation, was Sketchley's open? Did he have to open? No, none of the cleaners were open on Sunday. Self-regulation works so well without any increased court costs, without any increased police, without any increased legislation, without any increased bureaucrats. But I tend to believe, as the member for Oakville South has pointed out, that if we get into Toronto declaring itself a tourist area because surely this building is historical and touristy in fact this legislation could easily lead to more opening than otherwise.

I also wanted to say how delighted I was with the comments of the member for Dufferin-Peel. I know all members of the House will join with me in applauding his remarks tonight and in encouraging him and saying how quickly he has grasped the legislative process. For a new member to have made remarks that outshine any that I have heard from across the floor, I think, is outstanding. I know his constituents in Dufferin-Peel will be delighted with the job he has done in presenting his viewpoints and in his expertise in understanding the nuances of this legislation far more than the minister does.

I do not have time to talk about Windsor, but perhaps the minister will respond anyway, as tonight they are passing third and final reading of the bylaw to have wide-open Sunday shopping because they said they could drive a truck through the minister's legislation. They are a tourist area.

Hon Mr Farnan: Normally, I suspect, at this particular time it is appropriate when a member of the House makes an effort to make a meaningful contribution to the debate, that members, when they stand up, recognize the member who has spoken and in some way either agree or disagree with him. I am kind of shocked that the leader of the third party would stand up and totally ignore the contribution that the member of his party made to this debate.

I respect the contribution of the member who spoke in the debate, and I am going to speak to that right now. I am simply going to say to him that his views are his views and he is quite legitimate in putting forward those views here in the House. However, the principles of this legislation remain intact. They are solid principles; they are good principles. They are principles that the member for Wellington, in fact, endorsed in his remarks to the House today.

It is impossible for me at this stage to answer the 25 questions that the leader of the third party put forward, as he refused to comment on the contribution made by the member of his party.

2010

Mr Sterling: I was here when the member for Dufferin-Peel spoke, or at the end of his speech, and then I heard the leader of our party, the member for Nipissing, stand up after. I do not know whether the Solicitor General stepped out for a moment then; I do not believe he did. I think he was here. He must have been engaged by the member for Durham East because I distinctly heard the member for Nipissing praise the member for Dufferin-Peel for his understanding of the issue and how eloquently he spoke on the issue.

I want to say, as the caucus chairman of the Progressive Conservative Party, I could not be more pleased with the type of representation we have been able to get from our brand-new members, and I am talking about six, eight months ago. People like the member for Dufferin-Peel have shown the maturity in this House to speak more knowledgeably than any of the government members and also of the official opposition. When we are talking about the official opposition, we are talking of members who have been here for five or six or seven years. I am glad to see that one of them is with us tonight.

The Solicitor General does not have to answer our questions here. When we go through the committee process -- if he shows up at the committee -- he will be asked at that time. If he does not respond then, we will put the bill back in committee of the whole House and we will engage him here for days and days and days. We ask the questions at this time as a courtesy because we believe that by getting some answers from him at this stage we can cut down the time and be more efficient with the time of the Legislature and facilitate the process. But if he refuses, as he has, then he should expect a long process and expect opposition to just about every move he takes.

Mr Tilson: I am almost afraid to say anything after the compliments that have been flowing forward for fear that my remarks will be spoiled, but I will say to the Solicitor General that yes, my views are my views. But I have had some experience, specifically in my riding, with similar legislation that we had gone through some time ago with the Liberal legislation, as has he.

I believe the comments I have made are sound. I think the comparisons from the previous legislation to the present legislation are very similar. I believe the hearings will reveal the same type of submissions that were made with the Liberal government. I believe identical, similar comments will be made with his hearings as were heard with the Liberal government. It will remain to be seen what type of comments will be made, but I would predict that the same type of criticisms towards the Liberal legislation will come forward to his. If I am wrong, I am wrong. He is right -- my views are my views and that is the way it goes. But I have thought about his legislation, I have listened to his comments of how he admitted that it is not workable legislation and I believe he is going to have problems.

Ms Harrington: I wish to make a few brief remarks. First of all, last summer I made a promise of a common pause day and our party made a commitment to take that responsibility very seriously.

Two years ago, the province, I believe, washed its hands of decision-making. That is the way I saw it. Municipalities felt at that time that they were dumped on, as the previous member has indicated; it certainly brought some distress to the local level.

I was on city council when that legislation came down and it was utter confusion. I also sat on the chamber of commerce, and much time was spent -- not just then, but in many previous years -- on discussions to formulate fair guidelines for tourism in our community, for what should be exempt from Sunday closings. These provincial guidelines are fair, they show understanding of the tourism business and they save -- obviously this is one point -- the many municipalities and chambers of commerce and many other groups across the province from having to go through this again and again and redefine or reinvent the wheel for what guidelines should be used.

When I spoke last summer in the heat of the campaign, I asked: "What do we want? Do we want a Las Vegas type of society where anything goes at any time of day and anything is available, where people don't know what day of the week or what time it is; is it day or night?" I said, "No, Las Vegas is the ultimate in commercial society."

I wish briefly to contrast that kind of society with our own in Ontario. One example of a commercial society is across the bridge from my riding, in Niagara Falls, New York. A week ago was the 50th anniversary of the Rainbow Bridge. I got to go over and actually share some thoughts with the people and gave a speech on the sharing of our communities and what the bridge has meant to us and our border.

I spoke of the exchanges in many parts of our culture. For instance, my husband always brings his basketball teams over there to the local boys' club and to Niagara University, and we go to Artpark. US citizens come across to our Niagara Falls and to the Shaw Festival, to partake in the Niagara parks, many beautiful things and, of course, the British heritage in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

The one thing I did not say is that the other way in which we are very much connected to the United States is through the many toxic dumps sites along the Niagara River, 200 in Niagara and Erie counties, 50 of those directly on the river, including probably the very worst in North America -- the Hyde Park dump as well as Love Canal, the 102nd Street dump and the S area dump. My point is that anything does not go in Ontario. Commerce is tempered by environmental regulations, by labour regulations and also by Sunday shopping legislation.

I would like to read one line from a 30 May Toronto Star article that I am sure all members have noticed. Frank Jones comments on the differences in our two societies, between the United States and Canada. He wrote:

"Business America has sold the nation on the three pillars of greed -- cheap goods, big profits and low taxes."

I would not necessarily agree with this, but I just thought I would let members know what he said.

"What we need to remember is that in Canada we've set ourselves a terribly difficult, maybe an impossible task: we have tried to create almost a Scandinavian-style social democracy right alongside the capitalist giant.

"With pensions and baby bonuses, with medicare and regional disparity payments, we've tried to create a decent society that doesn't trample the weak, the ill and the poor."

Certainly that is a very damning condemnation of US society, but there may be elements of truth in that and consideration for all of us in this House.

Let me go one little step further in our contemplation of our society, because I really think this issue of Sunday shopping is a large one, is a very historical one and comes to the fabric of what we want to be. In some senses it is broader than just a strictly commercial issue.

Erich Fromm, in his book entitled To Have Or To Be, describes two kinds of societies, a "having" society and a "being" society. A "having" society is based on materialism. He says acquiring goods flows from this materialism, as do greed, aggression and violence. He concludes that this will lead a society to psychological and ecological disaster, whereas a "being" society is based on responsibility and caring, meaningful human activity. I would like to pause and say yes, we do want jobs and industry and yes, we want to work with both business and industry, before the opposition accuses me of not believing that.

Finally, I would like to make two points. Ten years ago I stepped off a plane in Vancouver, British Columbia, for an NDP convention there. We were immediately handed pamphlets by the small business association. I have kept this for 10 years. The Small Business Association of British Columbia was endorsing its being able to work very well with the NDP government of British Columbia. That is a thing most people do not understand, that businesses in many provinces with New Democratic governments have gotten along very well and have flourished. We certainly want to work in that same regard.

I would like to end by thanking one of my constituents, Ray Matthews, who owns Drummond Home Hardware on Drummond Road. He actually sent me postcards last summer from the people of Niagara Falls saying they were definitely opposed to Sunday opening of business. The box is three feet long and two feet wide and it is in my office here in Toronto. I cannot lift it. That is clearly the feeling of very many people in the province.

2020

Mr Harris: I want to say a couple of things.

The minister referred to the comments of the member for Dufferin-Peel, saying, "His views are his views." This is very true. I know the member for Dufferin-Peel is very proud and pleased to be part of a caucus where he has the freedom to express his own views. That is not the case in all the caucuses in this Legislature. I wanted to say that as well.

I enjoyed the remarks of the member for Niagara Falls. I found them refreshing in the sense that I thought they were her views. I have not heard that from very many of her colleagues. Usually it is the party line, the NDP united, live or die, solidarity for ever -- "Whatever the minister or the Premier tells me to say, that's what I say." I thought the member articulated some views. I do not agree with them all, but I thought she articulated them. They were her own and I thought they were put forward rather well.

I will be interested to see whether in the next few years Niagara Falls decides to shut down everything on Sunday. I tend to doubt that will be the case. Niagara Falls does not strike me as that kind of community. In fact, when I think of Las Vegas, in Canada the closest I can think of is Niagara Falls. When I think of the Elvis Presley Museum and some of the other great attractions, I would venture to say that Niagara Falls will be open. However, the member may know better than I as she lives there. Time will tell.

I would be interested, though, in the minister's response to my question, which I will repeat for the third time. Windsor council held up third reading of the bylaw. They said: "We're going to wait. The minister's got new legislation." Tonight, as we spoke, Windsor council said: "We've looked at the new legislation. Obviously the minister wants it to be wide open across this province. Therefore, we'll have third reading of the bylaw tonight. Windsor will be wide open." Their understanding of the legislation is that it is an invitation saying: "Wonderful. If you want to open, go ahead and open." The minister should tell me how we are going to have common criteria across this province when obviously Windsor has looked at his legislation and said, "No, it means wide open if you want to be open."

Hon Mr Farnan: I want to apologize to the leader of the third party for not answering his question directly when he placed it the last time. Sometimes it is unfortunate. You may slip into a partisan stance. I apologize for that. I will answer his question, can Windsor pass a bylaw for wide-open Sunday shopping? The answer under the current legislation, the legislation of the previous administration, is very clearly yes. Any community in this province can open up. There is unbridled, unrestricted opportunity for any community in this province to go wide open, to rip it open and let it sing. That is the reason we are introducing this legislation, because under this legislation the answer would be no.

Seriously, any bylaw passed by Windsor or any other city after 4 June will be repealed on the day these amendments come into force. Only with a legitimate tourist exemption can they then apply to open up parts of that individual area, that community. Let's be realistic about this. There are going to be areas of the city that, even if they opened it city-wide, because of areas of space, etc, could not be recognized under the legislation.

I suppose if any question clearly distinguishes why the amendments we are proposing are necessary, it is the question put forward by the leader of the third party. When he asks, "Can Windsor open up? Can any other community open up?" let me tell him, every retail worker in the province shrinks at the thought that if this legislation is left in place, the current legislation, then indeed we could have wide-open Sunday shopping -- which is precisely why this government is taking the steps it is taking.

Mr Sterling: I would like to thank the member for Niagara Falls for entering into the debate. I believe her interest in the issue is genuine and her concern is genuine. That leads me to asking the Solicitor General a question about Niagara Falls. Because of the nature of the bill, where it says that the area has historical or natural attractions, I would like to ask the Solicitor General if there is any part of the Niagara Falls riding which would not qualify, under his bill, to have wide-open Sunday shopping?

Mr O'Connor: I want to thank the member for Niagara Falls for her remarks. I think she has shared a lot of her concerns. The member for Nipissing astounds me when he gets up and speaks after every speaker. When he had a chance to speak in this House on the budget debate he was not around to speak on it, but he spoke on caucus freedom, which really surprises me, because right now probably the biggest problem facing the member for Niagara Falls is the fact that the GST is driving business out of her community. I am glad they have caucus freedom there, because now they have said they are going to allow some free debate within their caucus.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we are in response to the member for Niagara Falls. The member for Niagara Falls wanted to speak to the bill and I said I believed her intent was genuine, to speak to the issue. This member wants to wander all over the place. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to call him into line to respond to the comments of the member for Niagara Falls.

The Speaker: The member for Carleton touches on something upon which he may wish to reflect himself. He may wish to consult rule 24(a) in the standing orders, which specifies that members are allowed up to two minutes to comment upon things which are "relevant to the matters before the House." The spirit may be one thing, but the language is quite vague in that rule. I would certainly encourage members to respond to the person who had spoken, but I certainly am aware that the rule is not that specific.

Mr O'Connor: In regard to Sunday shopping in Niagara Falls, I am sure one of the biggest factors that faces that community right now is the devastation there because of the GST. Of course, the Tories in this House are very concerned about the economies of these border communities and are going to lobby the federal government to have that changed to try to help them out. I really look forward to hearing about this in the paper when they do that, because they are going to speak about that. It is too bad they could not speak about the debate in the House.

Anyway, I thank the member for Niagara Falls for sharing with us tonight her deliverance on the debate and I look forward to the caucus freedom that the leader of the third party talked about tonight. I wait for that day.

Ms Harrington: The one question that was raised was with regard to what part of Niagara Falls we would be dealing with for tourist exemptions. The city of Niagara Falls has businesses right now that have tourist exemptions, and those would be the ones I feel would certainly qualify to be exempt under this particular law; the rest of Niagara Falls would be closed. That is certainly the intent of this legislation.

2030

Mr McLean: I would like to comment briefly on this piece of legislation that is before us. I was pleased to know that the House leader got the approval to sit until midnight. I had not anticipated speaking quite that long, but it may go on for some time as I get warmed up a little bit.

I want to talk about the common pause day I hear so much about in this legislation. I would also be interested if the minister were able to answer the question my leader asked with regard to the stores that would be able to remain open in Niagara Falls, because I do not think that would really happen.

"Sunday Bill Is Flawed, NDP Admits," and the minister admitted it on Focus Ontario on Global TV. I find it rather odd that we have a piece of legislation here that the members of the government are very firmly entrenched in passing, when the very minister has indicated that the legislation is flawed. He says there is no question about it, it is true.

I am wondering, as we sit down and discuss this common pause day, when is the common pause day? Is it Sunday, Saturday, Friday, Thursday? What day is he referring to as a common pause day? When you look in the regulations, the tourism criteria, there is nothing within those criteria that would say that anybody would have to close on Sunday, whether it is a historical or natural attraction, a cultural or ethnic attraction. They say, "The area provides access to hunting, boating, camping, fishing or other outdoor recreational pursuits." All those activities would qualify to have legislation passed that would allow those businesses to remain open provided there are two of them together, and I do not know of anywhere that two would not qualify in this respect. The fair guidelines for tourism are not very well defined, in my estimation.

When the previous legislation was in the works, we were travelling the province having hearings on Sunday shopping.

Mr Carr: Did you see the chicken?

Mr McLean: At that time the Solicitor General did not have the chicken. He brought the chicken along a little later. But why does he not get a court ruling on this bill before it proceeds any further, to know whether it is constitutionally correct? Why waste the time of a committee travelling this province to determine whether this bill is any better than the previous Liberal bill that was brought in? I think we should get a hearing from the court to determine whether it is constitutional or not.

Now the committee is going to travel the province this summer and it is going to spend a lot of time listening to delegations pro and con with regard to this bill. It will indicate that a lot of people will be in favour and a lot of people will be opposed, and I know the government party will be with the people. That is exactly what will happen.

"Farnan Admits Sunday Law Is Flawed." It is the chicken way out, but the minister will probably take that way when we are done having the public hearings across this province.

Many business people think this is a government that is wearing blinkers, pushing this agenda forward to its own satisfaction, which it believes the people want. I am not so sure that is exactly what will happen. Really, what we are doing is passing the buck on Sunday law.

Hon Mr Wildman: No, no -- the bill, the bill.

Mr McLean: No, we are passing the buck. That is exactly what the NDP's ill-conceived proposal to ban Sunday shopping in Ontario except in designated tourist areas would do, wreak havoc at the local government level. They are talking about the municipalities approving it; I am not so sure it is going to hold water.

Open Sundays are totally inevitable across this province. I say to the minister there are two things: First, I wish he would get a court ruling on it, and the other thing that I wish he would do is to indicate to us what the common pause day is, what day it is going to be, and the amount of committee hearings he feels will be necessary to make the amendments that he thinks would be worth while.

Hon Mr Wildman: I always enjoy the comments of my friend the member for Simcoe East. I really think that he has provided us with a helpful suggestion in that he thinks we would be wasting our time to have committee hearings. I think it is unfortunate that he would suggest we should not hear from the people of the province, but since he thinks we should not be wasting our time in doing that, I think we would all like to proceed with his proposal, pass the bill on second reading, move immediately to third reading, have the bill passed, and then if at some point it has to go to court, have the court finally decide. We, as the government, think that would be a very appropriate way to approach things, and we thank our friend the member for Simcoe East for suggesting a way of expediting the procedures in this House.

Mr Sterling: I think it was a useful suggestion that the member put forward. I can understand his reason and logic, because if this bill in fact is doing nothing, as we allege, and is in fact changing nothing from the existing law, why waste our time with this whole process?

It does not make much sense that everything one reads in any of the legal journals and anywhere else says that this law is a complete farce, that you can drive a truckload of politicians through it. If that is the case, then quite frankly we should not be spending a lot of our time going across the province and talking to people about it. If it is unenforceable, if it will apply to all of Ontario, then really the law is for naught and therefore I think the member for Simcoe East has a good suggestion and I would support him in that.

Mr Conway: I have been listening to these last number of interventions, and I am really struck by the number of people in this chamber who want to go in and close places down.

Hon Mr Wildman: Like this House.

Mr Conway: No, I have been listening for the last couple of hours and the member for Algoma, in quite a lively way, was suggesting some entertaining possibilities. I am beginning to really think the best entertainment I can imagine is for some of these people to get their wish. I want to be there when, with a Queen's Park fiat, a number of these people, I suspect on all sides, go to Niagara-on-the-Lake or to Whitney or to Wasaga Beach and say, "I've got news for you -- in the interest of public morality, you are closed."

I will get in the business of marketing the encounter between these characters and that circumstance, because I think it will be both remunerative and productive of some very interesting energy-source material for the province.

I cannot believe people who have been around communities at any kind of public debate -- I mean, I see things in my own county where, by virtue of history and local conditions, people have decided to do some things. I see these church picnics, as I say, often organized on Sundays, in ways and places that strike me as being somewhat at variance with what is offered from the pulpit, but none the less we gather by the score, and those people work like no one else in the community on Sunday for a lot of good causes. These people want to go, in the name of public morality, and close these people down. Well, I want to be there, because it will be a day not soon forgotten, and the lacerations will be many, I should think.

2040

Mr Hope: As I reflect on some of the comments that are being contributed by the Conservative Party, I have a really hard time understanding where they are coming from. I listened to the leader and I listened to a number of others talk about self-regulation of the industry and letting the industry regulate itself. It just tells me, as I reflect on some of the conversations about brothers and sisters, and I know it is awfully hard for them to get those words out of their mouths once in a while, but as they say about self-regulation, it means the workers will not have rights under this legislation -- we provided the rights.

When I start looking at and listening to some of the comments that are being portrayed tonight as the issues of the community and the cost that is involved there, there is one extreme cost that is there, and that is to the families. I do not refer to this as Sunday shopping; I refer to it as Sunday work. Being an advocate on behalf of the labour movement before I was elected a member, I understood the issues the families were faced with, and that is what we fought on. If the ability was there for the small business people to compete on Sunday, it is not there because of the issues that are put forward. We talked about cross-border shopping as one of the issues. Sunday shopping is not a result of that problem, so we must look at that one.

I think it is very important, in listening to the members, which just tells me again -- they criticize this government for lacking direction. I look at and listen to who has been contributing in this debate, and there is no direction over there. I reflect back to when the two people of the Conservative Party were running for leadership; one was for and one was against. Today we still do not know whether the Conservatives are for or against.

The opposition talks about self-regulation. The workers of this province need a lot of rights because they have been neglected for so many years and it is about time this government shows respect for those workers. We are putting forward legislation that protects them and their families.

Mr McLean: I would just like the last member who spoke to show me in this legislation where it is written in stone that there is any place that cannot be open any day of the week. There is no common pause day. Under all the tourism criteria, anybody in any municipality in this province will be able to open on Sunday.

It intrigued me a lot when I heard the member for Niagara Falls saying that the ones that are open now will continue to be open and nobody else will be able to be open. But if they meet those two criteria, they will be able to be open. She does not say that.

The member for Algoma, who was so quick to respond a few minutes ago, indicated that the Sunday shopping plan will help all the people of the province.

Hon Mr Wildman: That is not what I said.

Mr McLean: Well, pretty close to it.

Anyhow, I want to say to the people who commented, I appreciate their comments, and I can only say to the minister that he has my sympathy, as he and his parliamentary assistant travel the province to try to convince the people that the legislation he has introduced is right and appropriate for this province. I do not believe the majority of the people will agree with him, however his staff has drawn up this piece of legislation which he has to sell to the public.

If people do not want to work on Sunday, I agree with that. I do not believe they should have to, either. I think that as time goes on and public hearings take place, we will really find out who was right and who was wrong, and we will let it stop at that. I wish the minister would indicate, with this law that will be passed tonight, if there is anyplace in Windsor that has to close down.

Hon Mr Farnan: I am pleased to conclude the debate on second reading of the bill. The second reading of the bill has been very interesting and I want to thank all the members from all the parties who have contributed to the debate. It is not surprising, in my view, that there should be differences of viewpoint. Indeed the expression of views is precisely the purpose of second reading debate and of debate in this chamber.

However, I can say that I have not heard anything in the debate that would lead me to question the fundamental principles upon which the legislation is based. In fact, I would say I have heard much in the debate that reinforces the fact that the principles we have established in this legislation are the right principles. I heard members of the third party who stood in this House and actually endorsed the basic, fundamental principles of this legislation.

During the election campaign, in the speech from the throne and in the public comments on this issue by our Premier we have been consistent. We have advocated the promotion of a common pause day to strengthen family and community life. There is nothing new in this. This is not a new position for New Democrats. This is not a position of expediency. This is not something where we are on one side of the issue today and on another side of the issue tomorrow. This is a position that has been consistent for New Democrats as we have worked through the issue of Sunday work over many years.

In the recent consultations that took place through my ministry, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Tourism, certain items were identified: the need for a common pause day, the need for some mechanism that provides uniformity, the need for the protection of retail workers and the need for a tourism exemption. These are the principles that we have lived by, the issues that were identified in the consultation and indeed the principles that are enshrined in these particular amendments.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Farnan: Let me speak for a moment. I do regret the fact that we are having these partisan interjections. We have had a very civilized debate, a debate in which people listened with some degree of dignity and decency throughout the entire day. It surprises me that on the one occasion that I as Solicitor General have to address the issue, the debate is debased by this kind of cheap interjection. It is unfortunate.

Let me emphasize the significant difference of this legislation from previous legislation in the field. Some attempts have been made during the course of today's debate to compare the amendments we are bringing forward to the type of legislation that existed under previous administrations, be they the Conservative administration of bygone days or the more recent Liberal administration.

There is no comparison between what we are introducing and what was in place under the Conservatives and the Liberals. It is totally unjustifiable to make that kind of comparison.

While they talked about a tourist exemption, the Conservative legislation had absolutely no definitions. We heard that by admission today.

The Liberal administration's approach was to wash its hands completely of the issue. They simply passed the issue to the municipalities and had absolutely nothing to do with it. They gave to the municipalities unrestricted and unbridled opportunity to apply the legislation in whatever way they liked. Indeed, the leader of the third party raised a very significant question. Under the current legislation, can a city open wide open? Yes, it can. Under the current legislation as it exists, which was brought in by the Liberal government, any city in the province can open wide.

That is not good enough and that is why we changed our approach. Instead of a municipal option, which the Conservatives and Liberals have used, we talked about a partnership between the province and the municipalities. We brought in provincial guidelines for legitimate tourist exemptions. We talked about a partnership that combined responsive local administration with responsible central co-ordination. It is clear that is very far removed from the type of hands-off approach of the Liberal and the Conservative governments. We brought in a mechanism that provided for some degree of uniformity, some degree of consistency, some degree of fairness. It is essentially legislation that is balanced.

2050

Let me talk for a brief moment about tourism within this legislation. We have recognized the unique needs and requirements of the tourism industry in Ontario. We have recognized the fact that this industry is a cornerstone of our economic prosperity. Over $15 billion is generated through this industry in the province.

Within this legislation, we have said that we will not only maintain the industry but will allow the promotion of the industry. The opportunities we provide in the area of tourism are available to every community, border communities as well as communities that are further removed from the border. Every community in this province has the opportunity to take advantage of those in a creative way, developing within its area a realistic tourism option that is legitimate.

Here is a quotation from the Minister of Tourism and Recreation:

"This approach will enable tourism industries to work with their municipalities to capture the tremendous economic and social benefits of tourism. These amendments reflect a renewed understanding of the significant role that tourism plays in Ontario communities."

It is absolutely a first in the province. This is the first government that has ever recognized tourism within this particular sphere. We are very proud of the fact, as we protect retail workers, as we work towards a common pause day that strengthens family and community life, that we also recognize the unique needs of the tourism industry and the small businesses across this province that are dependent upon it.

As minister, as I travel around, I find support not just from retail workers. I am finding it from church groups, from small business people, from all kinds of people across the province. They are saying to me, "You know, this was a tough issue, but you faced it head-on and in fact you have provided the kind of balance, the kind of legislation that provides the kind of leadership this province requires."

Let me talk for a moment about enforceability, a matter that has come up within the debate. One of the areas of the legislation is amendments to the Employment Standards Act which allow retail workers to refuse Sunday or holiday work, guarantee 36 continuous hours of rest in every seven-day period and strengthen the role of employment standards officers in dealing with employee grievances.

I am quoting the Minister of Labour:

"Thousands of retail workers will have the absolute right to refuse Sunday or holiday work without fear of losing their job or facing disciplinary action. I believe this is an important step towards improving the quality of life in Ontario."

Mr Elston: You have told us how enforceable it is.

Hon Mr Farnan: Some attempts have been made to attribute quotations to me that were never made. I have accepted the fact that indeed enforceability is going to be a challenge, but because something is a challenge, because something is difficult, does not mean you do not do it. In fact, it is precisely the kind of challenge that New Democrats are prepared to take on. A challenge may turn the Conservatives and the Liberals away from an issue, but not the New Democrats.

Workers are going to know that this legislation is enforceable, and they are going to know that because we are going to enforce it. Employers are going to know that this legislation is enforceable, and they are going to know that because we are going to enforce it. Workers and employers are going to work together with this legislation because they know this government is committed to the legislation and is going to enforce the legislation.

If we were to take the kind of thinking of the opposition parties, think of the state of the world, that because something was difficult and was a challenge that people should not do it, we would still have slavery in the southern United States, because people would say, "It's too difficult." We would still have children working in families because people would say, "Oh, it's too difficult." If something is worth doing, it is worth doing and it is worth the effort. The government of this province is determined to protect retail workers. We do not care if it is difficult. We are going to do it.

Let me simply say that as we move ahead with the legislation, I feel very proud and honoured to be carrying the legislation on the part of the government. But as we move forward with the legislation, I want to make it perfectly clear that the principles enshrined in the legislation are not negotiable. Let me repeat once again what those principles are.

This government is firmly committed to a common pause day that strengthens family and community life. This government is committed to working in partnership with the municipalities by providing provincial guidelines, by bringing a central co-ordination factor to the ingenuity, creativity and sensitivity of the local communities as they apply this legislation within their areas. Without question, this government is committed to the principle of the protection of retail workers. This government is committed to the principle of legitimate tourism exemption in order to support a unique industry with unique requirements and an industry that we recognize as a cornerstone of the economy of Ontario.

Let me say in conclusion that when you have good, sound legislation, you are proud to carry that legislation out to the province. I look forward to taking this legislation around the province. We are prepared to listen, we are prepared to have a dialogue with the community, on the understanding that the principles enshrined in the legislation remain constant. We are prepared to have some discussion that may cause fine-tuning. We accept that. Fine-tuning is acceptable. The principles remain firm and solid.

I want to wish well the members from all of the parties who will carry this legislation around the province. I know they will listen carefully to the input of groups as they come forward, and I am looking forward to working with them throughout the summer months.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptee.

Bill ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.

Le projet de loi est defere au comite permanent de l'administration de la justice.

The House adjourned at 2101.