UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCALS 175/633
GREATER OTTAWA HOTEL AND MOTEL ASSOCIATION OTTAWA HOTELIERS INC
CHRISTIAN COUNCIL OF THE CAPITAL AREA
COALITION AGAINST OPEN SUNDAY SHOPPING -- EASTERN ONTARIO
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL 279
GLOUCESTER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
CATHOLIC WOMEN FOR LIFE, FAITH AND FAMILY
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON
CONTENTS
Monday 12 August 1991
Retail Business Establishments Statute Law Amendment Act, 1991, Bill 115 / Loi de 1991 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne les établissements de commerce de détail, projet de loi 115
City of Ottawa
United Food and Commercial Workers, Locals 175/633
Sparks Street Mall Authority
Greater Ottawa Hotel and Motel Association; Ottawa Hoteliers Inc
Christian Council of the Capital Area
Afif Ayoub
Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping_Eastern Ontario
Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 279
Gloucester Chamber of Commerce
Catholic Women for Life, Faith and Family
Kiddie Kobbler
Regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton
Continued in camera
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair: White, Drummond (Durham Centre NDP)
Vice-Chair: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East NDP)
Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West L)
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph NDP)
Gigantes, Evelyn (Ottawa Centre NDP)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex NDP)
Mills, Gordon (Durham East NDP)
Poirier, Jean (Prescott and Russell L)
Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)
Winninger, David (London South NDP)
Substitutions:
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC) for Mr Harnick
Klopp, Paul (Huron NDP) for Ms Gigantes
Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold NDP) for Mr Winninger
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville NDP) for Mrs Mathyssen
Clerk: Freedman, Lisa
Staff: Campbell, Elaine, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
J-1013
The committee met at 0906 in the Delta Hotel, Ottawa.
RETAIL BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉTABLISSEMENTS DE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL
Resuming consideration of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act in respect of the opening of retail business establishments and employment in them.
Reprise de l'étude du projet de loi 115, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail et la Loi sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui concerne l'ouverture des établissements de commerce de détail et l'emploi dans ces établissements.
The Chair: I call the standing committee on administration of justice to order. We are hearing submissions in regard to Bill 115. Before we call our first witnesses, I would like to mention that there are two documents being circulated. One is a response by the Ministry of Labour to a question Mr Sorbara put and the other is a letter from a witness from our last week's trip.
CITY OF OTTAWA
The Chair: Our first witnesses are from the city of Ottawa. Mr Jim Sevigny is commissioner of economic development, Shaun Markey is director of marketing and Ms Charlene Lambert is a senior economic development officer. For the purposes of Hansard, please identify yourselves into the mike. We have about half an hour. Please divide that time as you wish, but I am sure the members will have many questions for you. Start when you are comfortable.
Mr Sevigny: My name is Jim Sevigny. I am the commissioner of economic development for the city of Ottawa. Mr Shaun Markey is director of marketing for the department of economic development, city of Ottawa, and Charlene Lambert is a senior development officer with the department responsible, among other things, for tourism matters.
As the first individual on your itinerary for today, let me take the liberty of welcoming you to Ottawa, those of you who are not from Ottawa; I see a couple of familiar faces. For those who are from Ottawa, welcome back. May I express the hope that you have an enjoyable and fruitful deliberation here today.
The city of Ottawa appreciates having the opportunity to address this standing committee on the subject of designated tourist areas and holiday shopping. We fully recognize that the issue of Sunday shopping is a very difficult one, for we have to deal with it in some way at the city of Ottawa on almost a daily basis. We regularly hear from representatives of stores that want to open on Sundays. We also hear from those in our community who do not believe stores should be allowed to open. Intermingled with the for and against forces are the tourists, who we want to attract, for they generate business and employment for our communities.
In drafting new legislation, we are fully aware that the government of Ontario has attempted to adopt new laws which represent a delicate balance on this problematic but unavoidable subject, and we congratulate you for recognizing the need to give tourists special consideration.
On the one hand, our province's leaders have traditionally upheld the sanctity of the Lord's Day as a time when we stop work and rest. On the other hand, our collective lifestyle is inextricably transforming itself at a breakneck speed. We are sustaining changes caused by both internal changes in attitudes and in the community at large and external influences over which we have little control.
Some of the external influences we have to face include the effects of the free trade agreement, the increase in leisure time and consequent development of tourist destinations, wide-open Sunday shopping in the Outaouais region across the river from us in the province of Quebec and the decline in our local retail sector. These changes demand that we regularly re-examine our legislation to ensure that it properly reflects the best interests of the constituents.
Ottawa is a major tourist destination. As capital of Canada, some four million people visit our city annually, employing over 25,000 local residents. Next to the federal government, the tourist sector is our largest local employer. The Ottawa area is also a major retail market. There are currently 22,550 retail employees in the city of Ottawa alone, and our region represents the fourth largest retail market in Canada.
We currently have one designated tourist area in Ottawa, the Byward Market. It is an extremely successful retail and tourist area, and with its many restaurants, boutiques, farmer's market and craft vendors, it has become the second most popular tourist attraction in Ottawa. At the time Bill 115 was introduced, we were on the verge of studying other areas we believe have potential for tourist designation, including the Sparks Street Mall, one block from Parliament Hill, Somerset Heights, a multicultural street in Ottawa, and Elgin Street, another popular downtown street for visitors. The decision to carry out a study has been postponed, however, until the new law is put into place.
Earlier this year, the city of Ottawa undertook a major study of our local retail sector, because we were deeply concerned about the health of our retail position, and more particularly our downtown, which has been in decline over the last 25 years. Whereas in 1966 downtown Ottawa retail stores represented some 40% of the area's market share, the study found that in 1990 they represented only 20.5%.
I forgot to mention that I have copies of this brief that will be distributed after we are through.
Mr Poirier: That is because you want us to listen well.
Mr Sevigny: That is right.
Information on Sunday and holiday shopping were also integral components of the study's market research. Of particular interest to this standing committee is the market knowledge we gained on tourist shopping, as extensive interviews with tourists were undertaken. Sundays and holidays are peak periods for tourist shopping, and in the ongoing debate about Sunday shopping, we believe the needs of the tourist segment may have been muddled.
The study found that on an annual basis, tourists spend over $80 million at our local retail stores and $145 million at eating and drinking establishments, for a total of $225 million. The consultants tell us, however, that these are conservative figures and that the total is probably more in the range of $250 million.
Some of the other important findings are as follows: For over 60% of all tourists interviewed, shopping hours were very to moderately important; second, almost all tourists with a preference for store hours were in favour of extension on weeknights, Sunday opening or both; third, comparative figures demonstrate that the vast majority, from 74% to 82.3%, of all tourists interviewed favour some liberalization of the existing store hours in the city of Ottawa.
Bill 115 attempts to recognize the special needs of tourists by permitting municipalities to designate special tourist areas for Sunday and holiday openings. However, the draft legislation is unnecessarily cumbersome, and we support the position of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, from which you will also be hearing, recommending that the status quo be maintained or that Bill 115 be revised to make the current mandatory regulations in the form of optional guidelines. We can foresee only endless problems in trying to sort out and apply the often ambiguous criteria set out in the draft legislation.
In conclusion, we urge the government of Ontario to continue to recognize the benefits to the economy of our province by allowing designated tourist areas. At the same time, we ask for a simple process to designate those areas we believe have potential for tourist shopping. Finally, we ask that you implement the necessary changes expeditiously so that we can carry out our examination of additional designations.
Thank you very much. I and my colleagues would be very pleased to respond to any questions you might have.
Mr Daigeler: It is a pleasure to start again on the somewhat difficult question of Sunday shopping. We have been travelling, as you know, Mr Sevigny, for the last two weeks, and hearing mostly the opinion that the Liberal legislation, even though it was opposed by many at first, turns out to be perhaps the solution that everybody can live with, and if I understand right, that is what you are saying as well. Is that correct?
Mr Sevigny: I am sorry, Mr Daigeler. I have to tell you that I do not recall what the legislation is that you refer to.
Mr Daigeler: It is the municipal option. If a particular municipality or region wants to stay open, it has the right to do so by decision of the council. If they want to stay closed, they have the right to do that as well. That is basically what is in place now. We are going back to the legislation that was in place before the Liberal amendments, to introduce tourism exemptions, even though the minister has indicated that he certainly is agreeable to a very wide interpretation of tourism and anything that promotes tourism would certainly, in his opinion, qualify for it. I just want to recall that it was the municipal option of the Liberal government, and if I understand you right, you said: "Leave that in place. That's good enough for us."
Mr Sevigny: That is roughly what we are saying, to leave the status quo legislation. However, we think the criteria that have been brought forward under this proposed Bill 115 are good criteria and serve as reminders to people as to the reasons why tourist areas should be designated. However, we would like those criteria to be optional and we fear that an overly rigorous interpretation of those criteria will prevent municipalities from moving forward with additional designations.
Mr Daigeler: Just to be clear then, you would prefer to stay with the municipal option, but if this law goes forward, the tourism criteria should be as wide and as flexible in their interpretation as possible.
Mr Sevigny: That is correct, and let me add as well at this time, so that there will not be any confusion as to whose opinions I am expressing, that I do not have with me this morning a mandate from my city council on the issue of Bill 115. We did try to seek a specific position, but because of the summer committee schedule we were not able to do that, although the subject has been debated at some length. I think I have accurately reflected the views of the majority of city council in expressing their interest in additional tourist designations and in the comments I have put forward this morning.
Mr Sorbara: We had an opportunity in the Ottawa-Carleton area and throughout Ontario to experiment with unregulated Sunday shopping; that is, no regulation from the provincial government, compliments of Mr Justice Southey, when he determined that Bill 113 was not within the parameters of the Canadian Constitution. Ottawa, like every other community, had an opportunity to allow the business community and consumers in general to set the pace in respect of shopping on Sunday and on holidays. Can you give us the benefit of your view as to how that impacted on the Ottawa area? Did the community find it detrimental? Was it detrimental to the economy? Was the marketplace able to adjust to a situation where there was no provincial regulation? Were retail workers exploited during that time? What was the overall response of the Ottawa community to that unregulated period?
Mr Sevigny: That is a difficult question to answer. I think there was very much a mixed response. I think that the way Sunday shopping was unofficially introduced to the province by way of a court decision, coming on the heels of much debate and controversy surrounding Sunday shopping, tended only to fuel the fire in terms of the two sides that have been debating Sunday and no Sunday shopping. On a practical side, I think our experience was similar to that in other areas of the province, where most retailers felt the need to stay open on Sunday to retain their share of the market. Subsequently, however, I think we saw a lot of those same retailers closing their stores because they felt opening was not economically a wise thing to do.
However, one cannot draw any conclusions. The main strength of a shopping centre is that it offers a wide variety of stores and services, and if people know they are all going to be open, then they will be attracted to that centre. In the experiment we had with Sunday shopping, I think all shopping centres left it open to individual retailers as to whether or not they would stay open, and so we had a situation where in the beginning two thirds of the stores in a shopping centre were open; that fell down to one third, I think, towards the end of the experiment. As a professional in this field, I would not draw any conclusions from that experience we had.
0920
The Chair: Mr Carr.
Mr Sorbara: Excuse me, Mr Chairman. I think you indicated that Mr Poirier was going to --
The Chair: We have run out of time.
Mr Sorbara: I would not have asked my question had I known you were going to deny him a question.
The Chair: We have run out of time.
Mr Carr: There may be a little bit of time at the end for Jean to take some of my time, if that is okay.
Since we have been going around the province, many municipalities have said they will be opening under the tourist exemption. Some of them have held votes in the past and will be holding votes. For example, in Thunder Bay there will be a question in the upcoming municipal election. I wondered what your thoughts were about the situation where large parts of the province begin to open, whether you would see that putting any pressure on yourselves to also come along as a sort of "me, too." Windsor will be open, Collingwood wants to open, Thunder Bay does, Kenora and so on. Do you see that putting any added pressure on the municipality?
Mr Sevigny: Yes, it certainly does. As I mentioned in the brief, we have a situation now in western Quebec where there is wide-open Sunday shopping. We do not have to spend any time on the south-of-the-border situation, which significantly affects the Ottawa market. I get very apprehensive when I see other parts of the province racing ahead with opening their cities wide for Sunday shopping. However, that being what it is, our council has decided to hold off on any future designations until this legislation has been passed or some decision has been taken by the province. That is the position of our council right now, and so I would say that our council has taken a fairly conservative position on this. Although many are apprehensive as to what is happening with our retail sector right now, they all acknowledge the importance of the tourism industry to the Ottawa area, and so we are anxious to get some clarity into this debate and get on with the task of designating more areas.
Mr Carr: The other question, just a short one, is regarding the tourist exemptions. As you know, if you do open, the ones who are opposed to it will say that you interpreted them incorrectly, and vice versa. What has been stated by a lot of groups is that there will be a lot of legal challenges to the interpretation the municipality takes, and I just wondered if you had any thoughts on that, whether such a broad tourist exemption is good or whether you see a lot of problems, regardless of what you do, from a legal standpoint.
Mr Sevigny: Yes, I think it is inevitable that there will be legal challenges to a municipality's interpretation of the legislation because it is a controversial area. However, with sufficiently clear legislation and an appropriate public participation process, I am quite confident that we will reach some good decisions as far as what should be given a tourist designation is concerned. Those who observe the industry will conclude in a very short period of time as to those areas that legitimately have a claim to tourist designations and those other sectors of the economy that are trying to take advantage of the legislation for other reasons. There is lots of room for interpretation, but there will be some challenges, I am sure.
Mr Poirier: Jim, if you had to design your own law, very briefly, like all politicians are very brief, what would it look like, or would you draw one at all?
Mr Sevigny: Yes, with the presence of prohibited Sunday shopping for the province, certainly legislation is required. We have to have some of our stores open to take advantage of that tourist trade. Make no mistake about that. Having said that, I would leave it as flexible as possible for municipalities to deal with the question. I think those municipalities which are overly aggressive in extending tourist shopping will find that market forces will soon work against that overly expanded tourist area.
In particular, I get concerned about involving the boards of trade or chambers of commerce. These groups have indicated they are not interested in being involved. I think it just complicates the process. I would include criteria for establishing a tourist area in the legislation; however, I would make it optional. But definitely I would leave it to the municipalities and leave it as flexible as possible.
Mr Morrow: I want to thank you for taking time out, I can imagine, from your very hectic schedule to come down and talk with us this morning. This really helps us to try and set up guidelines in this legislation, which is exactly what we are trying to do here.
Our position is that the municipalities are best suited to determine what their local tourism needs are while working with our guidelines. Can you work with this legislation, as an example? How do you feel about the municipality having the final say? Would you be happy if the decisions were referred to, say, a higher body?
Mr Sevigny: No, I would not be happy with that. I like the fact that the municipalities will make the decision on the matter. I am not a lawyer and I would not want to go too much further into the legal challenges, but I would say that if criteria were optional as opposed to compulsory, it would ease the threat of legal challenge on the question of interpretation of the legislation. I do not know. But let's definitely not get a third party involved in it. Let's leave it at the local level. By third party I am talking about the boards of trade, the chambers of commerce or the tourist bureaus.
Mr Morrow: Just one more question, if you do not mind. Do you agree that a worker in the province should have the absolute right to refuse work on Sunday?
Mr Sevigny: You are obviously looking for a personal answer to this. I personally would not agree with that. I think it is just not practical for our economy to operate under that scenario.
Mr Poirier: In the tourism sector?
Mr Morrow: Retail.
Mr Sevigny: In the retail sector, "absolute" is a strong word. I would tend to disagree with that, although I answer it in that way knowing that it is a complex issue. If I go any further in answering that question I am going to get into all kinds of hot water with my local business community.
0930
Mr Fletcher: We have travelled around the province over the last few weeks. We have been in northern Ontario and also in parts of Toronto and now we are coming into the eastern part of the province. Something I have noticed as we have travelled around is that the problems they have in the north, tourist problems, are so much different than what they are here and also what they would be in Windsor or somewhere else.
I think one of the things we are looking at in terms of the tourist exemptions is that we are trying to strike a balance throughout the province -- that is one of the hardest things for us to do -- a balance with the tourist communities and also to create a piece of legislation that is going to allow for a common pause day for working people in the retail sector. When you first started off your presentation you said that Bill 115 is an attempt. Exactly where would the fine-tuning go as far as Ottawa is concerned?
Ms Lambert: I will try to respond. We realize it is a very difficult area to deal with and the bill has tried to appease both sides of the issue. In this bill you are trying to allow for a common pause day, recognizing that people have a right to some rest, and also to recognize the fact that our society is changing, that we have more demand for store openings on Sunday, recognizing in particular that the tourist industry is a big industry in the province and that some kind of legislation has to be in place to allow stores to be open on Sundays. It is an attempt to recognize all those various forces at play. We congratulate the government of Ontario for trying to deal with this very difficult issue.
Mr Sevigny: I think the criteria that are in the proposed legislation now are certainly moving in the right direction. I would be the last person in the room to take a run at opening up a whole city under this legislation. Having said that, I take a look around Ottawa and I talk to the retailers, the tourists and the local politicians, and it is in most cases fairly obvious to me which areas should receive serious consideration for tourist designation.
I have mentioned a couple of them in my brief. The Sparks Street mall is close to attractions. It is heritage in nature. Somerset Village is of ethnic Chinese and has other ethnic features. I think these are the areas tourists are interested in. These are the areas the drafters of the legislation have attempted to capture. I think they are moving in the right direction. I just think a little fine-tuning with these criteria will allow us to do what we have to do.
My one fear in all of this is that Sunday shopping is such a controversial issue that the two sides in this issue are going to go at it to the extent that you are going to ruin it for the tourist designations. That is my one fear, and I am talking as somebody who gets my skull crashed every time I talk on the question of Sunday shopping or any extended hours.
I fully realize that our business community and our politicians and virtually every other group is divided right down the middle on the issue, but I would appeal to both sides of that issue on the question of tourist designations. Let's realize that the tourist dollar is extremely important to our economy, both in the tourist sector and in the retail sector. This is a good start, this draft legislation. Let's fine-tune it some more. Let's move ahead as quickly as possible to get the legislation in place and allow us, the cities and the province, to capitalize on the market that is there.
Mr Kormos: You have indicated your preference for the adjudicating to be retained at the local level rather than handed over to a body or group that would govern determinations of tourist areas for municipalities across the province. The legislation means that in areas where residents are unencumbered by regional government their municipal councils will be making that decision. In other areas -- I did not say this, but people are telling me this -- where communities are cursed or burdened with regional government, it will be that regional government making the decision. There are some people who suggest that the dynamics in regional government are such that sometimes some municipalities do not get as fair a shake as others within that same body. In view of your preference that the adjudicating be at the local level, if it is going to be that way would you prefer it be city councils in every respect, as compared to regional councils in some areas and municipal councils in some areas?
Mr Sevigny: Again, just as a personal view, on the one hand I would say it would be a heck of a lot easier for the city of Ottawa to deal with the tourism issue if it were at that level. On the other hand, taking a look at the bigger picture, I think it is in the best interests of the greater Ottawa area to have the issue stay with the regional municipality, because I can see a situation where the city of Ottawa would designate four or five tourist areas and the adjacent municipalities, because they felt they were competing in the same market, would proceed with designations of their own that may not be in the best interests of the local market. I think we do not have a problem in dealing at the regional municipal level on this issue, although this has never been discussed at local council levels, to my knowledge, and I think there would be support for either scenario.
Mr Kormos: Like you, I am grateful for height limits on fencing.
0940
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCALS 175/633
The Chair: Our next presenter is M. Daniel Lacroix from the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. I believe you are accompanied by Betty Sommers, president of the Ottawa and District Labour Council, and Betty Mills, who is a retail worker. As you know, we have approximately half an hour. You can use that time as you wish. Please identify yourselves for the purpose of Hansard and proceed. Start when you are comfortable in doing so.
Mr Lacroix: I am Dan Lacroix of Local 175/633. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union is pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the standing committee on administration of justice to present our members' views on Sunday shopping and working.
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175/633, is Canada's largest private sector union, representing some 45,000 members in Ontario. The UFCW represents more than 70,000 working people in Ontario, of whom 5,000 work in the Ottawa area. The Ottawa and District Labour Council and other local unions support the efforts and views of UFCW Canada with regard to the matter of Sunday shopping and working.
We applaud, in general, the government's effort in bringing forward legislation concerning the common pause day in Ontario and providing a needed restriction on both Sunday shopping and Sunday work. While this proposed legislation is an important step forward, the UFCW has five main concerns with the proposed amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act. These concerns are related to the intent of the RBHA, the municipal option, drugstore openings on Sunday, enforcement of legislation and the definition of a "retail business." In this presentation we will present our members' views on each of these concerns. We will also address three other issues related to Sunday working and shopping.
The intent of the RBHA: The present act fails to recognize the right of the worker for a common pause day. The proposed legislation recognizes the need for and importance of a common pause day, in part I of the RBHA. The wording in the proposed amendment to subsection 4(2), such as "shall take into account" and "should be maintained," is, however, too general. This achieves only a watered-down version of what is required.
Our recommendation is that in order to ensure the intent of the RBHA is consistently followed, the amendment to subsection 4(2) regulating municipal powers should read, "The council, in passing a bylaw under subsection (1), must maintain the principle that holidays are to remain as a common pause day; that is, to ensure that they remain days on which most businesses are not open; days on which most persons do not have to work."
To give you an example, on the August 5, 1991, civic holiday many food retailers were open for business. Our office received calls from members who were asking if they could be forced to work on a statutory holiday and what could happen if they refused. One employer even told his part-time staff he would be paying them at straight time. That was rectified, but that is just to give you an example. Our position is that our members should not have to wonder if they will have to work on a Sunday or on a stat holiday.
The municipal option: At present, the legislation implemented by the previous Liberal government provides that municipalities have full control over the decision to allow stores to open on Sundays or other holidays. There are no regulations, no criteria and no principles to guide municipalities in making the decision. The will of municipal councils simply predominates. The provincial government has no way of stopping wide-open Sunday shopping or working. One only has to look at the high rate of applications for exemptions that are presently in the hands of the municipalities for proof of the extent of this problem.
The proposed amendment: As proposed, the decision-making process would remain in the hands of municipalities in the area.
Last year, regional council voted unanimously against Sunday shopping. The only city to pass an anti-Sunday-shopping bylaw was Kanata. Nepean wanted wide-open Sunday shopping. Ottawa and Gloucester would not pass an anti-Sunday-shopping bylaw and if Nepean opened on Sunday, so would they. This eventually led to Kanata's rescinding its law and allowing Sunday shopping.
Under the proposed rules, decisions of the municipalities would be final and the province, including the Solicitor General, would not be able to challenge the decision. In our view, this proposal would lead to wide-open Sunday shopping and working. As a result, this would fail to enshrine the common pause day as intended.
Changes can be made to the proposed amendments to ensure the entertainment, recreational and cultural pursuits of tourism, as well as the goal of enshrining the common pause day. To accomplish this, the UFCW recommends the proposed amendments be changed to reflect the following.
1. Municipalities may, by bylaw, permit retail business establishments in municipalities to be open on Sundays where it is essential to meet the educational, cultural, leisure and recreational needs of tourists, and only retail business establishments in which the total area used for serving the public or for selling or displaying to the public in the establishment is less than 4,000 square feet and the number of persons engaged in the service of the public in the establishment does not at any time exceed four.
2. The government must establish a committee represented by affected groups, such as retailers, unions and government. This committee's purpose would be to prepare and recommend a new set of regulations for tourist criteria.
3. We would also recommend that the new set of regulations formulated by the committee mentioned above be made part of the legislation.
4. Changes must be made so that any interested party may appeal the municipal council's decision to a tourist exemption review board. It can be named anything else.
Drugstore openings on Sunday: Drugstores with a square footage of 7,500 or less may open on a holiday under the present act. The major problem we see with these stores is that the major part of their sales are non-pharmaceutical. For this reason they should have to conform to the same laws as the other chains do. A perfect example of this is the advertisement in which you also find full-page ads for soft drinks, chips, cookies, juices and candies. These are two pages I took out of the paper. Other than the name on the ad, you would never know they were pharmaceutical, that it was a drugstore -- cookies, soft drinks, juices, chips, cat food, deep-browned beans.
Knowing that they hardly have any competition on Sunday, these drugstores will also schedule extra personnel, not because they anticipate a run on cough medicine but because people will come in to buy soft drinks, film, light bulbs or fabric softener. To compound the problem, the absence of restrictions on the number of employees working on a Sunday or holiday allows some drugstores to dedicate extra help for the benefit of sales of these non-pharmaceutical products.
In the proposed amendment, the government has not addressed the problem of large drugstores open on Sunday. The proposed legislation also fails to put a restriction on the number of employees allowed to work on a holiday.
Our recommendation would be that the total area used for serving the public or for selling or displaying to the public in an establishment be less than 2,400 square feet and that the number of persons engaged in the service of the public in the establishment not at any time exceed four, including the pharmacist, who must be present in the establishment during business hours.
Prescriptions and other medication can be obtained in various hospitals and clinics with onsite pharmacies open on Sundays. Let us not forget the real reason drugstores were allowed to be on Sundays is so that the pharmacists may attend to prescriptions and other medical needs of the public.
The enforcement of the legislation: Currently the act provides for maximum fines of $50,000 upon conviction for an illegal Sunday opening. Also, municipalities or the Attorney General of Ontario can apply to the Supreme Court of Ontario for an injunction to close an establishment that is opening illegally. However, there are no minimum fines. In many cases the courts are imposing a fine of $300 upon conviction, hardly a deterrent.
Under the present act only two parties, the Attorney General of Ontario and the municipalities, are allowed to file for an injunction. Unfortunately, these two parties are in many cases not aware of violations or are not interested in filing for an injunction.
The proposed amendment: The government has proposed minimum fines of $500 for the first and $2,000 for the second offence. We fully support the principle of a minimum fine. However, the proposed fines are far too low. The amount of the proposed minimum fines will not deter the retailers from opening on Sundays. They would be simply seen as part of the cost of doing business. In fact, a retailer's profit for one day could easily surpass the amount of the fine. The proposed legislation has no change with regard to who applies for an injunction. We foresee the same problems of little enforcement and no action continuing.
Recommendation: In order to address the problems related to the minimum fine being an insufficient deterrent, and the lack of enforcement, we recommend the following: for first offences a minimum fine of $10,000 for a conviction and for subsequent offences a minimum fine of $20,000; and that subsection 8(1) be amended to read, "Upon the application to the Supreme Court by any affected or interested party, the court may order that a retail business establishment close on a holiday to ensure compliance with this act or regulation under the act."
At present, legislation similar to the UFCW proposal exists in Quebec, allowing parties to apply for an injunction. This legislation has proved to be both workable and effective. We believe that higher minimum fines, combined with the threat of an injunction filed by affected parties, would be an effective deterrent to retailers who want to open illegally on Sundays.
The definition of a "retail business": Under the existing act, the definition of a "retail business" does not include club warehouses such as Price Clubs. This flaw allows for giant stores, in the guise of membership clubs, to be open on Sundays. The government has not addressed the existing problem relating to the definition of a "retail business." As a result, club warehouses will continue to operate on Sundays.
Our recommendation: To prevent circumvention of the act by establishments such as Price Clubs, clauses l(l)(b), l(l)(c) and l(l)(d) of the present act should be amended to reflect the following:
"l(l)(b) `retail business' means the selling of goods or services by retail to any member of the public, including a member of a club or co-operative of any other group of consumers.
"l(l)(c) `retail business establishment' means the premises where a retail business is carried on. Any space or stall in markets, particularly in covered markets and flea markets, shall be considered to be a retail business.
"l(l)(d) `principal business' means that portion of the business which accounts for 80% of the retail business establishment's gross sales."
0950
Some of our general concerns regarding Sunday working and shopping and cross-border shopping: Our feeling is that people rush to the United States because they think they can get more for their money. US advertising in Canada is designed to attract Canadian shoppers. The introduction of the goods and services tax in Canada made the US option look more attractive. Also, the lower cost of gasoline in the United States makes the return trip gratifying. These are the real reasons people are shopping in the United States, not because our stores are closed in Ontario on Sundays.
Sunday shopping and working and tourism: We believe by accepting our recommendations, the recreational, entertainment and cultural needs of tourism can be met without opting for wide-open Sunday shopping or working.
Sunday working and shopping and the family: When looking at these issues, we must not think that Sunday shopping and working affects only those who work in retail; it also affects their families. A percentage of these people are married or date people who also work in retail. Sunday is really the only day they can spend together. Their children are in school all week and Sunday is the only day they can spend together.
It is our opinion that people have the same amount of money to spend over six days as they do over seven, and yet if wide-open Sunday shopping were to be law, police, transportation, delivery people, maintenance staff and other support people in retail would also be needed and would also be affected by wide-open Sunday working. A big concern, and too often forgotten, is day care services. We know of no centres that work on Sundays. Many people who run these centres want to be home with their own families on Sunday. We have a number of single parents who would find it an unwarranted hassle to try to find a centre. Ontario needs a common pause day for workers and their families.
In conclusion, the goal of the UFCW has always been to enshrine the common pause day for retail workers, for workers in related sectors and for their families. The amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act proposed by the Ontario government, while representing a move in the right direction, would fail to ensure that this goal is met and would serve to open doors for further erosion of the common pause day. We firmly believe that by accepting our recommendations, the maintenance of family values and the establishment of a common pause day can be realized.
UFCW Canada is prepared to work with the government of Ontario and other groups to develop and implement lasting, workable solutions which serve to establish a common pause day and at the same time strengthen the economy of the province and benefit all the people of Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you. We have a brief clarification and then Mr Poirier.
Mr Mills: I would just like to clarify a couple of points in your brief to set the record straight. I can advise you that the Attorney General of Ontario has advised that Price Clubs will fall under this act. That is on page 6. On page 8, you say that the goal "has always been the enshrinement of a common pause day for retail workers." The common pause day is the law in Ontario. It has been challenged in the courts and it has been found constitutionally sound and it is the law.
M. Poirier : Vous parlez français, Daniel ?
M. Lacroix : Oui.
M. Poirier : Bon. Lorsque la loi a été rejetée il y a quelque temps, pourriez-vous nous décrire ce qui s'est passé avec la protection des travailleurs dans les magasins ? Qu'est-ce qui est arrivé ?
M. Lacroix : Pendant les six mois durant lesquels les magasins étaient ouverts ?
M. Poirier : Exactement.
M. Lacroix : Ce qui est arrivé c'est qu'on a reçu plusieurs appels des employés qui étaient là pour nous demander quelle était la loi et s'ils pouvaient être forcés à travailler le dimanche. On a eu même des employeurs qui ne connaissaient pas exactement les critères. La plupart des employés ne voulaient pas travailler le dimanche. On a eu même des endroits ou des départements où l'employeur à qui appartenait le magasin est venu aux employés -- et ce n'est pas un employeur contre un employé -- mais il leur a demandé : «Comme on doit être ouvert le dimanche, je dois avoir des bouchers. Si vous êtes prêts à travailler, on va faire la rotation.»
Dans un magasin en particulier, il y avait six bouchers. Quatre ont dit oui, qu'ils étaient prêts ; il y en a deux qui ont dit : «Non, je ne veux pas travailler le dimanche», alors ils n'ont pas travaillé le dimanche. En raison des deux qui refusaient de travailler le dimanche, les quatre autres employés, à place de faire la rotation un par six, étaient pris à la faire un par quatre.
Les quatre employés se sont mis contre les deux employés qui refusaient. Alors non, ce n'était pas l'employeur qui mettait de la pression sur les employés pour qu'ils travaillent le dimanche, mais indirectement c'étaient les autres. Mais c'était l'employeur parce que les employés, à place de faire la rotation un par six, faisaient la rotation un par quatre. C'est eux qui étaient mécontents et ils commençaient à hurler après l'employé de prendre son tour. Alors, on a eu des problèmes comme ça.
Souvent, ceux qui ne voulaient pas travailler le dimanche ont perdu des heures parce que l'employeur disait : «Si tu n'es pas prêt à travailler le dimanche...» Si on avait un magasin qui avait 700 heures de travail par semaine, il coupait les heures. Alors, dans le magasin il y avait moins de service au début de la semaine. Pour ceux qui avant travaillaient au début de la semaine, le lundi, mardi et mercredi, ces heures-là étaient coupées, alors ils avaient une punition du fait qu'ils n'étaient pas prêts à travailler le dimanche.
M. Poirier : Donc, ils étaient effectivement punis.
M. Lacroix : Ils étaient punis indirectement. C'est comme toute autre chose. Ce n'était pas quelqu'un qui était là et qui disait, «Tu vas travailler, mais si tu ne veux pas travailler on te réduit tes heures de l'autre bout.»
M. Poirier : Est-ce que c'est global, ceci ?
M. Lacroix : Le gros problème dans cette question c'est qu'on le voyait mais il y avait beaucoup de gens qui ne voulaient rien dire. D'après eux la loi avait été changée et elle donnait le droit d'ouvrir le dimanche, mais la loi disait que l'employé pouvait refuser. Ce n'est pas qu'ils ne connaissaient pas leurs droits, mais à quel extrême est-ce qu'ils pouvaient être assurés qu'il n'y aurait pas de punition contre eux ?
Mr Carr: Thank you for your presentation here this morning. The question I have is on page 8. Your goal and the goal of the government are similar. When the Solicitor General announced this he said the goal was to achieve a common pause day. You said that is your goal as well.
However, you go on to say on page 3 that if your amendments are not included, this proposal will lead to wide-open Sunday shopping and working as a result and that this would fail to enshrine the common pause day. Just to get it clear, unless the amendments you proposed are adopted by the government, then you will feel that the Solicitor General will have failed to reach the goal of having a common pause day for your workers.
Mr Lacroix: Our position is that the government's position right now is a step forward. We feel there are a lot of grey areas where basically we want to have the loopholes plugged or where there would be absolutely no interpretation problem. You can read that and it is either the square footage is there or whatever, so there is no grey area and everybody knows what they are dealing with. That is the reason we are saying, yes, the proposed changes are in the right direction. We would like to see changes, and it is like everything else. Hopefully we can get some of the changes, if not all of them. We definitely feel it is going in the right area, but we definitely would like to see some doors closed.
Mr Carr: The other question I had relates to the protection of the workers. As you know, the Minister of Labour, in the same announcement, and he has been fighting all his life to protect workers, said that this will do it, that as a result of some of the legislation, the right to refuse, the retail workers will now have the strongest piece of legislation to refuse work, even above and beyond some of the other workers in this province.
During the period Sunday shopping was unregulated, that eight-month period, we also heard that there were only about 15 complaints of people being forced to work. When we met with some of the other unions, they said that was because a lot of times they did not put anything through, that there is subtle pressure and so on. Maybe you could explain your experience with the pressures that are there if municipalities open as they said they have under the tourist exemptions, some of the pressures you see happening to get people to work. You have a worker there. I do not know if she would be interested in answering -- just some of your experience on how they get around the legislation.
Mr Lacroix: I can tell you that we had one store in Kanata where we had two people suspended because of wearing a support button, "Say No to Sunday Shopping." The manager came up and told them to take the button off. They said no. He told them a second time. The third time he suspended them for the remainder of the day. For that store, in as much as the people were supportive of those two individuals, we filed a grievance and we got their money back and everything else. Even though we told them we would be filing and they knew they had the right to refuse to work, the fact that these two individuals were suspended for wearing the buttons meant there was a degree of intimidation on that part. There were a lot of people who might have refused, but because of what they saw happen to their co-workers they did not want to take the chance. A lot of people who work in retail are not making a lot of money. They need every cent and they cannot afford to take the chance of being suspended, even if we end up getting the money at a later date, or if it is said, "If you don't work on Sundays, then your hours at the beginning of the week will be reduced," they cannot afford to lose any hours.
That is why a lot of times you could say you only had 15 complaints, but I can tell you that I had a lot more than 15 phone calls during those eight months from people saying: "What happens if I refuse? Can you guarantee me that there will be no reprisal?" All I could say is, "We can't guarantee there will be no reprisal, but if there is, we will fight it." Based on that, some people made their decision and others agreed to work on Sundays.
1000
Mr Fletcher: Mrs Mills, you were introduced as a retail worker. Does that mean you are not on the executive of your union?
Mrs B. Mills: I am a shop steward where I work.
Mr Fletcher: Where do you work?
Mrs B. Mills: I work at the M Store on Bayshore.
Mr Fletcher: This piece of legislation we are trying to introduce and the amendments to the Employment Standards Act are trying to ensure a common pause day for retail workers. That is something we campaigned on during the election. It was a promise we wanted to keep and we are working on that. I am just wondering, why is the common pause day so important to you? I have heard from business leaders and I have heard from the union leaders. I want to hear from someone who actually works on the floor why you want this common pause day.
Mrs B. Mills: The common pause day is very important to me because that is the only day I have to spend with my family. If I had to work, and I would have to work, there is no other day I can spend with my family because of their schedules. They are all working and it is just the one day.
Mr Fletcher: Without this legislation, you said you would have to work if Sunday shopping is --
Mrs B. Mills: I still feel that we would be intimidated to work.
Mr Fletcher: That has happened in the past?
Mrs B. Mills: That has certainly happened. It has happened with the part-time people, the part-time young people. If they do not work they just do not get any hours. The stores only have so many hours to work. We are allotted so many hours for your business. If those hours have to be spread on Sunday, then that means the part-time people have to work on a Sunday. If they want the hours, which they do, to make their money, they work. So they are intimidated.
Mr Morrow: It is so refreshing, Mrs Mills, to see a worker here.
I just have two very brief questions. My first is, how many actual workers do you represent in Ottawa?
Mr Lacroix: In the retail we probably represent over 4,000.
Mr Morrow: That is quite a few. We know through polls that 57% of the people in Ontario want to shop on Sunday, but we also know the other side of that poll is that 70% or more do not want to work on Sunday. Does that concur with your own membership or is that higher? Please explain a little bit.
Mr Lacroix: It is like everything else. Our membership is saying that yes, they do not want to work on Sundays. They would like to spend the time with their friends or their family or doing whatever.
The big problem we had last year with the Sunday issue was being paid double time. At first, it was great getting paid double time. Then we had people who were in favour of working on Sunday who wanted, let's say, this Sunday off because of studying or because they wanted to have time with their family, and it came down to where some employers were saying, "You told us you would be available to work on Sundays." So what we saw was that because to a certain degree it was hard to get people to work on a Sunday, once they did get the people, if those people wanted to back down or said they did not want to work, then all of a sudden there was pressure put on them, "Listen, from the very start, you told us you'd be available, and now you're telling us you're not." There were problems that way.
The majority of our membership, if they had to work one Sunday, okay, but when it comes down to on a weekly basis, what we found, especially with the part-time people, was that a lot of hours were lost. I know of some employers where the hours were cut down. When Betty talks about man-hours per week, there were certain hours where they either reduced because of the costs -- it cost them more to have people on Sundays, so at the beginning of the week it was like a skeleton crew in the store. What happened was that if people refused to work on the Sunday, their hours were cut on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. So they were definitely affected by Sunday shopping.
The Chair: Unfortunately, we have run out of time. I want to thank all three of you for your presentation.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, might I just bring up a request for information arising from the questions and answers with our last presenters? Over the course of these hearings, we have been hearing reports that during the period when Sunday shopping was unregulated as a result of the decision of Mr Justice Southey, or indeed during the period of Bill 114 which provides the workers with a right to refuse unreasonable assignments of Sunday work, there were some 15 complaints in the ministry. My request for information relates to the nature of those complaints.
If you examine the legislation, it is designed to allow workers and employers who have a disagreement as to what is or is not a reasonable assignment of Sunday work to bring the matter before the ministry, to have that resolved by an employment standards officer and, if an employment standards officer cannot resolve it, then to the level of a tribunal.
I would be interested in knowing the real subject matter of those 15 complaints. Were they really a request for a resolution of a difference, a kind of arbitration between workers and employers, or were they bona fide complaints that the employer was violating the law, that is to say, taking retaliatory action of the kind described by our last presenters as a result of a refusal by a worker to work on Sunday on the basis that the assignment was unreasonable? If I could put that request for information before you and have you direct it to the Ministry of Labour, it would be greatly appreciated.
The Chair: I understand our assistant from the Ministry of Labour is taking your question down, and undoubtedly an answer will be faxed to us as soon as possible, probably within 24 hours.
1010
SPARKS STREET MALL AUTHORITY
The Chair: Our next presenter is not on our schedule. That is because the city of Cornwall sent in its regrets, as its position was supposedly well known. We have, on a moment's notice, Mr Sam Birnbaum, who is the chair of the Sparks Street Mall Authority in the city of Ottawa. We have a little less than half an hour, perhaps around 20 minutes. Please spend some time with your presentation and then the committee members, I am sure, will be anxious to ask you questions.
Mr Birnbaum: I appreciate the short notice and the ability to address this committee.
I represent the Sparks Street Mall, the entire stretch from Elgin to Lyon, with a substantial number of businesses in the centre of the city of Ottawa. When people think of Ottawa, they think of the Sparks Street Mall. One of the concerns over the years in developing such a facility is that people look to these complexes for a certain type of shopping. When they come to a city like Ottawa as tourists, they like to be able to come out and browse and purchase and do what they have to. One of the few industries available is the restaurant industry, the hospitality industry, whether it is hotels or restaurants. Most other businesses are closed.
We have seen our representation to the municipalities, and higher areas such as provincial government, go unheeded in terms of trying to get this flexibility. We recognize the fact that in these hearings you are trying to address this particular situation. I have a couple of items that I would like to bring forth concerning the issues before this committee in its search for an answer.
One of them is that business, in opening on Sunday, will detract from a common pause day. I just want to bring it to your attention that there are many industries where the employee and the employer have to open on Sundays, whether it is public transportation, hospitals, the restaurant industry, hotels. There are many industries that work on Sundays.
As we go into the 1990s more, and into the 21st century, the idea of a particular or common pause day should not, in our estimation, be based on those criteria. There are labour laws now in effect that clearly state the terms on which a person can work, or should work. We believe very strongly that it would allow for more opportunities and more jobs, rather than the reverse.
We believe very strongly that opening on Sunday, particularly in areas designated for tourism, allows greater expansion of revenues and, as a result, more opportunity for employment. We also firmly believe that this would increase the taxes available, both to the province and to the particular municipalities.
We also believe that businesses should be allowed to make the choice. In a business climate it should be their choice.
One of the clear concerns we have, and I have in representing the street, is that we be allowed by the provincial government, the province of Ontario, and the municipality of Ottawa to make the choice, an easy choice, without worrying about the cumbersome bureaucratic red tape necessary to handle it, that is, to allow a street like ours, that has made representation to the city, to be designated as a tourist area, so that we can open on Sunday and expand our venue for the tourism industry.
That is our prime concern. If we are not able to do that, one of our concerns for Sparks Street, like many other areas in the city and in the province, is that the tourism dollar will drop. Most tourists come into towns on weekends, and that is the time they have in which to spend their dollars. Let us make it easier, as we go into the 1990s and the 21st century, not more difficult. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Birnbaum. We have just short of five minutes per caucus. Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: Thank you, Mr Birnbaum, for your presentation. I take it that the business you operate is open on Sunday.
Mr Birnbaum: Yes.
Mr Sorbara: If there were individuals within your workforce who put it to you that they would prefer not to work on Sundays by reason of family, by reason of religion, by reason of peculiarities in their individual lives, what would your response be to that?
Mr Birnbaum: I make it very clear, and I am not alone in this, that I have never, as far as I know, and that can be easily corroborated, refused an employee to have a day off on Sunday. I just bring in other part-time people who may want to work.
I believe that would be the same in the regular retail industry. I do not think the figures are that high, that people are refused. There may be a few employers who do not believe that their employees have a right to a day off, whether it is a common day, designated or otherwise, but the choice should be in the marketplace as such.
Mr Sorbara: So in this business of trying to regulate Sundays, the inclusion of a measure of protection for retail workers does not offend you. If you were bound by the law, this would not represent an impossible accommodation; you would tend to accommodate your employees, and particularly those employees who prefer not to work on Sunday. Is that the case?
Mr Birnbaum: I do that now, yes. I would like to add that I do not believe, as I indicated, there are that many people in this province who actually force their employees to work a Sunday, and deprive them of another day. I know that in our industry, the hospitality industry, most of the people get the day off because there are enough people who want to work. I believe that is the case.
Mr Sorbara: For a period of about nine months there was no provincial law regulating Sunday shopping. The law that was in force was found to be unconstitutional by Mr Justice Southey. Prior to a review of that decision in the Ontario Court of Appeal, we had about nine months where the extent of Sunday shopping was governed by the interest of the retailer in opening on Sunday and the interest of the consumer population in shopping on Sunday.
Can you describe to this committee what the effect of that period of liberty was on retailing in Ottawa and generally what Sundays were like, and whether there was any deterioration in the quality of life in Ottawa as a result of that nine-month period of liberty?
Mr Birnbaum: There are two answers to that: one, directly in response to your question is the fact that there were very few problems relating to employees working Sunday in the overall scope of people who had to work. It was more the employer who had to be there than the employee as such. So there was no problem as far as the labour code and the labour people were concerned.
The second answer to your question is that, yes, it gave more choice to people who live in areas where they are not able to do their shopping in the evening, let's say, because they live in the centre part of Ottawa; and there was not that flexibility before because the hours were not there. There were people who appreciated being able to shop on Sunday -- they had never been able before -- and it was during a period when there were not that many shoppers going south of the border or to other areas.
Clearly it was appreciated by the shopper who wanted the ability to shop on Sunday. But I would like to indicate to you that the ability to shop on Sunday should be vested with the business community to create a healthier climate for expansion of labour and for expansion of revenues, rather than having to limit business and to enforce or impose legislation for more tax dollars. I think that is a regressive issue. I think opening up the Sunday-shopping law would be the answer.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much for jumping in this morning at such short notice. I appreciate your comments. Some of the business groups that have come through have said there is an increasing amount of money spent when they have Sunday shopping; this is in some of the border towns, as well as some of the tourist areas. They say: "They will spend it in our area rather than going back to their home area on a Sunday and spending it," whether it be groceries or whatever.
I was just wondering if you could expand a little on that. You heard the presenters before you. You may have heard them say there is no increased amount spent, that there is only a certain amount of money. I was wondering if you could explain what your experience has been in the industry.
Mr Birnbaum: Concerning Sparks Street, we can clearly indicate that during the period in which Sunday laws were somewhat open, there were definitely more dollars spent in the particular area. When Sunday shopping was reversed recently, the dollars definitely dropped.
Mr Carr: The other question I had relates to the situation of the tourist exemption. There is a lot of debate about what municipalities will do with that. Certainly, being a non-lawyer, I would look at it and see that you meet many of the criteria. But still, ultimately, the municipality can say, "No, we're opposed to Sunday shopping" and not give you that tourist exemption.
I wonder what your comments would be about the tourist exemption. Do you think it is broad enough, too broad -- maybe just a few of your thoughts on that.
1020
Mr Birnbaum: We would like to keep it flexible enough, as Mr Sevigny of the city of Ottawa has indicated, so that there is not a problem for them in being able to implement tourist designations. The Sparks Street Mall Authority, with the BIA, one of our counterparts, has taken a survey. We have a majority requesting it. We have now put a third request in to the city. Because of these hearings, as you heard Mr Sevigny say, it has been put on the back burner until this is resolved. That creates a difficulty with us because as time goes on these are dollars that we are losing, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and we would like to see that we get our designation as quickly as possible.
There are many areas like ours in the province and we would like to see it enacted. In response to your question, we would like to see the ability to create a tourist designation to be as easy and as flexible as possible on the part of the province.
Mr Daigeler: Would you expect any difficulties from Ottawa city council to have Sparks Street declared a tourism area?
Mr Birnbaum: If this committee were to make it as easy and as flexible as possible tomorrow, I would expect no difficulty from the city in giving us our designation as quickly as possible.
Mr Daigeler: I can perhaps comfort you in that regard. The previous minister, because the new minister has not appeared yet, certainly was extremely accommodating in his interpretation of the criteria. Basically he said that anything that promotes tourism can be designated a tourism area.
Mr Birnbaum: If the end result of the comments are such that it becomes the truth, and we hope that is the case, we are going to hold the city to what its comments were here today very clearly, that it act accordingly and as expeditiously as possible.
Mr Daigeler: Was Sparks Street declared a tourist area before the Liberal amendments were introduced?
Mr Birnbaum: No. There were always thoughts that it should be, and for the first time during my tenure now as chairman we have the mandate by the street in having made presentation to the city.
Mr Mills: Thank you for coming here and representing the Sparks Street Mall merchants on short notice. I can understand your apprehension, but I think that what this bill is all about is to address the importance of tourism in Ontario. Just to perhaps reassure you, during the second reading of this bill in the Legislature on June 17, I said this, and I would just like you to listen, "This bill supports and protects Ontario's tourism industry by providing province-wide criteria for an exemption of tourist-based businesses regarding holiday closing requirements."
I would just like to let you know that the tourism criteria are very much there; the criteria are a draft regulation. We are here to hear from people how we can fine-tune it and how we can make this law better. In my opinion, based upon the Sparks Street Mall, and I know it well, if you apply to the municipality and that mall meets the tourist criteria laid down in the bill, I am sure, sir, that you will have a happy and prosperous time on Sparks Street. Thank you for coming.
Mr Birnbaum: I have read it and I appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr Lessard: You are not off the hot seat yet. Are you familiar with the draft criteria that are proposed in the regulations respecting the tourist exemptions?
Mr Birnbaum: I am aware of most of them, not in fine detail. I was away for a while, but I am aware of most of it.
Mr Lessard: Do you think that is going to be of assistance to the merchants on Sparks Street? Do you think that is going to assist you in being able to be declared a tourist area?
Mr Birnbaum: In good part, yes.
Mr Lessard: Actually, this legislation, for the merchants who are on Sparks Street, is probably going to accommodate you, whereas you have been trying, under previous legislation, for 10 years and it has not. Would you agree with that?
Mr Birnbaum: I would agree with that. I am only here to make sure that the guidelines be as broad as possible, so that if the city turns around and says it wants to be able to apply every area of the city that wants tourist designation, we do not want to necessarily be impeded from having our designation, which is important. There are other tourist areas in the city, so if they are looking at the broad spectrum, as many cities might, it may cause a problem. My concern to this committee in addressing it is to make sure, with allowing as much freedom of expression within certain boundaries, that the municipality of Ottawa can act to the best for Sparks Street and perhaps other areas.
Mr Lessard: Do you have any opinion as to whether it should be the regional municipality or the city of Ottawa that should make those sorts of decisions?
Mr Birnbaum: Emphatically, I would answer that it should be the city of Ottawa. We do not need another level of government with more committees to handle it.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Birnbaum.
GREATER OTTAWA HOTEL AND MOTEL ASSOCIATION OTTAWA HOTELIERS INC
The Chair: Our next presenter is Mr Michael Levinson from the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association.
Mr Sorbara: Just while our next presenter is taking his seat, Mr Chairman, has anyone publicly welcomed the member from Welland-Thorold to the committee? It is great to see him here. The reason it is so good to see him here is because we have had a sort of party line from all of his colleagues, the government members, and I fully expect that, in true tradition, Mr Kormos might be wanting to express an independent view and certainly a more critical view of the government's legislation. That would be my expectation.
Mr Kormos: Far be it from me to not be independent or even occasionally candid, Mr Chairman.
Mr Sorbara: Well, I would not go that far.
Mr Kormos: What an intro. I am so pleased to see Mr Sorbara in my corner. Perhaps we can do wonderful things.
The Chair: I think Mr Kormos has been duly recognized. Mr Klopp, Mr Jordan, and Mr Daigeler should all also be recognized. However, on the other hand Mr Levinson should also be recognized. Mr Levinson, you have been observing for a while. We have approximately half an hour. Please divide that time as you wish but I am sure the committee members will have many questions for you. Proceed when you are comfortable to do so.
Mr Levinson: My name is Michael Levinson. I operate two hotels here in Ottawa: the Albert at Bay Suite Hotel and Victoria Park Suites. Please let me know if I speak too quickly. I happen to have a tendency to do that. I am speaking here today as a representative of the Greater Ottawa Hotel and Motel Association, which is the local zone association of the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association. I am also representing Ottawa Hoteliers Inc.
The Ontario Hotel and Motel Association has been incorporated since 1925. The objectives of the association are to represent the hotel, motel and food and beverage industry in government and legislative matters; to provide means for members to exchange information on problems and new ideas; to review industry trends and develop forecasts; to develop guidelines for professional conduct in the industry; to develop educational programs and services; to provide guidelines for accommodation and operating standards in the industry; and to act as a focal point for organizing joint efforts among members for solutions of industry problems. The association represents over 1,200 members, ranging from hotels, motels, taverns, restaurants, and resorts throughout the province. Locally we represent over 7,000 hotel rooms in the Ottawa area and over 7,000 restaurant seats.
Ottawa Hoteliers Inc was formed in 1988. The objects of OHI are to promote and develop the national capital area as a destination for tourists, business representatives, and the public generally, and to promote goodwill and better understanding among members of the public in general, and government bodies in particular, for the hospitality industry in the national capital area. OHI currently has 11 members including the Chateau Laurier, Chimo Hotel, the Delta Hotel, the Hilton, Les Suites, the Lord Elgin, Novotel, Radisson, Skyline Ottawa, the Westin, and the Albert at Bay Suite Hotel. The membership list continues to grow.
Bill 115 is a major concern to us in the hospitality industry. Something that we never lose sight of is that our industry does not, in itself, provide the destination to bring visitors to the city. All we do is provide the accommodation and the meals. It is the city as a whole that brings the visitors in. People come to Ottawa and other areas of our province not for our hotels but for our activities, sights, the people. Shopping is an integral part of the visitors' experience in our province. It should be no surprise to anyone here today to hear that tourism is down. Another big issue making headlines is cross-border shopping.
1030
In recessionary times such as these we see how important tourism is to our economy. Tourists who come to our province stay in our hotels, motels, campgrounds, etc. They eat in our restaurants and shop in our stores and use our services. In turn, businesses that cater to tourists buy goods and services from other companies, who in turn buy from other companies, and on and on it goes. One tourist dollar can rebound within our economy to be worth over hundreds, and maybe even thousands, of dollars for local businesses. Of course, when businesses are doing well, tax revenues are up and the federal and provincial governments have plenty of money to run the country and start programs for the public good. It all stems from tourism. There is no other industry in this province that is as large or hires more people.
Why is it then, if tourism is so important to our economy, that we repeatedly see various levels of government of this country impose new taxes and new restrictions that impede our ability to attract tourists? The Ontario government's treatment of Sunday shopping and its view towards a common pause day do just that. It hurts the very people whose job it is to protect and serve. Bill 115 offers somewhat of a compromise but it is still not the solution. On behalf of the Greater Ottawa Hotel and Motel Association and Ottawa Hoteliers Inc I urge the members of the standing committee on administration of justice to consider the following: that Ontario encourage tourists and visitors by having unrestricted retail shopping on Sundays and holidays in all areas throughout the province as the market dictates, without any restrictions. We are in favour of unrestricted Sunday and holiday shopping. We feel that unrestricted Sunday and holiday shopping is vital to the economy and the tourism industry throughout the province.
I want to talk briefly about the hospitality industry and tourism in general. This industry is the largest private sector employer, and the service sector accounts for over 70% of all new jobs. Tourism is responsible for the creation of 32 full-time jobs for every $1 million in tourism expenditures. Our hotels and restaurants employ professionals, educated, uneducated, skilled and unskilled workers. It is the largest employer of women, youth, and visible minorities. No other employer is capable of this range of employment, and guess what? We are open for business on Sundays and holidays. In 1990 tourism generated direct expenditures of $15.5 billion, with an estimated total income of $36.9 billion. It is one of the nation's largest generators of personal income, corporate, property, business, and sales taxes to all levels of government, including $1.85 billion to the province of Ontario, $2.5 billion to the federal government, and $300 million to municipal governments in 1989 alone.
The closure of retail business on Sundays has meant job losses to many, especially students who rely on this income for their schooling and others wishing to supplement their income. We have seen a drop in business over the last couple of years. Our members throughout the province strongly feel that the availability of Sunday shopping will certainly help alleviate the slumping economy. We recognize that other factors have contributed to the decrease in revenue but we feel that the freedom of choice to open and work at retail businesses on Sundays and holidays is a means to reverse this problem, with emphasis on the freedom of choice. The problem is not that we are not attracting the American and foreign tourist like we used to; we are not getting Canadian tourists either. That, in my mind, is the greatest cause of worry.
Cross-border shopping probably has been beaten to death, but I feel I must address it. The answer to cross-border shopping is not to make it harder for Canadians to cross back into the country or to impose new levies and duties. Just this past weekend I saw almost a full-page ad in the Ottawa Citizen advertising a grocery supermarket in Messina. Will people actually drive from Ottawa to the United States just for cheaper groceries? What about the time and effort to cross the border? Yet, obviously, the supermarket felt it wise to spend thousands of dollars to advertise in the Ottawa newspaper.
What concerns us is that while day crossings are up, people are also staying overnight so they can declare more upon return. They are staying in American hotels and eating in American restaurants. The lineups at our borders on a Sunday illustrate this point. How can we compete and encourage people to travel to and within our province? The hospitality industry is faced today with many obstacles and increased operating costs. We are not able to always compete on price alone. Our costs and our taxes are much higher. We must compete as an attraction that offers the facilities and services that tourists demand. It does not take a genius to see that Sunday shopping is something people are looking for when they travel.
We have seen a change in the way people travel. Trips have become shorter, both in duration and advanced booking time. We are seeing fewer people flying and more are packing up the family and hopping into the family car. I was speaking to a representative from the Canadian Automobile Association and he told me they have never been busier. More people are travelling as a family now. Hotels and restaurants are scrambling to cater to the family market. People are shopping more and more as a family outing, especially when on holiday. I have heard an emotional argument that Sunday shopping will separate families. Conversely, I might say that it keeps them together. None of the employees in our establishments who work Sundays have found any hardship. Why should a few retail workers have any problems? How big a workforce are we talking about anyway? It certainly pales in comparison to the hospitality industry, and we are open Sundays.
The concept of a common pause day in Ontario is grossly outdated and discriminatory. Multicultural Ontario in the 1990s is populated with every religion and ethnic background, and to allow one faith, belief, or ethnic custom to dictate the lifestyles of everyone is wrong. Our contemporary society shows that Ontarians work at all hours of the day and night throughout the week. To our accommodation and food service industry we must add hospitals, transportation -- public and private -- gas stations, utilities, and convenience stores, just to name a few, all of whom must work 24 hours, 7 days a week. While some people rest, others conduct business and provide services. Their professions are a necessity to any community, and I do not believe that their quality of life is diminished by their work schedules. We must provide these products, experiences, and services to our customers when they want them, or risk losing them to other competing jurisdictions. A common pause day should not exist, and there is no justification for one.
To have the government legislate the people's habits, such as shopping, is as misplaced as interfering with religion, and fundamentally goes against people's right of choice. While Bill 115 has some merit, and we do appreciate the Ontario government's recognition of the value and importance of tourism in this legislation, we do feel, however, that the interpretation of the tourism criteria would create a lot of confusion, not to mention administrative nightmares and time and cost. To limit the timing for municipalities to declare themselves as tourist areas would also be too restricting, as circumstance could, and most likely would, change at a later date. In Ottawa, we have seen yesterday's slum area become today's tourist area of major significance.
We appreciate that the proposed amendments to part XI-B of the Employment Standards Act recognize the operating realities of our industry. It is most important that all employers retain the right to schedule work and dictate work schedules. It is important that out of more than 10,000 inquiries and complaints registered with the employment standards branch of the Ontario Ministry of Labour in 1990, fewer than 15 were related to the right of retail workers to refuse to work on Sundays and holidays. I must stress it is not complaints, necessarily, it is inquiries as well, 15 complaints and inquiries.
We also feel that the restriction on the number of persons serving and floor space occupied is discriminatory.
In closing, we respectfully request that the members of the standing committee on administration of justice seriously consider the following: that Ontario encourage tourists and visitors by having unrestricted retail shopping on Sundays and holidays in all areas throughout the province, as the market dictates, without any restrictions; that the restrictions for retail businesses, the number of persons serving and the floor space occupied, should be deleted, as this is discriminatory; that the concept of a common pause day be eliminated. Let people choose their own day of rest.
It has often been said that people would be willing to spend a little more for a better product, better service or for the sake of convenience. Product quality and service are beyond the jurisdiction of the Ontario government. As for product quality, I must say that I believe Canadian-sold goods to be about the same as American goods. "Service culture" is the catchphrase of the 1990s. If our retailers do not learn how to give exceptional service, they will not see the decade's end. As far as convenience goes, if one wants to go shopping on Sunday, then the most convenient place is south of the border. The Ontario government can change that. We can make it convenient to shop at home again when people want to shop and give tourism a boost by enhancing the tourist experience by allowing shopping.
It is unfortunate that Sunday shopping is being addressed as a political issue rather than an economic issue. On a political level, we know that whatever the legislation does, it will be wrong for the vast number of Ontarians. As an economic issue, we truly cannot afford to restrict Sunday shopping and holiday shopping. There is too much at stake. For visitors to our province, going shopping is as much an attraction as visiting one of our museums.
I said earlier that tourist dollars spent within our communities rebounded and multiplied. The same goes for dollars spent outside our communities, such as the United States. Millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs are being lost from our communities because of the restrictive laws on shopping and our taxes. It truly seems that our legislative policies are self-defeating.
I appreciate having the opportunity to speak on behalf of our members on this important issue.
1040
Mr Sorbara: Mr Levinson, let me congratulate you on getting through a very well-thought-out brief very quickly. I think the point that you made, by the way, about the nature of family activities is an extremely important one.
Just to share with you a little anecdote, the last time I packed up my family into the family van and came to Ottawa, I had a devil of a time getting my children inside the National Gallery. They were glad once I did, but these are kids who are 12 and 13 and 14. But I did not have any trouble at all saying, "Let's go shopping now for some things to bring home to the kids who didn't come on the trip." That was not a Sunday, but I think probably the same is true on Sundays.
Do I take it that what you are saying is that if your industry -- the hotel industry, the tourism industry, the accommodation industry -- is to be able to meet its full potential in the Ottawa-Carleton area, you need to have that component of the tourist experience available to tourists seven days a week, and that is the ability to browse and shop and just sort of seek out Ottawa on any day of the week? Is that the case?
Mr Levinson: I really feel that we actually have a crisis going on right now. Tourism has never been worse. We have never seen a worse summer than this summer here in Ottawa. Yes, there are lots of factors involved, but we find repeatedly in talking to the people staying in our hotels, people eating in our restaurants, a big complaint that they find, especially American tourists, is the lack of things to do on a Sunday, and they are here for the weekends for the most part. The shopping is something they are looking for, and we really feel that adds to the attractiveness of any area in this province by people coming in, having things to do, and shopping in our stores is part of that experience.
Mr Sorbara: Is it safe to say then that part of the solution to the difficulty that the tourist industry is confronting in Ottawa is a greater sense of freedom for the marketplace to shape the kind of Ottawa it is going to present to tourists by virtue of the market forces that exist?
Mr Levinson: I think so. As I said in my presentation, we cannot compete on price. That is the bottom line. We will never be able to offer hotel rooms or dinners in our restaurants as cheaply as the Americans can. That is a fact.
Mr Sorbara: You are in a business that must, by its very nature, operate seven days a week. I have walked by your little quite new and quite beautiful hotel, hotel suites, just around the corner here. It is Albert at Bay. It was about 12:30 last night. I had not seen it before, and I sort of wondered out loud how you are competing in that kind of new hotel suite market. But you have to operate 365 days a year. Is it a problem for you to identify a workforce that is willing and able and available to work on Sundays?
Mr Levinson: Not at all. As a matter of fact, there are more people applying for jobs than I can accommodate at this point in time. We are constantly turning away people. We get applications every single day, people walking in looking for jobs. A lot of that work is on weekends, people wanting to supplement their income, students. It is August now. People are going back to school shortly. There are a lot of students out there looking for work.
Mr Sorbara: If someone who is applying for a job and someone who you are interested in hiring suggested that they would prefer their 40 or 35 or 42 hours a week not to include Sundays, would you exclude that person from consideration?
Mr Levinson: That is never a problem. As a matter of fact, we have some employees -- I have one employee who only wants to work midnight to 8 in the morning. Because of his home situation, he prefers that. His wife works during the day and he takes care of the kids during the day, so he works in the evenings. He will not work during the days. He also works the Sunday night at well. There are a lot of people who want those hours, and I feel that we as an industry, and I think the retailers as well, would not force anybody to work days they do not want to work, be it a Sunday, a Saturday or a Thursday, for that matter.
Mr Sorbara: During the period when there was no law in the province of Ontario, did you find that the quality of life in the Ottawa-Carleton region was deteriorating?
Mr Levinson: Actually, I am going to answer that in a roundabout way, based on the question you asked the previous presenter. I have to say that when Sunday shopping was opened up wide, with no restrictions, I think what would happen -- people were talking about possible complaints of employees being forced to work on a Sunday. I want to address it by saying I think there is a transitionary period that when retailers were suddenly opening up on Sundays, they did not have the people to work the Sundays yet. They had not started the jobs, had not started hiring and training these people. There was an adjustment period that people who generally work during the week who have been trained were being asked to fill that time. I feel that if it was an ongoing situation the workforce would be created and people trained who specifically want to work those hours and it would continue smoothly.
I also feel that with unrestricted shopping we would see very quickly that areas would find themselves that they basically thrive on Sundays, and other areas would not. Certain areas would not be open Sunday and other areas would. It would sort of be like the tourist areas but without actually designating it as such. I hope that answers your question, but I really think there is an adjustment period the employees would find if you matched the right jobs if you want to work those hours.
Mr Jordan: Thank you for coming this morning, Mr Levinson. I was wondering if you see this legislation as a means of providing a service to the tourist industry or a means of protecting the retail worker regarding a rest day.
Mr Levinson: No. I think it does not go far enough in terms of that. Actually, maybe I said that wrong. I really feel that it is going to cause more problems, because designating an area as a tourist area -- what is a tourist area? There is confusion there. Historic significance: What is that? I mean, a new building built today, one can say historically it is going to be significant in the future. We can gentrify an area that has been a slum area and make it a beautiful tourist area. We see that happen all over the province. That is something that previously had no historic significance. I really feel that there should not be limitations on what a tourist area is.
As for the protection of workers, I truly feel there should be legislation protecting workers from having to work more hours than they should, but designating one particular day that they cannot work is actually harming those who do want to work. I really feel very strongly about that, that there are a lot of people who do. I see them come in the hotel. I have family in the retail business. There are people who do want to work on Sundays, and yes, there are a lot of people who do not want to work on Sundays. I feel that having a common pause day is discriminatory. It does not allow those to meet their potential and to do what they want to do. So I do not think this legislation solves anything. I really feel the way to legislate it is that employees can only work so many hours and they must have days off, etc, but not saying one particular day.
Mr Carr: Thank you for taking the time to come in. Very clearly, since we have travelled around the province, we have municipalities that are going to take those options. I think very clearly there will be Sunday shopping in this province. Whether it is 50%, 60%, 75% I guess is the only question right now.
My question to you is this: If we had this patchwork of openings, one municipality open and one not open, how would you see that affecting your workers or your industry? Obviously the ones that were closed would be affected. Do you think it would still be better to have some open and some not open, rather than have them all close down? Maybe you could just comment how you see this patchwork working.
Mr Levinson: For the record, I have to say -- and in talking to a lot of retailers, and I have, and a lot of the retailers I have spoken to are family-owned businesses; they are not major retail chains -- I truly believe that not all retail should be open on Sunday. What I am saying, though, is that it should not be restricted to who may open and who may not open. I feel that if you get a patchwork, there is confusion for tourists. People come into the province, and here we are spending a lot of money advertising Ontario, and there is a lot of confusion going on. People do not know what to expect. If they know that in one city they go to there is lots of Sunday shopping and another city they go to there is none, it creates a problem and there is a disparity within the province.
One person's definition of a tourist area does not match another. I can give you an example. In Toronto, the Eaton Centre really is a tourist destination. The Rideau Centre here in Ottawa could be the same thing, but it does not fit under the criterion of having historical significance really. But it truly draws a lot of people. Look at the number of hotels just in that area around the Rideau Centre. I would say there must be about 2,000 hotel rooms right there, maybe more. The Byward Market next door is open, but it only offers limited shopping, basically.
I do not know if I am answering your question exactly, but I feel the patchwork you say would occur if it was unrestricted -- as I said earlier, some businesses would be open. I do not think Bank Street would really survive on Sundays, yet I do think the Sparks Street Mall and Rideau Street, perhaps, around the Rideau Centre, would survive, maybe Somerset Street. There are certain areas that would thrive. That is basically my answer.
Mr Fletcher: I appreciate your being here this morning. I understand from your brief that at least we are making a step in the right direction, and that is very encouraging. First, you asked a couple of questions and made some assumptions.
How many retail workers are there? About a third of the working population in Ontario are people who are in the retail working sector, so this is a lot of people it is going to affect.
As far as the Sunday working or Sunday shopping are concerned, Sunday working especially, the Employment Standards Act amendments are there to ensure that retail workers will have a common pause day and also ensure that all Sunday retail work is voluntary. So it does not mean it is going to be a Sunday, that common pause day. That is something that you should know.
1050
Mr Levinson: I am glad you clarified that, because as I said, every worker should have a pause day.
Mr Fletcher: Right, and this is not saying it is going to be Sunday.
Mr Levinson: It does not have to be Sunday.
Mr Fletcher: No. Again, as far as the intimidation or coercion by retail people, in 1988 Zellers was making people sign a form that required, and let me just quote, "If Sunday is no longer legislated as a holiday or a day of rest, I understand that Zellers may require me to work on Sunday as part of my regular work week, and my refusal to do so may be considered cause for dismissal." That was something that was going around that people would have to sign, so there was coercion in a form. That is something we are trying to get rid of.
Mr Levinson: If I could answer that briefly, in the hotel industry, every employee whom I interview, whom I hire, is asked, "Are you aware that the job is such that you may have to work evenings and you may have to work weekends?" They tell me what their preferred schedule is. Sometimes you have someone scheduled for the weekend and they call in sick or they are on holiday and you ask the other employees. I have often found that these other employees have agreed, but it is not every Sunday; it is on occasion. People are very reasonable in that.
Mr Fletcher: But you are not making them fill out a form saying, "If you don't work you're going to be dismissed," or anything like that.
Mr Levinson: No, but they are very clearly told that working on the weekend may be required.
Mr Fletcher: That is right. No problem with that. This is for the retail workers anyway.
Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Mr Fletcher has quoted from an employment contract that was being utilized for a very short period of time during my time as Minister of Labour. I know he would not want to inadvertently mislead this committee or the public participating in these hearings, and I raise my point of order on that basis. The committee should be aware of three points. The first is that --
The Chair: That is not a point of order.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, I feel that it is and I am surprised that you are not going to let me conclude my comments.
The Chair: You feel that committee members should be aware.
Mr Levinson: If I can address it very quickly, I want to say as a presenter here that employment contracts are the norm in various industries and various jobs. Some people have employees sign things saying they will not disclose information or, when people sell a business, they will not work in the same field. There are all kinds of restrictions in employment contracts, and if employees wilfully sign an employee contract after reading it, it should be a contract.
Mr Fletcher: Just as long as it does not violate the law. I agree with that, and this one was. As far as the tourist part of this, you were saying cross-border shopping is going to be affected. We know there are things other than Sunday shopping that affect cross-border shopping -- GST, free trade, the dollar and everything else -- and also that your business has been going downhill and you are trying to attract Ontario residents. It is strange, because when I look at the figures from 1990, last year, total travel in Ontario from all origins was up about 18.4%, and Ontario residents' total travel within Ontario was up 24.8% over 1989. Also in that year the hotel and motel people were increasing their residence by 53.6%, which is interesting, because we had that period of time in there when there was wide-open Sunday shopping. But in the same period of time that there was wide-open Sunday shopping, travel to the USA was up 21%, which means that the Sunday shopping did not really have an effect on people travelling to the United States. Again, that is something else, as I said, other factors.
What is really interesting and what really gets to me is when you say the number of jobs you are going to create, yet while we had the increased travel, the increased profits, the employment in these areas was down 4.7% in the accommodation area and 7.5% for the food and beverage area. So I am trying to get a handle on why -- unless you are saying that it is everything else -- Sunday shopping is going to enhance your industry.
Mr Levinson: To answer that, first, I do not know where you got your figures.
Mr Fletcher: Let me just say it is from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.
Mr Levinson: Okay, but there are a number of things you have to look at that are going on at the same time. You cannot confuse different issues.
Last year we saw about an 8% drop in tourism. This year we have seen about a 10% drop from the year before, which is an 18% drop from two years before that. We have also seen the same thing -- remember there was a Gulf war as well. People stopped flying. People started driving within a two- to three-hour distance of where they lived.
Mr Fletcher: As tourists.
Mr Levinson: As tourists. We saw this weekend getaway a lot. The whole market has changed. A lot of these people just travel within two hours, a weekend getaway. But what we are seeing is that less people are travelling. I do not know where you got these figures saying more people are doing so, because we know that less are travelling and we are getting fewer people from outside the country coming in. I have figures from the Canadian Tourism Research Institute.
With regard to Sunday shopping and tourism, as I said in my presentation, I feel the shopping experience is an integral part of the visitor experience to any area of this province. People come to visit a province and part and parcel of what they do is shopping.
I went out to dinner last night with two disc jockeys from an Ogdensburg radio station. They were telling me that Ogdensburg would not really exist if it were not for the Canadians. They thrive on the Canadian tourism -- and he was shocked when I used the word, because they never think of it as tourism. The Canadians come and shop there, but that is not tourism, that is business.
In reality, having the availability of Sunday shopping here would enhance our industry. I truly believe that. It is not the final answer. We have a lot of other problems with the recession and the GST and other taxes, but we feel that Sunday shopping is one aspect.
Mr Kormos: I appreciate what you have said, and I have to tell you that I am from a community down in the Niagara Peninsula that is small enough that I consider Ottawa the big city. But I come from a city, Welland, and the accompanying town of Thorold, which I think are pretty characteristic of most of Ontario.
The problem we have down in cities like Welland and Thorold, and I suspect a whole lot of other cities, is that if in big cities, which are tourist draws, their Steinbergs and No Frills and supermarkets and other retail stores are opened on Sundays -- you have a boundary and the people just over that boundary are going to feel pressured to do it, not because they necessarily want to but because of the realities, that domino impact. That reared its head during this period of time that people have been talking about, when the Sunday opening and the Sunday working were unregulated.
I believe you were here when the United Food and Commercial Workers, who represent a whole lot of retail workers, talked about their concerns. The next presentation is from the Christian Council of the Capital Area, of this area, and I suspect what they have to say is what they have been saying all along during the course of this debate about Sunday shopping. What they have to say is that a common pause day and controls on Sunday openings are important to the lives of people in communities like those where I come from, Welland and Thorold in the Niagara Peninsula, and to the lives of people in communities like Ottawa and neighbouring regions.
If you can tell me something to say to these people, to the people who represent the workers or to the churches -- and churches are as important to the lives of people here in Ottawa as they are to our families in Welland and Thorold. Are these people wrong? Are they misguided? Are they simply out of step? My strong feeling is that they are not. What do you say to these people?
1100
Mr Levinson: The first thing that comes to mind is I feel that people whose day of rest for religious purposes is Sunday have every right to that. But I do not want them telling me I must rest on their day of rest if mine is not the same day as theirs. I feel quite strongly about that.
I do not celebrate the Sabbath or the holiday on a Sunday. I would rather have my own day of rest where I do not work, one that is different from that. They should not dictate to me or the other people in the province who do not want to rest on Sunday that they must do so. That is my first answer to those people.
As far as the workers and the unions, as I said before, there is a true period of adjustment. If Sunday shopping were wide open, everyone would be open and testing the markets and the waters, and people would start to get into phase -- what works and what does not work, what makes economic sense. If a certain employer cannot find the workers to work on Sunday, the employer will not open on Sunday. If they are not getting the business, if people are not coming in and shopping in the store, for sure they are not going to be open on Sunday. No one is going to stay open if they are not getting any business, because their labour costs and other costs are going up.
We had eight months of unrestricted Sunday shopping, and that is a very bad time to really use as a model for what would happen because there was a lot of adjustment period going on there.
I do not know if I have answered your question. When you talked about the small communities and the borders, I was not quite understanding what point you were getting at. I do know the large cities will always create a greater draw than small communities just by virtue of the kind of stores available and the selection. There is always going to be better shopping in Toronto than in Ottawa. There is always going to be better shopping in Ottawa than in Smiths Falls and so on in terms of selection and probably even sometimes price. If you are from a border community, you must know. In May I spent a weekend in Sarnia. It was very depressing to be in Sarnia on a weekend, I will tell you.
Mr Kormos: The folks in Sarnia are not going to be happy to hear you.
Mr Mills: Very briefly before you go, I would just like to remind you of something concerning the statement that you do not want Sundays; it is not your religion. There is provision within this legislation for alternative religions.
Mr Levinson: But it does not answer the problem of people wanting to work on Sundays.
Mr Sorbara: Might I just make one request for information from the Ministry of Labour? It arises from Mr Fletcher putting on the record the famous Zellers contract which was so offensive to so many of us.
My request for information is as follows: Will the Ministry of Labour present a brief to this committee outlining all circumstances relating to the Zellers contract of 1988 requiring workers to agree in an employment contract to work on Sunday? I would like to hear the ministry's views on the relationship between that contract provision and the Human Rights Code, confirmation that the contract provision violated the Human Rights Code, the relationship of that contract provision to Bill 114 and Bill 115 and the circumstances surrounding the agreement by Zellers to withdraw that provision from the contract. Could they report to us on all matters relating thereto?
The Chair: Would you like that in writing or orally?
Mr Sorbara: I would prefer it in writing. I appreciate that the Ministry of Labour has responded to a request for information fairly quickly. We do not need it -- I do not need it -- in the next day or two, but the committee is going to be considering this matter for several weeks yet. If within the next week or two we could hear from the ministry, that would be fine.
The Chair: So you would like a written response prior to next Friday?
Mr Sorbara: I would like a written response, yes, hopefully within a week.
Just one other request for information that I did put before the committee last week. We have not heard back yet, so I will just remind the committee --
The Chair: There is a response to one of your questions.
Mr Sorbara: No, we have that response. It is another request for information and I would have thought we would have an answer by now.
Earlier in the hearings, Mr Mills said that this bill has nothing to do with religion, that it has only to do with a common pause day. Today he is actually mentioning the retention of section 5.
Is it the government's view that there are matters in this bill that deal directly with religion, and if so, how is that position consistent with Mr Mills's statements before this committee that this bill has absolutely nothing to do with religion and that its only purpose is to create a common pause day and to promote tourism?
The Chair: You are saying that there are some outstanding questions to which we have yet to receive a response from the Solicitor General?
Mr Sorbara: Yes. We could maybe solve it right now if Mr Mills would just tell us whether this bill has anything to do with religion or whether it does not. The inconsistency arises from different testimony that he has given before this committee on behalf of the ministry. That is confusing not only to me as a committee member, but I would imagine to the general public as well.
The Chair: Perhaps we should wait for the written response, which should be forthcoming.
CHRISTIAN COUNCIL OF THE CAPITAL AREA
The Chair: Our next witnesses are from the Christian Council of the Capital Area, Mr Peter Schonenbach, past president, and Mr Don Friesen. As you have been here for a little while, you are aware of the proceedings. We have approximately half an hour to be divided up between your presentation and the many questions I am sure the committee members will have for you. Please feel free to start when you are comfortable.
Monsignor Schonenbach: I am very pleased to be here. To introduce ourselves perhaps in a different way, my name is Monsignor Peter Schonenbach. I am the Roman Catholic representative on the Christian council. I also hold the position of past president. Don Friesen is from the Mennonite church and he holds the position of vice-president.
First of all, a few words about the Christian Council of the Capital Area. The council has its roots in the Ottawa Council of Churches, which was established in 1948. The current Christian Council of the Capital Area began in 1971. The council's mission statement, approved in 1989, is as follows: "The Christian Council of the Capital Area is called together to demonstrate the unifying love of God in Jesus Christ, to all in the national capital area."
The member churches of the council are the Anglican Diocese of Ottawa, the Ottawa Baptist Association, the Greek Orthodox Diocese, the Ottawa Lutheran Council, the Ottawa Mennonite Council, the Ottawa Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church, the Ottawa Presbytery of the United Church of Canada, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Ottawa, the Salvation Army, the Society of Friends and the Women's Inter-Church Council. Our membership comprises over 500 congregations.
Some of the endeavours of the council are promotion and sponsorship of chaplaincy in hospitals and schools, establishing and maintaining a comprehensive registry of church-sponsored social works, sponsoring training programs for hospital and nursing home lay visitors, hosting the first Canadian Christian Festival held in Ottawa in 1982 and a major Symposium on Peace, Justice and Integrity of Creation in 1990.
Now, I would like to say a few words about the council and the principle of a common day of pause. For Christians, Sunday is the commemoration of the first Easter, the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, the concept of breaking the cycle of the seven-day week by a day of pause finds its roots in the great tradition of Judaism. The sense of the Sabbath, the day of pause, is given in this paragraph from Abraham Joshua Heschel's book, God In Search of Man, A Philosophy of Judaism, which was published in 1955 -- and unfortunately, while he has many qualities, he does not use inclusive language.
"What is the Sabbath? A reminder of every man's royalty; an abolition of the distinction of master and slave, rich and poor, success and failure. To celebrate the Sabbath is to experience one's ultimate independence of civilization and society, of achievement and anxiety. The Sabbath is an embodiment of the belief that all men are equal and that equality of men means the nobility of men.
"The Sabbath is an assurance that the spirit is greater than the universe, that beyond the good is the holy. The universe was created in six days, but the climax of creation was the seventh day. Things that come into being in the six days are good, but the seventh day is holy. The Sabbath is holiness in time.
"What is the Sabbath? The presence of eternity, a moment of majesty, the radiance of joy. The soul is enhanced, time is a delight, and inwardness a supreme reward. Man does not stand alone, he lives in the presence of the day."
In 1986, the council approved and publicized the following motion: "The CCCA deplores the growing commercialization of Sunday, believing that Sunday needs to continue to be set apart for people, as individuals, families, and communities. We maintain that there continues to be a need for a common day of rest, to allow people to come together for religious observances, as well as to enjoy opportunities for rest, recreation and leisure activities. We oppose any relaxation of the present Retail Business Holidays Act, and encourage the more active enforcement of its requirements."
In 1988, our council appeared before your committee to voice concern about Bill 113, an act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act. The point made at that time was that the province should be the one to regulate Sunday shopping.
1110
The council is a member of the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping and took part in a major way in the CAOSS in 1990. The council was one of the organizers of the successful rally held here at the Ottawa Civic Centre on September 4, 1990.
The Christian Council of the Capital Area is happy to support legislation that maintains the common pause day principle. This principle is the core of the suggested amendment and should be protected as such.
A few particular comments about the proposed legislation: A crucial matter is what is said under clause 4(10)(a) dealing with the tourism criteria to be used in formulating the regulations. The council urges that sufficient stringency be built into the regulations so that the tourism angle does not become a loophole leading to open Sunday shopping.
With regard to the protection of employees, under section 39e, the council urges that comprehensive publicity be given to this matter so that all concerned are knowledgeable of their rights and responsibilities.
The council is happy that there is the prospect of legislative support for a common day of pause, and also that specific rights are to be granted to employees who do not wish to work on Sunday. We trust that this legislation will be enacted, as well as regulations strongly influenced by the principle of a common day of pause.
My concluding comments were the same -- or the same in our 1988 brief. "Time is, in the minds of many, money. We do not have to be prophets to say that there will be constant pressure by economic forces to organize time in the most profitable way. The computer age is oblivious to night and day, to joy and sorrow, to tradition and to the deep needs of humanity. The question is, who is in charge? Saying emphatically that Sunday belongs to the people is the first step to ensure that the forces of technology and of commerce, of today and of the next century, are not our masters, but our servants."
Mr Daigeler: Thank you, Monsignor Schonenbach and Mr Friesen for appearing before us and, above all, for appearing before us as a council. I think it is the only opportunity we have during these hearings that the churches are actually presenting a joint brief, and you are to be congratulated on that.
I also wish to congratulate you for putting forward your views on the importance of a day of rest in a non-sectarian fashion. I kind of share your vision of that concept, but the problem I see and the problem I am experiencing myself is if the people themselves do not share that understanding of a common day of rest, or that vision, the same need for the common day of rest, if, in fact, they are saying, as they have been saying over our hearings, "We need that day to work in order to put the bread on the tables of our family," does the government have the right to enforce this particular version of Sunday, or the Sabbath, or of a common pause day? What do you say to these people?
Monsignor Schonenbach: I know that you would share what I would understand as your government also operating with visions. You are not just operating by the seat of your pants, there is a vision that is needed. Economic problems in this province are extremely real, and I of course know this, and as some of you know, I have also been very much involved with the Social Planning Council of Ottawa-Carleton. We have many social problems but should we lose some of the great vision that we have about what society should be simply in order to solve those problems?
There is no doubt in my mind that we are not going to solve the social problems of this province by Sunday shopping. It might be a Band-Aid solution, but I think that we have all known, and in fact your government has also known, that social legislation and helping in social matters and economic matters require an overall renewal, not a little bit of a patchwork here. Sunday shopping is certainly not the salvation of our economics but, on the other hand, a day of pause -- and this is why I think it is important that you use the day of pause, because we are a multicultural society and we have to move in great respect for various traditions, so using the concept of the common day of pause is in fact building a legislation that will work in multicultural Ontario, but I think we need a vision and I think that is what is important.
Mr Sorbara: Monsignor, thank you for a very eloquent and forceful presentation. I could not agree with you more, that the consideration of the Sunday shopping issue is not going even to begin to address the real social, cultural, economic and human issues that confront us. In fact, probably this is the last thing that the government really should be doing at this point. It should be addressing itself to more urgent issues.
But the government has decided in its wisdom, or lack thereof, to present a bill. I guess the question I want to ask you is whether we need the state to resolve this issue. Your brief presented, I think, as clearly as can be, the truly human root of our need for a pause day, for a Sabbath, and every great religious tradition identifies a Sabbath. In fact, the Jewish religion has been able to maintain a Sabbath for its people, notwithstanding no support from the state whatever, and through hundreds of years of European history and North American history, direct resistance to that. Notwithstanding, that faith has been able to maintain among its people a holy Sabbath.
I grew up in the Christian tradition. When I was a kid, if I did not serve a mass on Sunday, something was wrong. I have resolved those issues in my own life and my family has been able to incorporate some degree of rest in a very fast-paced society. So again, my question to you is, do we need the state to do this? Could the state not just recede and allow other forces within society to achieve those objectives?
Monsignor Schonenbach: I think one has to look at strong definitions. I doubt very much if you folks would agree or would want your government to be a sort of top management committee. You are more than just a management committee. You are more than an economic group that helps the Ontario market work. Ontario is bigger than the market. It is people.
Mr Sorbara: Yes, sure, no doubt, no problem with that.
Monsignor Schonenbach: This is why the government sometimes does have to enter into areas. You probably, with your strength and your leadership and who you are, are able in a way to make sure that you have a defended day of pause, but there are many poor folk who, without a strong legislative situation, will get pulled into the economic whirlpool. This is what good legislation is all about, building a society that is good for the people. It responds to the way the people feel. We are talking to you about the feelings percolating in over 500 congregations in this capital area, that feel very strongly that legislation is required, and legislation that is intelligent. I think we do need provisions for these various situations, but still, the principle of a day of pause, I think, is something that the government definitely has a right to defend.
1120
Mr Jordan: Thank you, Monsignor, for your excellent presentation on the overall Christian view to this legislation. I have a twofold question. First of all, how do you separate the retail worker from a worker in essential services, such as firemen, hospitals and so on?
Monsignor Schonenbach: I suppose I can understand the person in the essential services because, quite frankly, I work every Sunday. Some of us, by the nature of our work, are there to serve the people, just as a good politician, in a way, is not a nine-to-five person. If there is some real need to do something, the weekend is not going to break it. We are talking about the general fabric that we are building in this province. It is made up of good social legislation and it is made up of vision. We would suggest that a day of pause is part of that fabric that will make us a solid, progressive and good province.
Mr Jordan: But Monsignor, the fact that you do have to work on Sunday does not deter from your style of life in that you --
Monsignor Schonenbach: I will tell you one thing, however. I was actually a public servant for 10 years of my life and the hardest thing I had to get used to when I became a priest was not having a weekend. Sure, you have a day off during the week; it is not the same thing. But the interesting thing is, with the weekend, back in the days when I was not a priest, you know you share in something that everybody is together on.
Mr Jordan: I have a family and I have attended church at 11 o'clock, I have taken my family for lunch and I would like to drive in to Ottawa now to shop at the Bay or some other centre. Why should I be deprived of that family outing?
Monsignor Schonenbach: You have to look at what will also be good for the overall province. Will the fact of unrestricted shopping actually enhance the whole situation? When we ran the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping campaign in 1990, what we tried to get into the minds of people was not so much, "Do you want to shop on Sunday?" as "Do you want to work on Sunday?" That is the question. Shopping on Sunday -- sure, in some cases I myself would feel, "Hey, it's a great idea to go and pick up some stuff on Sunday." But do I really want to have a province where, generally speaking, there is no common day of pause? It is just one great big economic reality. We feel from our gut that this is not right. There should be a common day of pause.
Mr Jordan: But there could be a mix of the common day of pause and a family outing that involved retail outlets.
Monsignor Schonenbach: The point being, of course, we have always said that an intelligent look at a day of pause will enable the mom-and-pop stores to keep open and things like this. But what we do not feel is that Sunday should be simply business as usual because in that case, while somebody will enjoy what you are talking about, a lot of people will not be able to enjoy it because they have to work.
Mr Jordan: Essential services?
Monsignor Schonenbach: Yes, but the essential services are a relatively small portion of the overall picture.
Mr Carr: I had a question relating to those workers as well and I think you have talked about some of the essential services. But what would you say to some of the people who have to work who are in nonessential services? Somebody who, for example, works at a baseball stadium where hot dogs are given out, or movie theatres and so on? Would you like to see us go back to what happened in the past where movie theatres were closed and baseball games were nonexistent? Would you like to see us, in the true sense, go back?
Monsignor Schonenbach: No, I think actually we have gradually grown into something and in fact our Christian council has grown. I, of course, come from a tradition where -- some of you may perhaps not know this, but in 1950 a Catholic priest of Ottawa spent the night in jail because the parish soccer club was playing on Sunday and he got stuck in jail. I think there is a sense that it is part of the recreation situation. What we are really talking about is we do not want the big shopping centres and everything just to percolate so that the people who would be going to these games and so on cannot go because they have to work. There is an art of the possible and you have to work in this, but keeping that vision of a common day of pause, I think, is possible. Nobody said that your work is going to be easy.
Mr Daigeler: I think you are right.
Mr Carr: Neither is yours.
Mr Morrow: Thank you very much, Monsignor Schonenbach, for taking the time to come here and speak with us today and help us to, hopefully, set up some good guidelines when we go back into the House September 23. Your brief was really good, especially in your conclusion, when you say Sunday belongs to the people. What a great statement. You talk about your congregation being 500-strong. How many people is that exactly?
Monsignor Schonenbach: You have parishes like my own, where I have 1,500 families. You have all the Catholic parishes, the Anglican parishes, multiply that with a realistic figure -- I would say 800 would be a realistic figure as a multiplier, and that would keep your smaller congregations and balance it off with the bigger ones. It is a lot of people.
Mr Morrow: That is quite a number.
Mr Kormos: Monsignor, very briefly, the Heschel comment about Sabbath in this submission, and appreciating that we are reminded, not inappropriately, frequently that our society is no longer solely a Christian society, that we have people living in our communities of numerous faiths, many of them not Christian. Again, your contact with non-Christians is as complete as any of ours, perhaps all the more so because of your involvement in the religious community and your leadership in the Christian community. Is there any faith represented among Canadians or Ontarians, Christian or non-Christian, to which the principle, the perspective, contained in the Heschel analysis of Sabbath -- is there any faith to which it is not applicable?
Monsignor Schonenbach: I would say that the Heschel comment is something that all the major religions can buy into, making the necessary linkages and so on. Obviously between my Jewish brothers and sisters, the common day is slightly different. But the concept of the common day, as Heschel puts it, belongs to everybody.
Mr Kormos: In reference to your final and closing paragraph, I agree, it is well enough written to have repeated from 1988 to the present. Does it bother you -- Mr Sorbara mentioned, and probably shares this with a whole lot of other parents -- the competition that the shopping plaza has for the National Art Gallery? Is that bothersome?
Monsignor Schonenbach: You probably today appreciate the museum a little bit better than you did when you were a teenager.
Mr Kormos: They did not have shopping plazas when I was a teenager, Monsignor.
Monsignor Schonenbach: It is all part of growing up. I think that, like a lot of good things, you sometimes have to con kids into doing certain things that you know fundamentally they will like and appreciate. It is harder today, yes.
Mr Kormos: But it seems to me we have people and institutions out there that are promoting shopping as some sort of leisure activity, when in fact we know that their motive in promoting shopping is not to enhance the lives of those people who travel through the stores, but it is to separate them from their money.
Monsignor Schonenbach: I could not have said it any better.
Mr Kormos: I am not suggesting that the money lenders are in the temple again, but does that concern you as a leader --
Monsignor Schonenbach: This is what basically our council said in 1986, when we said we deplored a growing commercialization of Sunday. Yes, we deplore it. We know that some of it will always be there, but yes.
The Chair: Mr Mills has some verification point.
Mr Mills: I would like to comment about something Mr Sorbara said about something I may or may not have said about religion and as it relates to the common pause day. I would just like to go on the record to say that the common pause day is not connected to religion. It is a pause day to protect the retail workers, but nevertheless it is secular. The reason for this protection under section 5 is that it provides for religious accommodation, and was introduced to ensure that the legislation does not contravene the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is my understanding that a written clarification of this is forthcoming from our legal representative, who is not here this week. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mills. Thank you very much, Monsignor.
The presentation from the Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union will be in written and not in oral form. We therefore have a break until 1:30, at which time we will be hearing from a representative from the Cambridge Food Mart.
The committee recessed at 1134.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1334.
The Chair: I call the committee to order again.
Mr Daigeler: Mr Chairman, before we go with the presenter, last week or 10 days ago I had requested from research some information on the recent poll results on the Sunday shopping issue. This morning I have received the report but I have not had a chance to look at it. I think the information in here would be of interest to the whole committee, so I will table this with you, perhaps to be given to the whole committee, if that is agreeable with you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Daigeler.
AFIF AYOUB
The Chair: We are hearing, I believe, this afternoon, first from Mr Afif Ayoub of the Cambridge Food Mart. Mr Ayoub, we have about half an hour, and that time can be divided between your presentation and the many questions the committee members will have for you. If you wish to respond to questions, which I know the members have for you, please leave some time. Please start as soon as you feel comfortable, sir.
Mr Ayoub: I must thank this committee for giving me the opportunity to speak out about Sunday shopping and its effect on small business. Also, I must thank Evelyn Gigantes's office for putting my name in to address the committee.
Three years ago I bought a small building here in Ottawa. Included in the building was the small business that I presently run with my wife, as well as with some help from my 14-year-old son. Through working long hours, approximately 12 hours per day, we have been able to pay our mortgage, pay our taxes on time, and at the same time support ourselves and our four children.
Since opening, our best business day in terms of sales has been Sunday. In addition, from my past experience in which I worked at Joe's Food Mart on Southvale, and Pronto's store on Greenbank, our highest sales day used to be Sunday. But during the nine-month period during which the big retail stores were open, our sales started to drop considerably.
Then came the ruling of the Supreme Court of Ontario on the validity of the bylaw banning Sunday shopping. This decision by the Supreme Court gave us a breather and our sales on Sunday picked up again by anywhere between 20% and 25%, even though our sales in general are down due to the effects of the recession.
As a small business, we find it very hard to compete against the large chain stores, because we do not have the buying power and we do not receive the percentage rebate that they do, coupled with the fact that major suppliers do not have much interest in small, independent businesses like ours. I would single out in particular the Ontario Lottery Corp and the soft drink companies, who only pass on to us limited advantages. I must also mention that though our price per item might be higher than the large chain stores, our margin of percentage profit is very close.
Some people might think small, independent businesses do not create jobs. On the contrary, small businesses on average create more jobs than the big chain stores, because each one of these small businesses like ours needs at least three to four people to run it, especially due to the extended hours. This is regardless of the amount of sales that a particular store generates. When you calculate that there are at least 2,000 of these stores in the Ottawa area, and you multiply this number by three or four, you have close to 8,000 working people. Most of these people are self-employed, and are a big part of the taxpaying force.
As well, small businesses, due to their nature, are not located in tourist zones. These businesses provide convenience to many families in their neighbourhoods, especially those who do not have means of transportation and those who might need something at short notice. In our case, lots of elderly people come to our store who cannot go too far. I also have lots of people who come in wheelchairs, because we are near St Vincent Hospital.
For the reasons I have mentioned above, I believe it is correct and justified for the government of Ontario to keep the law concerning the ban on Sunday shopping in effect, as it was ruled valid by the Supreme Court of Ontario. In order for small businesses to survive, they need some protection and a break here and there, and that is one area where the government can help by keeping the ban on Sunday shopping. This would give small businesses a breather, where they can pick up a little extra business that they badly need. We prefer to have Sundays off, but given the choice between survival and a day off, I would rather work.
Small businesses over the years have become a tradition where a family runs and owns a business which becomes known and is passed from one generation to another. In addition, it keeps many young children like mine close to their families, helping in the small business, thus creating a good family relationship.
To do away with small businesses means disaster for thousands of families, and leaves many of these young kids running the streets, selling drugs and doing unwanted things. So once again, I call on the government of Ontario to help and protect the small, independent business by keeping the ban on Sunday shopping, giving us a little break that we badly need in order to survive and keep us out of the long list of bankruptcies.
1340
Mr Daigeler: Thank you very much, Mr Ayoub, for coming before us and making your views known. You say in your brief that you prefer to have Sundays off, but that given the choice between survival and a day off, you would rather work. In the hearings we have had so far, there were actually quite a few retailers who made the same argument. They also said that because of the recession and people going to the United States, they are having a very hard time to make ends meet and need that day, meaning Sunday, to just pay the bills. Essentially they are arguing the same way you are. Why should you be allowed to open, but not these other ones?
Mr Ayoub: Other ones like?
Mr Daigeler: The other retailers like, say, a shoe store. We had a shoe store owner from Toronto come before us, and other small retailers.
Mr Ayoub: How big are they?
Mr Daigeler: What is considered the small retailer.
Mr Ayoub: If they can open, they could --
Mr Daigeler: So you would have no objections to that?
Mr Ayoub: No objection for the small businesses, because on Sundays we only pick up what is left over
Mr Daigeler: I see, so your objection is to the chains, to the large stores, to the conglomerates, as it were, being open. You would have no objection if other small retailers --
Mr Ayoub: Where it is hard for us to compete, as I mentioned, is that we do not have the buying power they do to buy in large quantities where we can save.
Mr Daigeler: I understand that. It would, however, probably be very difficult, even on a charter basis, to say the small retailers can be open but not the large food stores. That would be very difficult to argue.
Mr Ayoub: They used to be closed. They only opened for a short, nine-month period. The small businesses have always been open on Sundays, so they could manage the way they managed before, because they only opened for the eight- or nine-month period last year, and they used to close before that and they managed to operate.
Mr Carr: I want to thank you for coming down and for taking some time away. It is also nice to see there are still people like yourself who are out there trying to run businesses. I want to thank you, and I think everyone on the committee would feel that way about it.
My question relates to the availability of getting people to work. If in your area, because of the tourist exemption or whatever, your area decides to open and you stay open, is it a financial matter of trying to get somebody you do not have to pay? If the family works, you do not have to pay anybody a salary. What is your feeling? Would you be able to get somebody to work, or would that cost you a lot of money?
Mr Ayoub: It would cost lots of money, because I do not think a small business like ours could afford to hire people. That is why it is mostly a family business, where you can put lots of hours in and you do not get full payment for working. Otherwise, if you have to hire people and give them long hours, we could not afford it, no.
Mr Carr: You have had a chance to look at a little bit of the bill. What about the tourist exemption, which means that really it is up to the municipalities? They are so broad that you can interpret it in any way, and in your area I guess you will probably end up going before the various municipalities trying to argue your case there as well. Do you like the existing tourist exemption? Do you think there should be certain areas with tourism, or do you see that opening up an area where that means you now have to open up to be able to compete?
Mr Ayoub: I do not know. We are not located in a tourist zone. We are off the main street, so I do not know how much it affects the people who are located in tourist zones.
Mr Carr: Say, for example, in your neighbourhood, and I am sorry I do not know the particulars, somebody is open because of the tourist exemption and you are not. Would that cost you some business as well? What is going to happen now is that the municipality is going to have to draw the line, and that is going to be difficult to do because it may take business away. Do you see yourself maybe losing some business because of that?
Mr Ayoub: That might take away a little business, because where we are located, we mostly depend on the neighbourhood. I do not know how much it will affect us. It might take away a little, not much.
Mr Carr: One of the other concerns that has been out there has been for the family situation. Forgive me, but I did not hear whether you opened during that period when it was unregulated, or how you coped during that period. I just wonder if you could comment on what happened during that period when there was some unregulation. When we were unregulated for that period of time when anybody could open up, did a lot of stores in your area open up? Did you stay closed? Did you open up?
Mr Ayoub: Yes, all the stores were open.
Mr Carr: So you opened then as well?
Mr Ayoub: Yes, we were open. We actually opened most every day.
Mr Carr: That is when it put the strain on the family life, being open like that.
Mr Ayoub: That is right.
Mr Fletcher: You say you are a small family business. How big is your store in square feet?
Mr Ayoub: It is about 15 by 50, lengthwise. It is not very big.
Mr Fletcher: That is pretty good. The people who are working in your store are mostly family?
Mr Ayoub: Yes, my wife and my little boy. He helps a little bit. Mostly family.
Mr Fletcher: So your little boy always wants to work on Sunday, or does he want to get out and go --
Mr Ayoub: I do not really pressure him to work, but he likes to be there.
Mr Fletcher: That is great. Thank you very much.
Mr Klopp: One of the things I really like about this bill is that it does allow small business people, retailers like yourself, and especially in your particular industry, to get a chance to get ahead. I definitely always thought that getting rid of Sunday shopping or the common pause day was really just big companies wanting not just to be happy making money, but making a lot more money and putting small businessmen out of work. I know our party has always supported small business, and we are taking the heat for this now. I appreciate your coming out today. How long have you been in business? About 10 years, you said?
Mr Ayoub: For a long time. I was in a small business before. I had a partner and then I sold and then I worked for somebody. Then lately I bought my own.
Mr Klopp: But as a small business person, because you do not hire people for Sundays, it is your decision to work.
Mr Ayoub: No, we do not hire. Sometimes we might get some friend for a little help if we are going away some place.
1350
Mr Kormos: Good to see you here today. It is nice to be here talking with you. You are talking about what people call convenience stores.
Mr Ayoub: That is correct.
Mr Kormos: We are talking about what people would call mom-and-pop operations. I am familiar, because my grandparents, when they came here from eastern Europe, made jobs for themselves by operating a mom-and-pop store. I remember that as a kid, and the sort of hard work they did. But the people I am talking to now, people like you, not just here in Ottawa now but down in the Niagara Peninsula where I am from and in other parts of the province, are telling me that they are scared, that if there is wide-open Sunday shopping, there is just no way you can compete with the big megachains that have big bucks behind them and a lot of power. We are talking about mom-and-pop stores that, from where I live, put a lot of kids through university. It created a lot of new lives for a lot of new Canadians who worked hard. People like you are afraid that this opportunity to make a livelihood is going to be taken away because of wide-open Sunday shopping.
I think what you are saying has validity, has truth, not just for you here in the Ottawa area, but for small retailers, small business people like you and your family all over this province. I think you have good reason to be scared, because if you have wide-open Sunday shopping, my friend, your store is going to be hard pressed to stay in business.
Mr Ayoub: For the nine-month period, our business here went down considerably.
Mr Kormos: I think the government has a responsibility to protect hardworking people like you.
Mr Ayoub: Even on the first Sunday they closed, there was a big difference.
Mr Kormos: Yes, incredible.
Mr Ayoub: So we noticed the difference in terms of sales.
Mr Kormos: I hear you. I think we all do. Your point is well made, my friend. God bless.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Ayoub, for your hard work on that presentation.
Mr Sorbara: If I might just make another request for information from either the Ministry of the Solicitor General or the Ministry of Labour, or maybe the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology -- I am not sure which is the appropriate ministry to answer -- it arises in part out of the submission by Mr Ayoub and his problems in competing in an atmosphere where any store that chose to stay open would be able to stay open. As I understand the thrust of his submission, he says, "Our best day of business in terms of sales has been Sunday." As I understand his submission, he would like to be able to have that competitive advantage for Sunday and argues in his brief that the large chain stores should be required to close under the government law. Again, as I understand the questioning from the government members, they support this notion of a competitive advantage for these small convenience stores. None of that was contained in the government's --
The Chair: Are you asking a specific question?
Mr Sorbara: Yes, I am. The notion that this bill will give a needed competitive advantage to the small grocer or the small store was contained in the statement made by the Solicitor General, as he then was at that time, or the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General. Could we have a statement from the Ministry of the Solicitor General or any other government ministry as to whether or not part of the purpose of this bill is to create a competitive advantage for the small retailer and whether or not the government has taken into consideration the competitive advantages of some businesses as a result of the bill? We did not hear any of that from the Solicitor General when he introduced the bill. His argument was for a common pause day and for the protection of workers. Certainly there is a competitive advantage for the very small retailer if he is allowed to stay open in an unrestricted way. I would like whatever research the government has on that matter and a statement as to whether or not the government is in agreement with the government members of this committee that it is important to give that competitive advantage to the small retailer. If we could have that within a week, that would be very good.
Mr Mills: Your point is well taken, and I just reiterate what I have said many times, that we are here to listen and we are listening. The regulations are in draft form and we will take everything under consideration and take it back and look into it.
Mr Sorbara: Sorry, sir, does that mean the government does not want to give a written response to that request for information?
Mr Kormos: Perhaps in fairness Mr Sorbara should state for the purpose of the committee whether or not he supports these very sorts of small business people like this gentleman and his family, and their right to continue operating their little mom-and-pop operations. I am afraid I read between the lines, and what he just said suggests to me that maybe he is not supportive of these people, and by gosh, they should know it if he is not.
Mr Sorbara: That is a good question raised by my friend the member for Welland-Thorold. If he wants a simple and straightforward answer, I am very supportive of the government doing everything it possibly can to support small businesses like the Cambridge Food Mart because that has been the real generator of new jobs in Ontario. Every single authority will support me in that submission, that this is where new economic opportunities and new jobs are created in this province.
My problem, I tell my friend from Welland-Thorold, is that the government has not said that this bill is part of its strategy to support small businesses of this type. There is nothing wrong with that. Maybe that is a good economic objective. Maybe it is good policy to give one day over exclusively to small convenience stores and very small retailers. I just want to know if the government has that as one of its purposes for this bill, and if it does, just let us know about it, and if it has any research on the matter, let the government provide us with that research so we can expand the nature of our questioning.
What we have heard from the government thus far is that all businesses should be closed except for those which maintain or promote tourism, and second, that the government's policy objective is to create a common pause day. I do not think the bill does either of those things, but that is my view. If the government has a different strategy, as indicated by the questioning of the New Democratic Party members, the government could just say that. There is nothing wrong with that objective. It is very laudable. We would like to see the government do more to help small businesses. If that is part of the thrust of this bill, let's hear it and let's get the debate out in the open. That would be a good objective.
Mr Kormos: Quite clearly, that is why I support the legislation. Why is it that you oppose it? I am sorry, Mr Chairman, I did not mean to speak out of turn.
Mr Morrow: Correct me, Mr Sorbara, if I am right or wrong, but are we not here trying to get guidelines from the public to draft legislation that we can go back into the House with, and do we not do that during clause-by-clause?
The Chair: I do not think we need go any further on this particular matter.
Mr Sorbara: We have a couple of more minutes before our next presenter. My friend has asked me a question.
The Chair: We have people waiting, and I believe the simple answer to your question is, yes, your questions will be forwarded to the Solicitor General.
1400
COALITION AGAINST OPEN SUNDAY SHOPPING -- EASTERN ONTARIO
The Chair: We now have before us the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping in Ottawa, with its chairperson, Elaine Vacher. Ms Vacher, would you be generous enough to introduce your colleagues.
Ms Vacher: Good afternoon. I am Elaine Vacher, chairperson of CAOSS -- Eastern Ontario. Gerry Lepage is executive director of Bank Street Promenade business improvement area and a member of CAOSS. Arden Brooks is one of the owners of a Canadian Tire store in Ottawa and also is a member of CAOSS -- Eastern Ontario.
The Chair: You have approximately half an hour, which can be divided up however you wish, typically about half the time pure presentation and half for questions from the committee members, who I am sure will have many for you. Please feel free to commence.
Ms Vacher: In 1975, the government of Ontario enacted the Retail Business Holidays Act, which among other things permitted essential services and the entertainment industry, and permitted municipalities the option of designating tourist areas to open on Sundays and prohibited other retailers from doing so.
Mr Rae in his election platform stated that he would entrench in law the principle that holidays should be maintained as a common pause day and would eliminate the municipal option enacted by the previous Liberal government. The proposed amendments do not do justice to the clear promise made by Mr Rae and other NDP spokespersons before, during and after the election campaign.
We are deeply disappointed in the government's failure to introduce amendments that would achieve what you fought for during the debate on Bill 113 and promised subsequently.
The original Retail Business Holidays Act worked satisfactorily for the public until comparatively recently, when in order to gain competitive advantage oversized general stores masquerading under the banner of pharmacies took advantage of that privilege to remain open.
Faced with this situation, other stores, including the major food supermarkets, felt threatened to the point where they considered it necessary to open on Sunday and to break the law as well.
Subsequent to this, the government of Ontario washed its hands of responsibility in this matter by passing the amending act and attempting to push responsibility into the hands of the municipalities of Ontario.
Since that time, the situation developed to the point where most stores were open every Sunday. At this point, any competitive advantage gained by the early lawbreakers was lost, and the lack of regulation caused many stores to open on Sundays to maintain their market share, which ruined the common pause day for many retail workers and independent retailers in this province.
The government of Ontario must accept that it cannot protect the retail worker from refusing to work on Sundays. The government must also accept that it cannot protect the retailer from greedy landlords who want their malls and shopping centres opened on Sundays.
What is required to solve the situation? The government must amend the Retail Business Holidays Act and tighten up the loopholes. This act has been tested in the courts and judged to be fair, equitable and constitutional.
The government must remove the loophole that permitted pseudo-pharmacies to precipitate the problem in the first place. Pharmacies should be limited to less than 5,000 square feet of selling space and should have no more than a total of four persons on duty including the pharmacist.
We are now witnessing in this area another kind of retailer who has developed a technique to circumvent the act. The club stores and other similar outlets opening up in Ontario are retail corporations operating for profit. The fact that a person has to buy a membership to make purchases in these establishments does not mean that the proceeds from sales benefit the members. The proceeds benefit the corporation. These clubs are retail stores and must be subject to the guidelines of the act. Remove the loophole that permits this kind of retailer to operate on Sundays.
The government must retain control and responsibility for the act at the provincial level and remove the municipal option.
The government must reject the request to open up border cities using the tourist exemption. The problem of cross-border shopping is not related to the Sunday shopping issue and will only lead to a domino-type opening on Sundays of all the municipalities and cities of the province one by one. The tourist exemption should not be granted for purely commercial reasons.
The government must enact meaningful penalties for those who break the law. The penalties we are suggesting are; for a first offence, $500; for a second offence, $2,000; and for a third offence it should be the gross sales for that day.
The government must enforce the law vigorously and prosecute the lawbreakers. In this regard we suggest a provincial licence to every establishment that can legally open on Sundays. This licence must be posted in the establishment. This would make enforcement of the law by police forces very simple. If there is no licence posted, you are fined. We feel this would work in the same way as a liquor licence.
The government of Ontario is herewith petitioned to amend the Retail Business Holiday Act and to retain Sunday as a common pause day, except for essential services as legislated in the act, so that tens of thousands of people working in the retail sector can enjoy the same quality of life as those involved in other professions.
The Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping is a voluntary organization bringing together thousands of independent retailers as well as retail workers who subscribe to the following principles: to maintain a standard of professionalism in the retail industry; to protect the quality of life of those people who physically work in the retail outlets; to create an understanding that the retail sector requires discipline from the community; and to operate retail stores efficiently in order to provide the clientele with professional service in a clean, friendly and organized manner.
If we oppose the extension of shopping hours, we are accused of being old-fashioned and not progressive. People must appreciate that we who physically work in the stores, not in the head offices of the chains, want a quality of life also.
Mr Sorbara: Thank you, Ms Vacher, for your presentation. A storekeeper in my riding came to see me about two and a half months ago. He was anxious for the government to simply get out of the business of trying to pick the winners and losers in the Sunday shopping debate. He put it this way, "This business of trying to close me down on Sunday is like the government coming into my home and telling me to get my feet off the couch." He felt that if he had customers who wanted to shop in his store on Sunday and he was willing to open his store on Sunday, he should be able to do so.
I understand CAOSS's position with respect to Sunday shopping, that you did not like the previous government's Bill 113 and that you do not like this bill, but I am not quite sure what stores you think ought to have the right to stay open on Sunday.
Mr Brooks: In reply to that, as a retailer in a fairly large store I am very concerned about family life, of course, and I am also concerned about profits. I feel there has to be government legislation and I feel this has to come from Toronto. If all stores are allowed to stay open whenever they wish, whenever the customer demands, whether it be 24-hour shopping, seven days a week or whatever, everybody is going to be the loser.
Family life is going to fall apart and profits are going to dwindle. There are only so many dollars to be spent in retail whether you spend them in six days or seven days. We are all going to be losers if we are allowed to stay open seven days a week and holidays.
Mr Sorbara: You run a Canadian Tire store?
Mr Brooks: That is correct.
Mr Sorbara: The Canadian Tire store in my area stays open every night of the week until 9:30. I think not having parents home from late afternoon until 9:30 -- or 10 o'clock by the time the store is cleaned and closed up -- has a significant impact on family life. Should we not then be requiring that Canadian Tire stores close at 6 o'clock every day?
Mr Brooks: Just because some municipalities allow stores to stay open late at night, I do not think it is going to help any if we are open an extra day over and above that.
Mr Sorbara: No, the point I am trying to make is --
Mr Brooks: I think it is bad enough if we are open every night. That is one case and I think it is serious enough as far as family life is concerned.
Mr Sorbara: What about a storekeeper who says: "I am going to close my store on Monday and I am not going to open every night until 9:30. I am going to close every day at 5 o'clock, but I would like to stay open on Sunday afternoon because that is when my customers really want to come into my store"? Should that storekeeper not be allowed to do that?
Mr Lepage: Maybe I could voice a comment. My association represents 500 businesses, big and small. I think we have to look at the way business has been conducted in the past, the last decade or the last 20 years. I think you came up with a very astute observation about competitive advantage. That is really what this boils down to.
We have seen the proliferation of cross-border shopping. Where was this issue four years ago? Almost non-existent. It has only been since the proliferation of cross-border shopping, which many people say has been a sort of tax revolt in this country, that we have seen such hard pressure, usually by the multinationals, to inaugurate a law that would essentially give them a greater competitive advantage.
What is the enticement for an entrepreneur to enter the marketplace now? When we are looking at unions negotiating 35-hour work weeks, and we are asking a retailer who cannot afford to hire any more people to work 60 or 70 hours a week, and to ask his own children to work for him, where is the incentive? To simply maintain the same subsistence level of living that they had previously? It is absolutely not equitable. That is what we have to look at.
If you look at the multinationals, naturally they are pressing for this. They have the economies of scale and they have the dollars to invest in a greater labour force, but where is the advantage for small business? What are we asking small business to do?
The entire economy of this country has been built on small business. Now it seems, with this type of legislation, with this type of looseness, we are saying: "Thank you very much for your contribution for the last 150 years. It was great, but now we would like to reconfigure the way in which business is going to be done. We would like to give the competitive advantage clearly and distinctly to big business." That simply is not equitable.
What are we talking about here? Are we talking about holiday openings? Are we talking about Sunday openings? Really those are secondary or academic. What we are really talking about is competitive advantage in the marketplace. And why? Obviously what we are trying to do is resolve something within ourselves when we have missed the boat with regard to retaining our own customers.
Do you honestly believe that simply staying open on Sunday, when consumers are price-sensitive, is going to make people shop at those stores? It has been proved. It is price-sensitivity in the marketplace, and that has to do with higher costs with regard to transportation, higher costs with regard to taxes. That has little to do with keeping your doors open. What that will do, by attrition, is run down small business. We will see the diminishment of small business and a lethargic attitude permeate the marketplace in so far as small business is concerned.
Indeed, if the purpose of this government is to give the advantage to big business and to multinationals, then most definitely you are setting the correct course. If the purpose and the intent of this government is to uphold some type of moral obligation, some type of historical and ethical obligation in regard to small businesses and their contribution to our economy and our lifestyle, and to provide a reciprocal agreement that is equitable for what they have given us, we should think: "Let's not abandon the ship in their regard. Let's give something back to them. Let's tighten up these laws and make that competitive advantage a little bit more of an even playing field." That is really what it boils down to.
1410
Mr Sorbara: To respond to that in part, our problem is that we have, during the course of these hearings, heard from many small businesses and many chambers of commerce who have pleaded with us to allow the marketplace and individual businesses to make the decision whether they are going to open and when.
You said this is driven by large multinationals. In the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce survey it was the large retailers who were opposed to Sunday shopping, who preferred to stay closed, and it was the smaller retailers who wanted to stay open. We have heard from other businesses that they have a work force that is ready and willing to work, that is anxious to work, and that they have a market of customers who find it most convenient to come with their families to do their shopping on Sunday. What I am hearing from you, frankly, is not consistent with the kinds of sentiments that we have heard in other places during these hearings.
I have one particular concern about what you describe as "oversized general stores masquerading under the banner of pharmacies." Individual pharmacy owners tell me that in drugstore retailing, the nature of the business is now to have very large stores. In fact, the 7,500-square-foot cutoff was a bow to Shoppers Drug Mart, whereas if I run a store that is 8,000 square feet and I am independent, I am not allowed to stay open.
I do not think you are acknowledging the changes in the marketplace. One of the strongest advocates of CAOSS in the last debate was the owner of Idomo in Toronto. He runs a very modern, very large furniture store. The historic model was a very small furniture store. He did not want to open on Sunday, but he also wanted all the other stores to remain closed on Sunday. Is that fair? If we are really talking about fairness and morality, is it not the best thing to stop trying to pick the winners and the losers and simply let people's individual preferences to open or not open determine who should be open?
Mr Lepage: Perhaps I can just comment on that. Some people when they play golf have handicaps. Is that fair?
Mr Sorbara: Yes.
Mr Lepage: What we are talking about is, obviously if you have somebody who has a competitive advantage over somebody else, fair is an extremely relative term and I am sure you can understand that.
In so far as letting a person decide to open up is concerned, obviously one has to question, where is the peer group pressure there? Where are the market pressures that are exerting themselves? Let us say you have two groceteria-type stores or two confectioneries, can you in all conscience, knowing your competitor is open on Sunday, relax at home, watch a Sunday movie, have a good time with your family, when in the back of your mind you are thinking, "That guy is taking my market share"?
These businesses are built on the premise that they have a competitive advantage. They cannot compete with the Loblaws, they cannot compete with the multinationals. Their competitive advantage is that on Sunday when most of these other places are closed, they charge a premium for people to access certain commodities. That is their competitive advantage; that is their handicap.
Mr Sorbara: Is that fair?
Mr Lepage: Absolutely fair. We have to understand that "fair" is a very relative term. What is fair to a big multinational is not necessarily fair to a small, independent-type business, and that is really the equation we are dealing with here.
In so far as the North Bay experience is concerned, I submit that my position here is very consistent, the way our city council and the way we have lobbied our own merchants in the city of Ottawa. As a matter of fact, if you talk to the malls' position here, officially theirs was that the tenants did want Sunday shopping. We took a survey of the tenants ourselves and in fact, their opinion was not representative of that of the tenants. So surveys are really semantic in so far as we can play with the numbers, can play with the results. Anybody who has been in university 101 and taken statistics knows very well that statistics are a variable one cannot count on for any kind of conclusive answer, especially to something this important.
What we are saying with this present law is that you are asking the fox to guard the hen-house and that is not equitable. Regardless of academia in so far as surveys, in so far as equations is concerned, what you are seeing from the marketplace, especially from the multinationals, is a paranoid reaction to a proliferation of consumers going south of the border. Now they are saying: "Well, maybe we can't retain our own consumers. Let's take the path of least resistance." It is easier for me to take business from John, who is right next door to me, than to perhaps try to work out the long-term or the macro perspective of what is wrong with our economy, and I submit that is what the underlying problem is.
The Chair: Perhaps we could move on to Mr Carr.
Mr Carr: I guess the situation is that as we have gone around the province, many municipalities are going to opt to take the tourist exemption and open up. Like you said earlier, it is just a case of the percentage. What percentage of the population will be open is anybody's guess.
I am interested that on page 1 you said, "The proposed amendments do not do justice to the clear promise made by Mr Rae." and the other spokesmen during the election and that you are deeply disappointed in the failure to introduce amendments. Is that because you see as a result of the tourist exemption a vast majority of the province being open? Maybe you could just give us some idea of what you see happening.
Ms Vacher: First of all, the tourism exemption in the criteria set out in the proposed legislation is too general. Ottawa has received approximately or is entertaining the fact of seeing, applications from 12 areas in this city pushing for a tourist exemption. We do not have a problem with the exemption for local retailers in our Byward Market, from a period of Victoria Day to Thanksgiving Day, and we understand that with the 10 days of Winterlude we would accept that could be a tourist exemption for that area, but on a whole we find that the conditions set out in the criteria have too many loopholes and there are too many areas -- in fact, I think we could probably apply for a tourism exemption for this whole city. We meet all the criteria. For the store that I run, I meet all the criteria and could open and ask for an exemption. So we feel the loopholes need to be tightened. This will be wide open. You might as well just open the whole province.
Mr Carr: With regard to that, a lot of municipalities have said they see a big difference in this province and that they would like to have sort of the local option. Of course, what happens then is you have a little bit of patchwork. Would you like to see it remain a provincial responsibility so that in fact they can say, "No, we'll keep everything shut?"
Ms Vacher: Definitely. It has to be. As far as CAOSS is concerned, it must be provincial legislation. It must be run by the legislation and with no municipal option. In this area we have quite a few municipalities. It would be pitting one against the other and it would not take long for the whole area to open up. Definitely the province must take this legislation back and run it and maybe it should sell licences and maybe it would help the provincial government's deficit.
Mr Carr: Lord knows they need help.
Ms Vacher: That is right.
1420
Mr Carr: I think you hit the nail on the head. For example, some areas are going to open the entire city. Windsor said it was going to do that, and Thunder Bay and so on. They are going to use the broad criteria and any part of the province would meet the criteria. One of the concerns is that some of the businesses, for example, the hotel people, say there is a bit of a spinoff effect, that they see losing some business as a result of it.
What about some of those people in the legitimate tourist area? Do you think they should have the opportunity and if you took the tourism criteria and scaled it down a little bit, do you think it could be workable to help some of those tourist areas? Could it be done?
Ms Vacher: In some of the tourist areas I think that they have a definite requirement to open between periods, because not always are they a 12-month tourist area. I think the province must approve the exemption for that area. I think the exemptions have to be qualified and narrowed and I think the process whereby applications are handled should be publicized and hearings held. As an example for a restaurant wanting a liquor licence, the LLBO handles that application. I think that in the tourist areas this is how the province should handle this particular problem.
Mr Carr: One of the concerns that has come up as well is interpretations of the tourism criteria, because they are so broad, that what is going to happen is the municipalities will do basically whatever they want, and as a result be open to some court challenges because there is no other process to go up to. They are the ones that are ultimately on the hook when you hand it to the municipalities. I just wondered what your sense of it is, if it turns out that in your particular area they do open up because the municipality interpreted these guidelines, whether you would be looking at any court challenges.
Ms Vacher: CAOSS has monitored the Sunday shopping issue. We are six years old now. Since the court ruling that this was constitutional, CAOSS has worked with the police department in each municipality to notify it of people who have violated the law. We have been in touch with the Solicitor General's office on a regular basis, as well as the Attorney General's office, and have got some verification where police departments did not know how to react to certain situations. We will continue to monitor this issue, no matter how the legislation goes, and yes, if it means taking someone to court, I guess that is what we will do. We are deemed to make sure there is a common pause day in this community, in eastern Ontario, as we represent eastern Ontario, and to ensure that those people obey the law.
Mr Carr: Good luck.
Ms Vacher: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Mills, you have a couple of brief clarification?
Mr Mills: Thank you for coming and I would just like to make a couple of points of clarification on your brief. On page 2, paragraph 6, I would like to refer you to the Retail Business Holidays Act. Section 5a says, "A provision in a lease or other agreement that has the effect of requiring a retail business to remain open on a holiday is of no effect, even if the lease or agreement was made before the coming into force of this section."
I would like then to turn to page 3 where we are talking about club stores and the definition under clause 4(6)(b) may limit the opening of retail business establishments. The Attorney General of Ontario has indicated that a club store or similar store falls under the definition of a "retail store" and further to that, I have been advised that the Attorney General has advised police forces, in respect of those types of stores, to prosecute if they open on Sundays.
Ms Vacher: Is that effective immediately or when this legislation comes in?
Mr Mills: I understand the Price Clubs meet this "retail business" definition and it is my understanding that the Attorney General last week instructed the police forces to enforce the act.
Ms Vacher: Well, they are open on Sunday.
Mr Mills: Yes. Thank you.
Mr Morrow: Before I ask my question, I would really like to clarify something for Mr Sorbara. We did see people in Sudbury and North Bay, small business people, labour people, councillors, who were opposed to opening on Sunday.
I would like to thank you for coming here and for presenting your brief. We are listening and we are taking your ideas into account. They were very good. It will help us set our guidelines. The Monsignor said a line this morning that I really like, "Sunday belongs to the people." Do you see this as a quality-of-life issue?
Ms Vacher: Definitely.
Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. I agree with probably 90% or 95% of what your brief is saying, and even the part about what the promises were and were not. Gerry, I know you are right on when you talk about cross-border shopping being one of the things where we have to be competitive and everything else. What strikes me as far as your brief is concerned is you are not opposed to workers having the right to refuse; it is the tourist exemptions that are the real problem as far as this legislation is concerned, and in your recommendations.
We are a committee on the piece of draft legislation. We are going to go back and do clause-by-clause and hopefully make some amendments. One other point: When we go through the province, what you are saying and what people are saying in Thunder Bay is based on different circumstances. In Thunder Bay and Sault Ste Marie the economy is depressed, and in Sault Ste Marie especially. They have closed down their steel mill and they also have the problem of cross-border shopping.
When I look at the tourist exemption, I know that is what we are trying to address. Maybe we have not done it quite right yet, but we are on our way. As far as this legislation is concerned as opposed to the other legislation, is it a step in the right direction?
Mr Lepage: Yes. It is definitely a step in the right direction. It is a qualified step in the right direction, I think would be more appropriate. To be fair, we do have faith in the government of the day to come forward with a law that is comprehensive in nature and is going to address these concerns and is going to ensure the protection of the marketplace in regard, not only to quality of life but we are also saying it could start with the retail worker, but how long would it be before, I submit, people are going to find it convenient to come with their families and start paying their taxes at the provincial Legislature. How would you like the prospect of perhaps sitting in the Legislature six or seven days a week? What goes around comes around. These things have a way of coming back to haunt ourselves and our own occupations.
1430
Mr Lessard: A couple of comments I have made have been touched on. There is some agreement with respect to the issues you raised. We have heard on several occasions the problem with respect to pharmacies, and that is something we are going to have to pay some attention to. We have heard about enacting meaningful penalties as well. We have also heard from quite a few people, and I think I am hearing it from you as well, that we do need to recognize the importance of tourism in the economy of Ontario.
We have also heard from people who said, "The best people to determine the importance of tourism in my municipality is my local government," but you seem to think that is something that should be regulated by the province. Do you think people in Toronto would have a better idea of what are the important factors for tourism in your local community?
Ms Vacher: I think, as far as CAOSS is concerned, it should be provincial legislation so that there is continuity throughout the province on the Sunday shopping issue and the tourism issue. Besides, the municipalities never wanted the option to begin with. Back in the old days when it was called "pass the buck," the province passed it to the municipality. The municipality wanted to pass it back but the province would not take it back. They really do not want it.
Gerry and I are members of the board of trade retail committee and in our meetings recently it was brought up that it might have to play a part in some of this tourism criteria. They do not want it either. We feel the best place for this issue is at the province. That is where it should remain and that is who should govern that legislation.
I just want to make a comment about the pharmacy, now that you have mentioned it. I think, as far as CAOSS is concerned, the pharmacies have lost sight of their purpose. We refer to their production range. In referring to that, we spoke to the Ontario College of Pharmacists and it supports smaller drugstores that sell strictly medicine and personal care products. That is the type of pharmacy we would agree to see open, not the pharmacy that sells garden hose, barbecues, lawn chairs, grocery items, clothing and God knows what else. That is where in many cases I refer to the pharmacies as being general stores disguised as pharmacies.
Mr Kormos: This whole tourism issue and the linking of it with Sunday working has me troubled and bothered a little bit, because it seems to me that if you talk to some people, there is not a bit of this great province you could not scratch and find a tourist area underneath, at least according to Sunday shopping advocates.
I am not aware of any tourist brochure from any jurisdiction in North America that proclaims, among other things -- be it the sites, the scenery, the man-made or God-made elements there -- advertises or promotes as well, "and to boot, my friends, when you come to the great state of Montana," or the great province of Newfoundland or wherever, "we also happen to have Sunday shopping." I am a little bit troubled by this link of tourism and Sunday shopping because I have never seen it historically linked to tourism.
You touched on that a little bit during the course of your submission. Can you comment on it a little more? I think there is something rotten in the state of affairs in this link between tourism and Sunday shopping. They seem to be two very different things.
Mr Lepage: In that respect they are two different things, but perhaps only in the vocabulary that is put forward. With respect to Sunday shopping and with respect to the tourist exemption, if indeed we grant a region tourist exemption and it is allowed to open up on Sunday, what is the difference between wide-open Sunday shopping and a tourist exemption? Essentially, the objectives of wide-open Sunday shopping have been achieved with a tourist designation.
We are very sensitive to the fact that already we have had the Rideau Centre apply for a tourist exemption. We know they have absolutely no interest in becoming a tourist mecca, that its interest purely lies in the exemption to open up on Sundays. We are saying there is very little difference between granting a tourist exemption under these regulations and simply opening up the province to Sunday shopping. I think that is where the linkage occurs in that respect, that people are using the tourist exemption as a guise to entertain and to come back to wide-open Sunday shopping.
Mr Kormos: So it is a little bit of a scam.
Mr Lepage: Absolutely.
Mr Lessard: You mentioned a place called the Rideau Centre. Not everybody on the committee might be familiar with that.
Mr Lepage: That is a 240-store mall. The Bayshore Shopping Centre, another mall, has also applied for a tourist exemption. I am not aware that they even get close to the West Edmonton Mall type of scenario.
Ms Vacher: They have elephants there.
Mr Lepage: Which is possible.
Mr Sorbara: Could I get a clarification? I was following Mr Kormos's line of questioning. Is he taking the view that the government's bill, which provides for the maintenance and promotion of tourism as the basis for an exemption, is a sham?
The Chair: I think that is an interesting question that unfortunately Mr Kormos does not have the opportunity to answer.
Mr Kormos: If Mr Sorbara will buy me supper tonight, he and I can talk about it at length.
Mr Carr: Let's save it for the boss.
The Chair: Indeed.
Mr Sorbara: Suddenly I do not want to know the answer to the question.
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL 279
The Chair: Our next presentation is from the Amalgamated Transit Union: Mr Randy Graham, president; Mr Paul Macdonell, secretary-treasurer; and Betty Summers, president of the Ottawa and District Labour Council. We have approximately half an hour to divide up between your presentation and the questions from the committee members. I am sure the members will have many questions for you. Please start when you feel comfortable.
Mr Graham: My name is Randy Graham. I am the president, business agent of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 279. It represents the bus drivers and maintenance workers in Ottawa-Carleton and approximately 20,000 bus workers throughout the province of Ontario through the Amalgamated Transit Union -- Canadian Council. We represent probably every major municipality in the province: Toronto, Hamilton, London and other areas.
I have with me a petition that we had presented to the previous Liberal government, I believe, the evening of the election and --
Mr Macdonell: We would like to give it to somebody.
Mr Graham: -- we would like to give it to somebody today.
Mr Mills: Did it do you any good last time?
Mr Graham: The representative in the area where we handed the petition out was elected the next day. He was there speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party, so I believe there was perhaps some flow to the position of the constituents in Ottawa-Carleton on Sunday shopping and to their opposition to having to work on Sundays. But I would also say that there were people in the Liberal ranks in the previous government who took our concerns, as we had done a presentation to the Solicitor General at that time and brought down some of our opinions at least in the legislation that had come along.
Anyway, the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 279, represents the operating and maintenance staff of OC Transpo and Para Transpo. We are one of Canada's oldest and largest unions. Locally in Ottawa we represent over 2,000 workers.
We have been active for many years in an attempt to secure a common pause day for the workers of Ontario. Back in 1988 we met with the then Solicitor General, Joan Smith, and outlined our suggestions concerning her government's proposed legislation. Subsequently, those suggestions, or some of our suggestions, were incorporated into the final bill. I am pleased to see that this committee has some of the members who helped us at that time. Again last year we became active with the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping, who just previously spoke to you.
Our members, who have all worked on Sundays at some point in their careers, feel strongly that Sunday should be a common pause day. Even those who currently must work on Sundays do not wish to see other worker groups forced to do the same. So serious an issue is this with our members that last August they called for a walkout when OC Transpo management refused to let them wear the "No Sunday Shopping" buttons just previous to the election. Fortunately, at the last moment the company rescinded that decision. Our position on this issue is clear and absolute: A worker in Ontario must have the right to a pause or rest day that is common to others. We feel that any legislative action, especially by this government, should reflect this.
We believe Bill 115 actually weakens the current legislation. Here are our comments concerning the proposed amendments.
It is our opinion that the proper venue for the establishment of a tourism district should not be before a local but rather through a regional council. Here there is less chance of local bias and therefore less chance of abuse. This level of government in the past has shown greater restraint. It also is generally responsible for the funding of police, transit and transportation costs, all of which are affected by the stores opening. One of our earlier studies showed over a $3-million impact on the Ottawa-Carleton area for increased transit costs alone.
Regarding the tourism criteria, the establishment of such allows later governments to change substantially the intent of the law by merely changing the criteria to reflect the differing views. We also wish to state that under the proposed guidelines a case could be made for almost any retail establishment in the Ottawa area for a tourist exemption. The proposed criteria clearly allows too much to be left for interpretation.
We agree a hearing should take place before passing the bylaw, but a notification process, with defined circulation criteria, perhaps region-wide, should be outlined in the bill.
No local council bylaw should be final. This allows a decision, no matter how ill-informed, biased or potentially harmful, to become law. As we stated earlier, the decision should be based regionally, but if it is the intent of this government to misplace the responsibility upon the local level, then a decision should be appealable to a higher authority, either the Ontario Municipal Board or a tourism district review tribunal.
With respect to the proposed changes in the Employment Standards Act, we applaud the attempt of this government to further workers' rights in Ontario. However, it is clear that the government is requiring employees to file and substantiate complaints against their employers in violation of the section being amended. It is an unfair burden to the worker.
In closing, we would like to say that all our members have to or have had to work on Sundays. It is the nature of our transit business, but it is not the nature of the retail industry in this province.
During the last election, Premier Rae stated that the government of Ontario should not shirk its responsibility on Sunday shopping. We agree with the Premier and feel that the province should take back the authority in this area, not increasing its delegated authority to local government.
Whatever legislative changes this committee recommends, we hope it will remember the workers of Ontario and further solidify the right to a common day of rest.
1440
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Mills first, on a point of clarification.
Mr Mills: I would like to refer to page 3, where you say, "It is our opinion the proper venue for the establishment of a tourism district should not be before a local but rather the regional council." I wonder if you understand that when there are two levels of government in a region the application does go before the regional council and not before the local council.
Mr Macdonell: We only got that portion of the law that was being amended and that does not say that in there, so we did not see that.
Mr Mills: I would just like to clarify that point.
Mr Macdonell: So it will be at the regional level?
Mr Mills: When there is a regional government.
Mr Macdonell: Then we will ask for it to be at the province.
Mr Mills: That is what I was afraid you meant.
Mr Graham: I would say at the bare minimum, yes, the regional government, but in fact we believe the responsibility is to the provincial government and that the whole intent is moved away from that. I believe that is a change in this government's position from what it had brought forward earlier.
Mr Poirier: It is nice to have you guys in front of us. Thank you for coming along. I am glad you are also maintaining that it should be a regional government for deciding, like we Liberals had said, at your request, to give it to the regional government rather than the local government. I look at your brief and I understand where you are coming from. How would you make the definition of touristic more strict so that you do not have any loopholes? Have you people discussed this? Would you be able to supply what you would see, because it is a very difficult thing to do.
Mr Graham: Certainly, we are not the lawyers or the legislators. When you take a look at what is proposed, you see it is very vague. Anybody could say, "We're a tourist area," and I do not think that is anybody's intent. I do not think it was the intent of the original law that did stand to the Supreme Court, when the Ontario government had the ability to regulate it, and it was not passed down to the regions. There must be a clear definition put out so that it is not somebody deciding they have a pop stand on their corner and it is a tourist area. That has to be looked at, but certainly we are not the legal experts and I think that has to have some real consideration before it comes forward.
Mr Poirier: Do you agree that the only businesses that should be allowed to be open on a Sunday would be those that serve a very strict definition of what is and should be touristic?
Mr Graham: Yes, I certainly agree with that. There has been a lot that has been blown out of proportion in the last few months, when there was the open Sunday shopping for a very short period of time. Everybody is trying to blame that, now we are not open on Sunday. I think we existed for a long time in this province, and successfully in this province, with the shopping hours we have already established. There were certain areas -- I understand your government at the time had to make the changes, because Metro Toronto was going to try to get the whole thing as a tourist area and it was to address some of those concerns. But yes, we see that as a very strict definition.
Mr Macdonell: If I may add, Mr Chairman, the definition of tourism, in the way of shopping -- if the store sells the same clothing that this person could buy back in Toronto or in New York state, I do not believe for any reason that kind of a retail outlet should be open on Sunday, whether it be in an area where there are a lot of tourists or not. If it is selling something uniquely Canadian, uniquely Ottawan or Ontarian, that a tourist would be interested in on a Sunday, perhaps we could look at something like that. But I do not believe that, just because it is in a given area, a bookstore should be open in a tourist district or be called a tourist district, or even be allowed to sell on Sundays.
Mr Poirier: Fair enough.
Mr Sorbara: You made I think a couple of points on the importance of giving retail workers the right to actually realize a common pause day. The government has said repeatedly that the purpose of this bill is to create a common pause day or to re-establish a common pause day in the province. There are many ways to do that, of course. You could require no businesses to operate. You could prohibit people from working. My own preference, by the way, would be to expand the current right to refuse unreasonable assignments of Sunday work not only to the retail sector but to the province generally. That would put real rights in the hands of people.
Why is it that your union prefers the method the government has chosen; that is, to keep most businesses closed? Is it not the case that if you really want to create a common pause day in Ontario, you ought to give the people of the province the freedom to stay at home, the freedom to be with their families, the freedom not to work? The best way to do that is not to force the businesses to close down but to give people the right to make it clear with their employers that they can book off on Sunday.
Even within your own union I suspect that you have negotiated specific provisions in respect of Sunday work, whether that be overtime or double time, but that you acknowledge it in your collective agreement. Why should we not get to that common pause day by expanding that right that you have negotiated for your workers, which is already in the bill, to other workers, rather than requiring storekeepers to close who frankly would not mind staying open if they had a chance?
Mr Graham: It seems this whole Sunday legislation came about from a few people and a few businesses. I do not think that there was anything broken in the first instance and we tried to fix something that was not a problem except for a few businesses or a few large corporations. We have certainly listened to most small businesses, and they are not in favour of opening on weekends. They are not organized generally, they have --
Mr Sorbara: Just to interrupt you, they do not have to open.
Mr Graham: But if it is there, it is a domino effect. If somebody is open next door to you and they are taking your market share, yes, you have to open. I think that is what occurred. In this city, originally the Rideau Centre had no intention of opening and they did not want to be open on Sundays. The domino effect ended up on them. They opened, and then they were the last to want to close when places like Bayshore indicated that they wanted times when they would be closed. I believe that it is impossible to protect the employee completely.
Mr Sorbara: That sounds strange, coming from a trade unionist.
Mr Graham: A trade unionist, yes. If I am the person who is bargaining or if the trade union is there, I think an employee of a small business may be able to get off on Sunday, but is that person potentially going to be the manager of the store; is there any way of promotion? As a trade unionist I am also most aware of the subliminal ways an employer can make an employee do things. We deal daily with those types of grievances. We are probably, I would like to think, one of the larger and stronger unions in this city, and we see it happen. So an employee who does not have any protection or does not have somebody to go to on a daily basis to be able to look after his rights is not going to have the same kind of protection. I do not care what you legislate that with.
Mr Sorbara: Just in your trade union, do you see a harassment or a discrimination against those workers who do not volunteer for Sunday work in terms of promotion or advantage?
Mr Graham: Ours is a different system that goes through a seniority process. A bus driver is a bus driver, and they --
Mr Sorbara: But how do you determine who does what?
Mr Graham: They work on a Sunday through a seniority basis and a booking of work.
Mr Sorbara: But who gets it? The ones who are most senior or least senior?
Mr Graham: It would be their choice, but I would say that it is the most junior person who ends up working on a Sunday, because they book their work last. So it is not by choice that people work on Sunday, and I think you would find that if you asked anybody.
1450
Mr Macdonell: If I may just add something, remember both Randy and I have worked over 12 years on Sundays at OC Transpo, as with most of our members. You really see how important that common -- I use the word; it is not a pause day, but a common pause day -- when you have to go out at 2 o'clock and all your friends are out on the lawn. Maybe they are just mowing their grass or maybe they are just talking to you and you have your uniform on and you have to go to work. You really appreciate, after a while, when you have enough seniority, to get off and stay home with your friends. You really appreciate how important those Sundays are. If you have never been forced to work on a Sunday, you may not appreciate it as much as we certainly do. We think it is very precious.
Mr Sorbara: I understand that, but most of the witnesses we have heard before this committee who are employers have said that they have a long list of people who are willing to work on Sunday.
Mr Carr: My question goes along the same lines. I was interested in how exactly it is determined. You mentioned seniority. What is the situation now when you have the number of Sunday people? Does it go down the list of seniority and do they then volunteer? How does it work?
Mr Graham: It goes by seniority and the last person would be forced to work on a Sunday. Our people, when they start, have the opportunity to be off every second Sunday. That is something that has been negotiated for them. But if you have the opportunity to take them off, you take them off, Sunday more than -- before, they would have the opportunity to take a Saturday off, or anything else. It is the one day that they have the opportunity to spend with their families.
We talk about people spending money, the different things going into the province. It is the day that they have the opportunity to maybe go down to -- they finish work on Saturday, they go to Niagara Falls for Saturday night, Sunday morning, and they can spend a day doing things with their family. They do not have that opportunity if it is a Monday or Tuesday. It could not be possible to say, "My days off are Tuesday and Wednesday and let's have the school system so my children go to school on Saturday and Sunday and they're off on the Monday and Tuesday so I can spend time with them." That is the problem that exists here.
I do not think there was anything that was broken in our system. It went for many years, and because of a few greedy people who were having problems with their market share, they decided that they would open on the Sundays. It had not been a problem. It is a problem today that has just been perpetuated by a few corporations.
Mr Carr: When we were in North Bay, one of the labour groups, and I forget which one it was, said that they get double time, I believe, on a Sunday and that as a result of that there are a lot of people in their union who sign up to get the double time. Is that where you are at now, or is it time and a half?
Mr Graham: Our people get paid time and a quarter on Sunday, but that is not the incentive for them to work it. I would say that if it was time and a half or double time it still would not be the incentive for them to work. Our industry might survive, but the retail industry is not going to be able to survive paying double or triple time on Sunday for people to be able to work. That is really what we are talking about. There was not a problem in the local tourist areas, Wasaga Beach or something like that that would be open on the Sunday, because they have the other seven months where they are doing nothing and they have the opportunity to spend with their families. It has been a problem only when it has hit major metropolitan areas, and pay time; that is why the incentive has to be there either for Saturdays or for Sundays.
Mr Carr: I think you are right, because in speaking with one of the labour groups informally it said what it sees happening is that it becomes commonplace. I think they said they get time and a half or whatever, and they said there are enough people, but if it becomes commonplace it will no longer be that you would get a premium for it because everybody will be doing it.
One of the other small business groups said, and they rounded off the figures, that of the 100%, it is usually about one third do not want to work Sundays, one third do and then one third do not want to but they sometimes will, it is sort of off and on, "We'll do it this week and maybe next." What you are saying is that this is not the case with your particular union, that it is not one third who will say, "Sure, I'll do it," it is the poor last guy on the list, because when they go down based on seniority, it gets -- is that the way it is?
Mr Graham: It is the people who end up forced to work who end up working. I would also say that when the law was struck down, I believe it was Steinberg's indicated that it would no longer pay time and a half or double time to its workers on Sunday because now it was a normal day, and that was not the way it was bargained. So I believe that you are correct with your assumption that once it becomes an ordinary day, then it would be negotiated out of contracts or that would be the implication that would be put there.
Mr Macdonell: Just to give you an understanding of how much people dislike to work on Sunday, our premium of 25% amounts to an approximate increase of $4 per hour for anybody who works on Sundays. Of the 1,390 operators who work at OC Transpo, only about 12 to 15 choose it by their own accord. The rest are all forced to work it by their seniority.
Mr Graham: And with most of those people, their wives are either nurses or in some trade that has to work on Sunday anyway and they have to take a day off with them during the week.
Mr Macdonell: There are 350 days' work, so roughly 1,000 operators go down the list and refuse to work on that day, even though it pays $4 more an hour, refuse to work on it because they do not want to work on it. It is quite interesting.
Mr Morrow: I would like to clear something up that was brought up by Mr Sorbara and friends, if I may. Negotiated contracts and agreements are something that unions have been fighting for for 40 or 50 years. They enable people to have double time, triple time, Sunday premiums, if possible. The amendments to the Employment Standards Act are to protect the hundreds of thousands of people who have no rights, such as retail workers.
Now that I have said that, a question to the president of the labour council, if I may. How many people do you actually represent in the fine city of Ottawa?
Ms Summers: In Ottawa-Carleton, the labour council represents approximately 30,000 members.
Mr Morrow: That is quite a lot.
My impression is that Sunday shopping did not actually create jobs but that hours and workers were actually affected; hours were just shuffled around. Is that not true?
Ms Summers: Yes.
Mr Morrow: Do you have any comments on the effect of Sunday shopping on family life?
Ms Summers: Yes. As I understand, these are amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act. Yes, we represent essential services such as hospitals, nursing homes, etc, who have to work on Sundays. I do. I am a hospital worker, and it is not my choice, because we do not get to spend time with our families. I see that there has to be one common pause day when everybody can do whatever they have to do with families. No, it is not going to generate more jobs. The hours are going to be shifted around, because they will make it a continental workweek. They will give them a day during the week instead of on a Sunday. So, no, I really feel that Sunday work is not going to create more jobs.
Mr Morrow: Thank you, sister. And now to my brothers in the ATU, I really understand what you are talking about. My father was a bus driver in Hamilton, so there were quite a few problems on Sunday working when I was young. Do you believe workers in Ontario, specifically retail, should have the absolute right to refuse work on Sunday?
Mr Graham: I believe they should. Unfortunately, I think they have to have help from the government to make the law.
Mr Morrow: That is what we are doing.
Mr Graham: But I believe there has to be an absolute right. I think, quite honestly, that it is almost impossible to be able to regulate that, though.
Mr Lessard: I take it that you are familiar with the amendments that have been proposed to the Employment Standards Act with respect to protection of workers' rights. Those are the right of a retail worker to have at least a 3-hour break; the right to refuse Sunday work, and that removes the reasonableness element of it that was in the previous legislation. It also permits them to refuse within 48 hours of the Sunday and not to be dismissed or disciplined because of that, and also gives employment standards officers the right to order compensation or reinstatement of an employee.
In your submission you state that you do not think that we have gone far enough with respect to those provisions, and I would like to know what you think we might be able to do in addition to that.
1500
Mr Macdonell: There are two approaches the government could take: a reactive or a proactive action. By doing this, it puts the onus upon the employee to report, to document, to, in a sense, prove that he or she is either being forced to work Sunday or that she is being discriminated upon in her promotion because she will not work on Sundays. It causes the employee the stress of doing that. I believe that is the wrong place to be. Most of the people who are going to be forced are not going to be responsible adults, level-headed, educated. What are they going to be? They are going to be, perhaps, 17- and 18-year-olds who may not feel the same way about their rights or may not have the same sureness that the people around this room have. I do not believe that just by tightening up the Employment Standards Act you are going to get into a position where people will actually feel those rights and actually exercise them.
Mr Lessard: We are looking for some suggestion.
Mr Macdonell: If you do not have any Sunday shopping then you will not have that problem.
Mr Graham: Yes, that is right. I believe the wording is much better than in the previous legislation. We do not have a problem with that. But if you were terminated from your job, it is fine to say that you will be reinstated and you will get that money back, but there is a period of time that your family goes without food, and if you were a single mother who is forced to work on a Sunday it is a lot bigger gun to your head to work on the Sunday than it is to know that six months or a year later you will be reinstated and get full compensation. We are not talking about people that generally have a lot of money in their bank account and can survive for a period of time while the process goes on. Everybody is aware of the length of time the process takes to have somebody reinstated. If there is not Sunday shopping, or if it is very restricted, then we will not have the problem, and that is the best way to deal with it.
Mr Fletcher: On the same issue that Mr Lessard was talking about, in your collective agreement, if an employee is terminated and you grieve it, how does he get paid, or does he have to wait for the process?
Mr Graham: Generally, whatever UIC will pay them for a while.
Mr Fletcher: That is right. I know one of the flaws with the system is that you have to wait until you go through the process.
Mr Graham: That is right. I recently had an employee who just received a decision on Thursday or Friday, who was reinstated after two and a half years of being off work. He has a family of four plus a grandfather to look after. He has had a terrible time, and I believe the company will fight the reinstatement all over again. It still is coming up. So we do not know whether he is back to work yet.
Mr Fletcher: As far as our draft piece of legislation is concerned, you say it is worded a little better, in other words, it is offering a little more protection for workers to refuse the work and not have any reprisals taken against them.
Mr Graham: But we still maintain that the best protection is not having to work on a Sunday, and the legislation will protect that way. We can talk for ever about processes and the protection of the employee's right.
Mr Fletcher: Yes, I know. Compared to the previous legislation, is this a step forward, as far as the employment standards part?
Mr Graham: The employment standards, definitely, is a step forward.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr Graham: You are more than welcome. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you.
GLOUCESTER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: We now have a presentation from the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce, with Mr Jim Anderson and Mr Richard Vroom. We have approximately half an hour, which is divided up between your presentation and the many questions which the committee members will have for you. Please feel free to start when you are comfortable. If you could, whoever speaks first, identify yourself to the mike for the purposes of our recording.
Mr Anderson: My name is Jim Anderson. I am the executive director and chief administrative officer of the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce. The city of Gloucester currently has a population of 102,000, with 3,200 small businesses. This represents approximately 30,000 employees.
The Gloucester Chamber of Commerce is an association of Gloucester-area businesses with over 800 member firms and is recognized as Gloucester's voice in business. We are committed to initiating, developing, promoting, protecting and evaluating policies and programs which further the economic progress, free enterprise and the quality of life in Gloucester and, of course, in this, our province of Ontario.
The Gloucester Chamber of Commerce has, with some considerable concern, reviewed the recently proposed amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act in respect to the opening of retail business establishments and the employment therein. That is under Bill 115. We have prepared a submission on these matters which we would like to present to you and your committee here today. With your permission, Mr Chairman, I would now like to have Mr Vroom proceed with the presentation.
Mr Vroom: We thank you for this opportunity to meet with your committee today. As Jim has said, our membership encompasses both the small entrepreneur and major corporations, including retailers and traders throughout several small communities which form the makeup of our progressive city of Gloucester.
Presently about 34% of Ontario workers work some Sundays. This number includes not only police, firefighters and hospital workers, but also employees in the tourism, hospitality and recreation sectors. It works out to about 300,000 unionized workers and one in three of the retail workers in Ontario.
We frequently have heard of the concern for a common pause day. However, we wonder why we do not hear the logical extension of these arguments. That is to say that in the interest of a true common pause day, restaurants and movie theatres should be closed, television and radio stations prevented from broadcasting, plants shut down, planes, trains and buses prevented from operating, and of course, the Blue Jays banned from playing on Sundays. Given the way they played last Sunday, that might be a good idea.
The foregoing obviously makes no sense, being virtually impossible to implement, manage and control. We can only recommend that the marketplace be permitted to make its own decisions for a pause day and not be legislated.
Before going on we would like to take a few moments to discuss the tourism criteria in Bill 115.
When Bill 115 and its companion regulations were introduced in June 1991 the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce was surprised and dismayed to read that community chambers of commerce and boards of trade had been given the responsibility of dealing with an application for exemption under subsection 4(3) of this act.
Paragraph 3(1)4 of the regulations made under the Retail Business Holidays Act, tourism criteria, reads as follows:
"If there is a chamber of commerce, a convention and visitors bureau, or a similar organization serving the area being considered, a letter indicating that the organization, or if there is more than one of them, one of those organizations, supports the opening of the retail business establishments in that area on a holiday."
A survey of our own chamber of commerce indicated that there was strong opposition to this regulation from our members. To the best of our knowledge, neither the Ontario Chamber of Commerce nor our sister organizations were consulted as to our willingness or ability to participate in this manner. Had we been consulted, we would have pointed out that chambers of commerce and boards of trade in Ontario are not regulatory bodies and certainly do not wish to be perceived as such. Moreover, we are not prepared to accept the legal implications that may flow from making these kinds of decisions.
1510
On behalf of the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce and its members we strongly oppose this delegation of authority and ask that chambers of commerce be deleted from Paragraph 3(1)4 of the tourism criteria regulation. In doing so, we further note that a number of visitor and convention bureaus in the province are also operated by chambers of commerce and boards of trade, and suggest that they too may wish to be deleted from this regulation.
The issue of holiday shopping is of great importance in these days of increased cross-border shopping. Over time, our members' attitudes to the opening of retail establishments on Sundays and holidays has changed. In 1988 our members adopted the following position: first, that the Ontario government recognize the problem of individual municipalities' control over retail business holidays by maintaining uniform provincial legislation; second, that the Ontario government reinforce Sunday as a common day of rest under the Retail Business Holidays Act and provide guidelines for municipalities for essential service exemptions, including tourism; and third, that the Ontario government be consistent in its legislation on whether Sunday is a holiday in both the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act.
When that position was adopted the sense of our membership's sentiments was that it was divided on the question of whether retail stores should be permitted to open on Sundays and holidays. Our members supported uniform, centralized regulations, as they feared the domino effect that could occur if this matter was governed municipally.
Following the province's flirtation with Sunday shopping, however, we do sense a change in our members' views. While we have not conducted an in-depth scientific survey, we believe that our members are still divided on whether they wish to open their businesses on Sunday. We do note, however, that there is a distinct change in attitude as to whether businesses should open on Sundays or holidays. That is to say that our members are more concerned now as to whether someone else opens on Sunday and are of the conclusion that it should be up to the individual operator and not a matter of legislation. In support of this conclusion we offer the following examples.
In April of this year the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce surveyed its members to determine not if retailers should or should not be open on Sundays but rather to determine what the impacts might be and to see if there was a consensus that could be developed. Based on the results of that survey, the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce concluded the following:
First, that the loss of the Sunday option for retailers will have a significant impact on the local economy. The majority of surveyed small retailers would prefer not to be open on Sundays, but an equal majority of major retailers would insist that they have the right to open Sundays and therefore remain competitive as opposed to having their hours legislated. The results would appear not to deviate from that should the decision be made to have this area of Gloucester come under a tourism designation.
Second, the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce also surveyed its members on the question of Sunday shopping with the following results: 79% of our membership indicated they are in favour of Sunday shopping but prefer a pause day for quality family time. However, most businesses, large and small, feel that this practice would not be manageable or enforceable and therefore feel that the marketplace should make the decision, not provincial or local governments.
The board of directors of the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce adopted this motion in April 1991: "That the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce believes that retailers in Gloucester should have the choice to open for business on Sunday."
Some of the reasons cited by the board for the motion are as follows: to service the tourist market that expects to be able to shop on Sunday; to be competitive with retail operations in the United States and bordering municipalities, including Quebec here; to eliminate discrimination that currently exists against some categories of merchandisers, such as fashion, jewellery, footwear and the large grocery chains; to reduce government interference in business; to create new jobs; to provide freedom of choice -- for consumers' freedom to shop, for retailers' freedom to open or close, for workers' freedom to work or not work and for citizens the freedom to organize family time or to spend time alone; and, finally, to allow these choices uniformly across the city of Gloucester, the municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and in fact throughout the province.
To us in the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce, these comments indicate a strong support for freedom of choice relative to retail business holiday openings.
Also, with regard to the Employment Standards Act amendments, our members believe employees are appropriately protected in current legislation, in that they are permitted to refuse work which they consider unreasonable and to refuse work that is in contravention of the Retail Business Holidays Act. We do not believe the proposed amendments are necessary or appropriate.
In conclusion, people are always striving for autonomy, as individuals and as communities. This is very well illustrated in the birth of the cities of Nepean, Kanata and our own Gloucester. One of the persistent grievances people have is that in a complex political world their voice counts for very little. They vote at election time but sincerely believe it will make very little difference. Yet it is true that at all levels of government people can have the greatest impact. Decisions made at the provincial level affect most of us on a day-to-day basis. Provincial policies set the tone for the community and should directly reflect the views of its citizens.
Taking into consideration the diverse nature of this province and the acumen of its business leaders, we strongly believe these business leaders who have helped to create the unique nature of our own municipalities and our own province will continue to exercise their good judgement. Therefore, the decisions will be made by the people who best understand the community values, varying of course from community to community. If the people of Gloucester do not want Sunday shopping, there will be no Sunday shopping. Business leaders will meet the needs and desires of the marketplace -- no more, no less.
1520
Mr Daigeler: Welcome, Jim. I do not think we have met before. Would you say that the position of your chamber would be more or less reflected in, say, the Nepean-Kanata Chamber of Commerce or the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade? How do you explain the discrepancy of your position with the group that appeared before us, the second-last group, the retailers who were arguing very strongly against opening on Sundays? I am trying to get a sense really of what the mood is here in the Ottawa-Carleton area. Up to now we have been hearing quite strongly and forcefully from the business community what you are saying, that it wants to stay open. However, today, here in Ottawa, the majority of people have been arguing very strongly against opening. You seem to be presenting a case that is more in line with what we have been hearing so far. I am just wondering, are you speaking basically from what you hear in Gloucester or are you also representing or reflecting the mood in the Nepean chamber, the Kanata chamber and the Ottawa board of trade.
Mr Anderson: First, we do not or cannot speak for Nepean or other chambers. However, we do work closely with them. I have consulted to some great extent with Nepean and with Cumberland, our neighbour. In fact, they assisted me in making up this report with their advice. Their feelings are basically along the same route.
In our investigations we are dealing of course with the actual business people themselves from within our membership. It has been our experience that what they are saying is that they themselves want to make the decision if they are to be open, but at the same time their personal preference -- and this is both the small retailer and the large grocery chain or large shopping centre -- is that they would like that common pause day. They would like it closed and they would like some quality time for themselves, but they themselves prefer to make the decision. They have all suggested, both the large and the small retailers, that they will make their own decision. They feel that: "I will have to open if my neighbour opens. If he's taking my money, then I have to be there." But they all feel that within time it will balance itself out and it will get down to basic normal shopping.
Mr Daigeler: I guess you indicated that is really somewhat of a shift of opinion. Some two years ago probably the business people were more concerned about being pressured by their competitors.
Mr Anderson: Yes. I think at that time the business people came out very strongly in favour. In fact, it was 79% in favour of Sunday shopping.
Mr Daigeler: In favour of Sunday shopping?
Mr Anderson: Yes, at that time they were definitely in favour of Sunday shopping.
Mr Daigeler: The Gloucester chamber?
Mr Anderson: Oh, I am sorry -- against. They felt the problem was with the next-door neighbour, the next community, staying open and they could not. Again, in some areas it was reversed -- they opened and their neighbours could not. There was just that continual conflict in there.
Mr Daigeler: Again, the group of retailers that was here earlier arguing very strongly against Sunday shopping made what I thought was a rather curious argument, that the government should give a break to the small retailer, basically, "If the small retailer decides to stay open, that would be fine, but don't let the big department stores open." Would you agree? He felt very strongly that small business deserves a break and should be given that competitive advantage. Would you support that argument?
Mr Anderson: I do not think we would support that. I agree that small businesses deserve as many breaks or need as many breaks as they can get these days, but I do not think that is the way to go about trying to help small business. I think most small businessmen really come down to the fact that they strongly believe in freedom of choice and less government intervention in how our businesses are to be operated. I have a number of clients completely across the region, mostly small businesses, and most would choose not to open on a Sunday. Most do not now open on a Sunday, and did not when they were able to, but they want the freedom to open or not to open. It is their choice. If they feel they need to open, to go head to head against the major retailers, then they will, but they want the choice. I do not think they want the break to say they can stay open rather than the majors.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much for presenting this afternoon. I know it has been mentioned by some of the other chambers, and I know the parliamentary assistant has said they are listening, but I just wanted to bring to his attention page 4 where the chamber says it was surprised and dismayed to read that the chambers of commerce would be involved in this process. I think that is one area where we may see some changes on the government side. Each of the chambers is reinforcing it each time around. As you know, the Solicitor General -- and I think even the Premier -- has said the fundamental principles will not change but things like that might, so I just wanted to bring that very quickly to Gord's attention. I think he is well aware of it.
My question relates to the situation of how you see your community protecting some of the workers. As you know, the big concern with this government, right from the Minister of Labour when he introduced his statement, was to protect the workers on Sunday. In fact, with this legislation the retail workers will probably have more protection than anybody else. But we have also heard from some of the business community who say, "Nowadays in the service industry if I have somebody in on a Sunday who does not want to be there and his face is down to the floor it costs me sales," whether it be a restaurant or whether it be a retail business. I just wanted to see what your thoughts were on how you see business protecting the workers. The last group, from the Amalgamated Transit Union, said it cannot be done. I just wondered how you see it being done if in fact you were allowed to open up.
Mr Anderson: In discussing this problem with our membership, sir, we find that the present legislation is adequate, and the feeling of the employees is just that, that it is adequate. They have the coverage out there. It is like anything else -- it is there. If it needs to be used, it can be. There is an avenue to follow if you have a problem. Like anything else, sometimes these avenues might take time. There may be a few little slow periods in them or whatever, but they are there, they are open, the public knows it, and the employer knows it as well. To the best of our knowledge, we have no problems we are aware of that cannot be worked out. Do you want to add anything to that?
Mr Vroom: In the area that is most affected by this, which would be the retail industry, I think there is no shortage of people who are prepared to work on Sundays and extra hours. There are a lot of unemployed people and young people, students. I have three in my house who are very happy to get as many hours as they can. That never seemed to be a problem, having people work.
Granted, maybe management does not want to work, and there is certainly a downside to this, and that is not even management -- it is the owner of the business who is very often the one who has to work on Sunday. He cannot make his manager work. If he wants to open, then he may have to work. That is up to him. He has that choice to hire some staff and to be in the store himself on Sunday if he feels it is worth while. He will know very quickly whether it is worth while or not by the cash count at the end of the day. If it is not worth while, he is not going to open up the next weekend.
Anyway, most small businesses have a pretty loyal following. People come and shop there because of some loyalties. I think they would be satisfied to have it open. They will open if it is worth while and close if it is not worth while to be open.
Mr Carr: One of the other suggestions that has been made is that the reason the government made these exemptions so broad is that it wanted to be able to keep the election commitment of having a common pause day but wanted to make it so that tourist areas could open. They were very liberal in making it very open. Almost any part of the province could open. It was a difficult task. I think even the chamber, in its presentation, said it appreciated the work of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, because it thought it was he who was pushing for these tourist exemptions. That being the case, probably a lot of this province will be open. What is your feeling with the tourism? If they are broad enough, why would you not just be happy to have your area open up under these tourist exemptions, even if it was to sort of skirt around the election promise?
Mr Vroom: I think that might solve the problem for our area, but I think you have to look a little bit broader than just the city of Gloucester. We are also interested in business across the province as a whole and I do not think you should get around what you are trying to do or what we feel just by exemptions. That is not really the way to legislate. I think you need to go at the problem and deal with it up front.
Mr Carr: I agree.
Mr Mills: Thank you, Mr Vroom and Mr Anderson, for coming here today and expounding on your theories about the Sunday working. I would prefer to call it Sunday working, and not Sunday shopping, because, after all, that is what we are here to talk about.
First, briefly, on page 4 you say that when Bill 115 and its companion regulations were introduced, etc, the community chambers of commerce and boards of trade are being given the responsibility of dealing with an application. That is not quite right. I do not know if you meant that. The chamber of commerce has been asked in the draft regulation to provide a letter of support, but ultimately the decision-making process is the council's. I just wanted to clear that up.
As you can imagine, going around the province and listening to people, we find it very difficult when we hear one point of view, and then another point of view that seems to cancel it out.
Last week we were in Sudbury; the chamber there is on record as saying that Sunday shopping, per se, is a waste of time: It does not make any sense; it costs more to open; it is a strain on their people. I was jotting all that down and saying to myself, "Well, that is the position of that chamber." Then I come here and you say that the loss of the Sunday option will have a significant impact on the local economy.
I have a cutting here from the Ottawa Citizen of January this year. This is by David Scanian, a Citizen retail business writer, and he says: "Sunday shopping may be gasping on its deathbed. What was seen last year as a boost to sales for struggling retailers is now being dismissed as a costly burden that does not put any more money in the till."
We have the British Columbia experience where, for the past four years, shops have been wide open on Sundays. The statistical evidence shows that retail sales have increased by 1% over four years.
1530
The Chair: Do you have a question?
Mr Mills: You say it is having a significant impact on your economy. I am just wondering, sir, how do you come to that when we have been told and we have read that this is not the case; why is it special in Gloucester? The Chairman will be happy, that is the question.
The Chair: It is a question.
Mr Vroom: Basically the impact is in the area of jobs. We feel there are jobs being lost in the city of Gloucester to other parts of the regional municipality across on the Quebec side. That is basically where we are seeing the impact on the economy. We feel that if it is more open, there will certainly be more jobs created.
Mr Mills: For whom? Students?
Mr Vroom: For the staff, for students among others, certainly, and that is an important part of our group.
The Chair: Are you finished, Mr Mills?
Mr Mills: I had better be, because you cut me off.
Mr Fletcher: Your chamber of commerce is saying that you do not want to have the authority. We have heard that from other chambers. We accept that, fine, you will not have the authority as far as we are concerned, if we make that amendment. Is there any way that a chamber should be involved?
Mr Anderson: Only as we are here today, to advise, to discuss, to bring to committees such as this the opinion of the business community in our city, so that rather than have 800 people before you here today, you have one association speaking for them.
Mr Fletcher: Okay. When I look at the briefs from the previous shopping issue in 1988, when the chambers of commerce presented at local meetings, they were not talking about choice. There was no mention of choice. What has changed?
Mr Anderson: The experience of having tried it. They have been out there and some have found it successful, others have not. There have been all kinds of problems with it: employee problems, loss of dollars in the till, that sort of thing.
Mr Fletcher: When it comes to the problem of cross-border shopping -- and I am going to talk primarily about the United States cross-border shopping -- are you dismayed at what goes on with people crossing at the border to shop in the United States?
Mr Anderson: Not in particular. This is not a new issue. This has been around for some time now, especially since the new tax, the GST. It is something with which we in the chamber movement have worked very closely in trying to solve problems with all the chambers throughout the province. So it is not a new problem.
Mr Fletcher: No, I know it is not new, but you do not like the idea of people crossing the border to shop. It is not really Sunday shopping that forces people to shop. It is prices and things like that; it is the marketplace, that is what dictates that the consumer goes across the border. That is interesting.
As far as employment standards are concerned, I have a couple of questions. In 1988 there was one Liberal member of the government who said employees were jeopardizing their jobs by refusing to work, and an employer would eventually find someone who was willing to work on Sundays. Again, the Ontario government of the day was going to look at perhaps making retailers pay a premium such as time and a half to protect employees.
Obviously, the Liberal government of the day understood that employers and employees were not working together on this and the employees did not have the protection. And yet you are saying they do have the protection. The government itself is saying there was no protection, and now you are saying there was lots of protection. I am trying to get a handle on this.
Mr Anderson: What we are saying is that in the legislation as it stands now, under certain parts of the act -- and I do not have it right here in front of me -- employees have the right to refuse to work on Sunday.
Mr Fletcher: Unreasonable work.
Mr Anderson: Yes, and these types of regulations that are in the act now appear to satisfy the employees.
Mr Fletcher: Even though some employees were being coerced into working on Sunday, it was still okay?
Mr Anderson: I worked myself for 14 years on shift work and I know what the problems were.
Mr Fletcher: Yes, so did I.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Anderson and Mr Vroom.
Before our next group comes up, I would like to mention a small change in our timetable. The first group on the 15th is being moved to accommodate Mr Pilkey, the new Solicitor General, and at 1 o'clock on August 29 we are having the representative from Shoppers Drug Mart. That is back in Toronto.
1540
CATHOLIC WOMEN FOR LIFE, FAITH AND FAMILY
The Chair We now have a presentation from the Catholic Women for Life, Faith and Family, Mrs Diane Watts. Could you introduce your friend?
Mrs Trudeau: I am Margaret Trudeau. I am from the same association.
The Chair: You have half an hour to divide between your presentation and the many questions which I am sure the members of the committee will have for you. Please start when you are comfortable.
Mrs Watts: The Ottawa chapter of the Catholic Women for Life, Faith and Family welcomes the opportunity to present this brief to the committee. We are grateful that we live in a country where the views of all citizens can be freely expressed without fear of discrimination or prejudice.
Our organization was founded in the fall of 1985 by a group of Catholic women from all walks of life who were aware of the changes taking place in our society, which appeared to be a threat to life, to our faith, and to our families. Many of us are parents; many of us are grandparents. In Ottawa we have a membership of approximately 300, and across Canada we have approximately 4,000 members.
Our purpose in coming here today is to support any legislation that will promote reverence for Sunday as a holy day. To Catholics it is the feast of the resurrection of the Lord, which teaches respect for the body and soul and calls us to the primacy of spiritual values. This in turn benefits the performance of our duties in this world. We are against legislation which will deprive us of the occasion to elevate our minds and hearts to supernatural matters and to the fulfilment of our duty to give God due public worship.
We are deeply concerned about the effects that Sunday shopping will have on our municipalities and on their relationships within our province. Ontario has always been a united province. We have shared a common culture and heritage. We have maintained a stable link between east and west of Canada. Sunday openings will divide the province internally. Municipalities will be competing for financial gain.
Let us take a lesson from the province of Nova Scotia which in 1985 enacted bylaws to widen exemptions for Sunday closings in municipalities across the province. Two years later, these laws were repealed as not workable. Municipalities became competitive and enforcement of the law became expensive. Dartmouth and Halifax were rivals for trade. We were speaking with an official from the Nova Scotia Legislature who commented, "There was general relief when the law was reversed."
We believe Sunday shopping should be discouraged. Six days of work should be sufficient to provide for the material needs of members of a developed nation. We already have in place laws which provide good services for Sundays -- small convenience stores, drugstores, gas bars -- which serve the needs of the community; also, hospitals and all the other services which function on Sundays as well. Ottawa tourists and local people who wish to browse on Sundays have museums, historical sites, as well as our Byward Market to visit.
Sunday openings across Ontario are a threat to our way of life. Public officials responsible for the wellbeing of Canadians should reflect on the long-term effects of such a social upheaval. With the loss of our tradition of having Sunday as a day of rest and recreation -- the root of recreation is to re-create, and I think that involves physical as well as psychological and spiritual strengths -- as a result, society would surely suffer. There would be no common family day to look forward to.
Let us consider all the people whose lives would be changed because of Sunday labour. Will our legislation protect employees against the unreasonable demands of some employers? Part-time employees especially are vulnerable. They are mostly students and mothers who need to work to supplement family income which is insufficient to support a family. The security of their employment is threatened when it is known that they feel strongly about being with their families on Sundays.
Some citizens could become the defenceless victims of the greed of some employers. What of these employers who are often compelled by competitors and laws to remain open to succeed or to survive? Slavery to work is not the mark of a free and civilized nation.
We agree that Ontario is a pluralistic society. We have traditionally welcomed members of many cultures to our province. Our way of life is what attracts so many in the first place. They have sought us and our culture, and have chosen to live among us. They do not expect us to lose our common heritage and traditions, but willingly participate in our Sunday as a day of rest and re-creation.
If our Ontario government follows the policy of British Columbia where Sunday openings were meant for Expo 86 only but have continued, we will have the same disastrous results. British Columbia has no pause day. Every day is the same. One student we know who was paying for his education by playing music at a bar every evening in Victoria now plays on Sundays as well. He misses his free evening but has to quit his job if he wants a rest from work. A mother who works part-time in a flower shop in Vancouver now has to work alternate Sundays. She resents this since her family has to adjust to suit her hours. This makes less time for precious family togetherness.
I would like to mention here that there are great stresses on the art of mothering. The art of mothering does not go well with the rat race and all sorts of business pressures that are being put on women. The art of mothering is very important for future generations. It is not something that can be measured very easily.
I would like to put in a word for mothers, and say that mothers need protection to develop the art of mothering from which we as healthy people have all benefited. But there are many people who are not healthy because of the poverty of the art of mothering. Sometimes it is not the mother's fault, but pressures on the mother. Work is one of these pressures.
This makes less time for precious family togetherness. Some utopian concepts sound harmless in theory but in practice their long-term effects on ordinary members of society are horrendous. Overwork leads to physical and mental stress and illness, which is costly for our publicly financed medical care system.
Sunday shopping will not affect the faith of committed Christians. Many weaker Christians, however, may lose their link with the spiritual and psychological life support in the faith, to the detriment of themselves, their families and society. There are many mentally weak and addicted people not reached by established social support systems who need a viable religious community to help them. The Catholic church has traditionally welcomed the poorest and most needy and hopefully will continue to do so.
Common sense tells us that criminal activity is not concentrated among believers and followers of the Judaeo-Christian moral code. Here I would like to point out I am not speaking of those who officially profess to follow the Judaeo-Christian moral code, but those who actually do follow the Judaeo-Christian moral code. It is seen among those who have lost hope in society -- I am speaking of criminal activity -- those who have lost control over their behaviour or those who suffer the debilitation of family neglect. Every effort should be made to have one day for instruction and direction in moral living and concern for our neighbour. Sunday observance presents this opportunity.
In the 1981 census, 87% of our population in Ontario called themselves Christian. This large percentage of Ontario taxpayers warrants recognition as a major reality to be recognized and respected. Resentment of government by an ignored majority is unhealthy for all concerned.
For the sake of the future of Ontario, our elected representatives should feel some responsibility towards the youth of our province. Never before have they suffered from so many handicaps: alcohol addictions at a younger age, drug addictions, school dropout, illiteracy, family breakdown. Many young Canadians are confused. They lack spiritual and moral direction and security. It is well known that those who are raised to develop Christian virtues -- and the word "virtue" means strength -- become good responsible citizens of our country and good, trustworthy employees in the workforce. We believe the responsibility of our legislators is to encourage youth to have respect for Sunday as a day of worship and re-creation. Commercialization of Sunday will destroy a system which has led to a high development of human potential and civilization. If this delicate system falls, it will take many generations to restore it; the damage may be permanent.
Sunday has always meant family day. Mom and dad are home, there is a change of routine, church services are attended to instruct and direct towards higher values, visits to relations and friends are planned. During the winter in Ottawa we see hundreds of families enjoying skating on our canal and sliding on the many hills around this city. If Sunday becomes commercial, the less fortunate members of our society will have no choice but to work. Less family togetherness weakens family ties and gradually the quality of life deteriorates along with prosperity.
Concerning the present amendment, we observe that putting the onus for reporting abuses on the employee is a serious weakness. The employee is the most vulnerable member in this situation because his livelihood depends on the employer. Sometimes his next meal or rental payment depends on his relationship at work. Reporting an employer to government authorities will surely lead to future discrimination by an irate employer, regardless of how impartial he attempts to be. Is the employee really protected under this weak system? Sunday closing as a way of life eliminates this policing atmosphere.
The dignity of the human person often has taken second place to commercial profit. This is degeneration, not evolution. The elected representatives of Ontario have a duty to enact laws which prevent this. Are we slaves to high profits and taxes or are we builders of a well-ordered, dignified society where the sanctity of holy days can be respected and the desire for material goods can be kept in perspective? Remember, "Thou shalt keep holy the Lord's Day" is the third commandment. Catholics have always been obliged to set this day apart for God. This has served past generations well and has helped bring this nation to a high level of civility. Deviation from this tradition is a foolish adventure which we would deeply regret.
1550
Mr Sorbara: I note here on page 1 of your brief you say, "Our organization was founded in the fall of 1985 by a group of Catholic women from all walks of life who became aware of the changes taking place in our society which appeared to be a threat to life, to our faith and to our families." Obviously, one of those threats is the commercialization of Sunday. What are some of the other issues that your organization is concerned with and is bringing to the attention of government or being discussed within your organization?
Mrs Watts: It is basically the devaluation of the family, the devaluation of motherhood and its importance for all of society and the future of society.
Mr Sorbara: I would not mind you putting in a pitch for fatherhood there as well. I have six kids and I think I have a role to play there.
Mrs Watts: Yes, that is important too, and we would welcome Fathers for Life, Faith and Family as well, but I guess the women are preceding the men in this area for the time being. We as women feel the pressure. I have felt the pressure on my motherhood throughout my life. I was always pressured to continue with my career rather than leave the attractive paycheque and stay home and take care of my children and deeply I felt that this was really what was most important. It involved a lot of sacrifices and there are a lot of women across Canada making very serious sacrifices in order to put their children and their families first. That is an awful lot of pressure on women, and some of them succumb and go along and abandon their motherhood to others. We see this as harmful to society, as harmful to women, and it is the great contribution that motherhood makes that is taken for granted. Really, we do take it for granted. If it is weakened to the point where it is very seriously debilitated, only then, generations down the road, will we be able to see the consequences. It is very gradual.
Mr Sorbara: I take it from your brief that the Catholic view of Sunday, one with which I am familiar because I grew up in that tradition, should be the norm for Ontario society; that is, that to the greatest extent possible, work activity of any sort should be either discouraged or prohibited. Is that right?
Mrs Watts: To set a day aside to bring us to a deeper understanding of non-materialistic values, to raise our minds above the mundane day-to-day pressures.
Mr Sorbara: I noticed in your brief you said that you acknowledge that certain types of businesses should stay open. Indeed, I think you mentioned the Byward Market as something that we could tolerate on a Sunday. Frankly, I think you are right. If we closed everything, we would perhaps achieve a higher state of real quality of life. The problem for governments is that they pass laws that say everything has to close and then they start to make enormous exceptions and immediately the bill becomes unfair, because if you open the Byward Market, you can buy just about anything that you can buy in any supermarket anywhere in the Ottawa-Carleton area, so the supermarket says: "Hey, what about me? How come I can't stay open?"
How would you suggest that we make those distinctions? Why should the Byward Market be able to stay open and the local Zellers store or the local, I do not know, Cambridge Food Market or the Rideau Centre be required to close? How does government make those choices? How do you make those choices? Why should they stay open?
Mrs Watts: We mentioned the Byward Market because it is open to a great extent, and I hated to see it expand, because, like I say, six days is sufficient for shopping. Again, with working mothers, they are working five days a week and they can spend their whole weekend taking care of buying and spending again. They do not have that one day. It is a very difficult choice to make and I think we should maybe try to go in the direction of very few exceptions, minimal exceptions.
Mr Sorbara: What exceptions would you make?
Mrs Watts: Necessary things like hospitals and some --
Mr Sorbara: We are only talking about retail. Hospitals are not covered, airlines are not covered, factories are not covered. Factory workers can be called in to work any day of the week, but in the retail area, if you were making the exceptions, what kinds of stores or what kinds of entities would you allow to remain open on Sunday, if any? Maybe you would say none.
Mrs Watts: I would prefer that there would not be any. Maybe specialty stores in hotels for tourists, but at the present time I think there is too much commercial activity in the Byward Market for a Sunday.
Mr Carr: I appreciate your submission here today. As we have travelled around the province, we have heard from different areas of the province that say they are going to open Sundays as a result of the tourist exemption. The numbers change, and after the actual votes are held we do not know, but Windsor has voted to open. Collingwood was 9-0. As I said earlier, the question would be just what percentage of the province will be open. Will it be 50%, 60%, 30%, 70%?
I take it, because so many people feel that way and because you are opposed to Sunday shopping and this legislation will allow large segments to open, that you are not pleased with the bill as it stands right now. Is that my understanding of it?
Mrs Watts: Not completely pleased. It is an improvement. There is some protection, but, you see, we are slipping into forgetting Sunday as a special day, also as a holy day, and tourists should stop and recognize Sunday as a holy day as well. There would be all sorts of activities that could be arranged around that. We do not need to shop on Sunday to make it a special day.
Mr Carr: As you know, during the debate when it went on to open other areas, to have drinking on Sunday and movies and sports and so on open, a lot of the same arguments were made. During that period of what we would call non-regulation, when people were allowed to open during that eight-month period where it was sort of free market, if you wanted to you could, and it was a short period of time, did you see any change in people? Was there a decrease in the number of people going to church because of the shopping? Or did you see any big change in the way life was conducted during that eight-month period?
Mrs Trudeau: It was not long enough for people to change their habits or their customs.
I think the reason for mentioning the market is that the market has been very deliberately developed and planned as a tourist attraction in a part of the city that attracts many tourists.
What we need to think about is that if society deteriorates, the costs are so terrible in crime, in sickness, in mental illness, it affects everyone.
The other thing is that if you open retail units on Sunday, only people who work in retail units are obliged to work, and my experience is that the people who work in retail units are among the least privileged members of our society. So we are hitting at them once again. They have so many things coming at them.
Mr Carr: One of the things that may happen, for example, as you know, with two members of a family working -- I think you touched on this, and motherhood -- is that somebody may elect to work Sunday because at that point the father would be home to look after them, rather than having the child or children in day care centres, which are costly, through the week. Potentially you could have a situation where a father would spend time with the child on Sunday and the mother would elect to work Sunday, so theoretically you could have a mother or father spending more time with the children. Do you see that happening?
Mrs Trudeau: You are talking about individuals, but in society things happen according to classes of people. Once again, this mother who has to work on Sunday is working at a job where there are very few privileges. She has to take it the hard way. I think that is a very poor thing to offer to a young family.
Mr Carr: I think some people, in all fairness, probably do enjoy their job in retail. Like everything else, there are some, in a lot of industries, that got into it because it is something that was readily available, but I think some people would still enjoy the retail business. It is a good chance to meet people. So I do not think we should say that everybody is not going to enjoy it.
Mrs Trudeau: Nobody who is very well off and has real choices --
Mr Carr: No, she is basically saying that the only people in retail are the people who cannot do anything else, and that is not the case. Hopefully we would not leave that impression because there are some people in retail who enjoy it.
Mrs Trudeau: Excuse me. The people in our society who have to be thankful for working on Sunday are certainly not being offered very much in quality of life.
Mr Carr: Well, good luck with things.
1600
Mr Mills: Thank you, Mrs Watts and -- I did not quite catch the other one.
Mrs Trudeau: Trudeau.
Mr Mills: I should never forget that. Thank you for your presentation. I thought it was very well thought out. It was really meaningful to me in the way that you touched in many places here on the quality of family life. The Premier in his speech from the throne and many other times has emphasized that quality of life that we are looking for, partly in this Bill 115.
I share some of the views that you have written in your submission here. I share a view, as I hear the presentations being made, that people are somehow taking second place to commercialism and making money. I am frightened of that.
You talk of the skiers around here in Ottawa in the winter. I live quite near the Ganaraska forest and every Sunday there are hundreds and hundreds of people taking in the simple pleasures of walking through the woods. When I think of the prospect of wide-open Sunday shopping, I think of all those families who will be forced to work and not to walk, and that bothers me too.
I do not really have any questions but would just like to thank you for a very meaningful brief, in my opinion. I am going to take note of many things you said for future debate.
Mrs Trudeau: I wonder if I could make three points. It is just three sentences.
The Chair: It is very generous of you to answer a question that was not put.
Mrs Trudeau: But the question exists.
Mr Mills: I think we are here to make comments on presentations.
Mrs Trudeau: Yes, I appreciate your comments very much.
Mr Mills: Otherwise, I sit here and I do not say anything because I --
Mr Jordan: Is this a question now?
Mr Mills: No. People want to hear comments from members of the government.
The Chair: I think you are right.
Mr Mills: It irks me to say that you cannot say anything unless you have a question.
Interjections.
The Chair: This is unfortunately the case, though, Mr Mills. Mr Lessard brings that up as a point of order. Mrs Trudeau, please.
Mrs Trudeau: Thank you for your comments.
Some time ago, quite a long time ago, my teenaged son was travelling in the United States. He brought home a friend from New York City. When we got up the next morning, the friend was nowhere around. He came in about an hour and a half later. He said: "Oh, it's wonderful out there. I have never seen anything like it. It's so pleasant and so quiet." There were no commercial vehicles about. He was so taken with it. Nothing could have been more of an attraction for him. At the same time, I know that in Florida they already had a large store called a drugstore which sold practically everything and was open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Was this government not in favour of closing Sunday? Did I get that impression?
Mr Sorbara: That was before it was elected.
Mr Mills: We still are.
Mrs Trudeau: There is one other thing. There is only a certain amount of money to be spent, and it will all be spent. I do not see how the volume of business can increase. As for people crossing the border to shop, we have been doing that ever since we had cars.
Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: On the interjection of my good friend Mr Mills, I once again raise this point because I am still unclear as to what the proper etiquette is here. My impression was that Mr Mills was participating in these hearings on behalf of the Solicitor General and as his parliamentary assistant.
Mr Mills: Both.
Mr Sorbara: Just let me finish my point. The opportunity to ask questions during the time available for public hearings is shared between our party, the Progressive Conservative Party and those New Democratic Party members who are here on behalf of the Legislature rather than the government, so that Mr Mills could be called upon to make clarifications on behalf of the government or make interjections.
Mr Mills: I do all things.
Mr Sorbara: Could I just ask you, sir, to have a word with the clerk, not necessarily now but at some point before we continue tomorrow, and clarify that point.
Mr Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Just on Greg's point, Mr Mills is a permanent member of this group and therefore is sitting as a member, is he not?
Mr Jordan: That would outweigh your numbers.
Interjection.
The Chair: No, it is the same numbers.
Interjection: We do have six members, do we not?
Mr Mills: On the same point of order, Mr Chairman: I thought that in the first week of the deliberations of this committee in Toronto, the first day we sat as a committee, the very thing you are asking now was clarified to a very fine degree. I think Hansard will prove me correct. I do not think we have a copy of Hansard here, but this was debated and the clerk made that decision the first day we sat as a committee. I am very perturbed that it keeps being regenerated when I get to say something, because I think that I am here as a member of the government -- I have every right to say something -- and I am a member of the committee.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, the clerk reminds me that Mr Mills is a member of the committee. He is free to ask questions. There are points where, if he is making a clarification on behalf of the Solicitor General, it is then confusing, of course, if he is at a later point asking questions as a member of the committee. So I can understand your viewpoint.
Mr Sorbara: I am just asking for an honest point of clarification. My understanding was that a member did not occupy that dual role, speaking on behalf of the government and participating in the committee. That was my own experience during my time as a minister, but if the rules of procedure of this committee allow someone to occupy both roles and take a position both as spokesman on behalf of the government presenting the bill and as a member of a committee questioning presenters during public hearings, that is fine. I just wanted a clarification. I find it unusual, but you are the Chairman and we do have rules.
The Chair: I think your point is well taken, sir. I think it is important, at points where Mr Mills is making a clarification, that this be brought out. Do we need to go further on this point or can we call upon our next witness?
Mr Mills: The points of clarification I made first.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mills.
Mr Mills: But you do not want to listen.
Interjections.
Mr Mills: I always try to make it very clear what is a clarification and what is not.
Interjection: There is a lot of difference between trying and succeeding.
KIDDIE KOBBLER
The Chair: Mr Jeffrey Pleet from Kiddie Kobbler is next. Mr Pleet, we have about a quarter of an hour, which will be divided up between your presentation and the questions which I am sure committee members will have for you. Please feel free to start when you are ready, sir.
Mr Pleet: I hope I do not take a quarter of an hour. Thank you for listening to me.
I feel the law should be the same for everyone, no exceptions. When you have exceptions, you have problems. I do not like Sunday shopping. I would have to work it, so no Sunday shopping. Drugstores that can fill prescriptions, necessary places, they should be open.
Government and retail experts say small business is the backbone of the country, yet their thoughts are hard to find because they are busy working in their stores, where I should be today. Most of us are working too many hours already compared to non-retailers. Most non-retailers work between 36 and 40 hours per week. With stores in Ottawa now open 61 hours a week, and in other cities in the province around 69.5 hours, it would seem there is extra time to shop. Years ago people worked more and stores were open less and things got done.
Small retailers must give service and find and train qualified staff. In major department stores we all know you must search for staff to help you. The major grocery stores say it is not fair for small stores to be able to open. We all know the corner stores are there for your immediate needs. The majors want a bigger market share at the expense of small retailers, who combined probably pay more in taxes, but whom you hear from less.
The bill suggests there will be laws to protect workers, but what about the store owner like myself who owns a small business in a major mall? He is forced to open. What happens if he has no staff willing to work? The bill is protecting the workers but not the owners. On August 2, 1991, I was listening to CFRB radio station out of Toronto and an expert was saying that a three-day weekend relieves stress. You never get a three-day weekend in retail if you are an owner, or even a two-day weekend.
During Sunday shopping we lost business on Saturday, so Saturday, Sunday and Monday equalled Saturday and Monday. If there was a gain, it could have been done with no Sunday shopping. How do you do the same work in seven days as opposed to six? Open retail stores on Sunday.
Maybe setting a maximum number of hours a store can be open would settle it, or maybe cause more problems; for example, 65 hours a week. You can open Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday for nine hours, Thursday and Friday for 12, and if you want Sunday shopping, you open Saturday for nine and Sunday for five hours. But then again, you are going to run into more problems.
1610
In this bill, what holidays are they talking about in clause 4.2(d)? Why not open Christmas Day? We would have everyone off but the retailers. I really feel strongly that Quebec has a great advantage over us in this neck of the woods here. In Quebec they open Boxing Day and close January 2. They get the business right there. They open Good Friday and close Easter Monday. Why? Because those are better retail days.
If you were a tourist, why would you go to a market to buy food on Sundays? Why go to the Byward Market in Ottawa? Shopping centres are not tourist areas. If one is allowed to open, then all of them should. The shopping centres will be happy I said that, but I do not think any of them should be open.
When Sunday shopping happened in Ontario, the merchants in the Byward Market lost business. That tells me that it was mainly Ottawa people shopping before. Those were people who were not retailers but who could find no time to shop during the week. Now that there is no Sunday shopping, those retailers are not complaining because they got their extra business back. Major malls want to open because it does not cost them anything; the tenants pay most of the operating costs. If I as a small merchant in a shopping centre do not open, the mall will fine me. I hope all the people who broke the law and have been found guilty have paid their fines. The fines should be substantial -- at least a day's receipts or more.
I have two stores. When Sunday shopping happened, I was only able to open one consistently because I did not have staff. One day I had to open one of the stores with myself and my three-year-old son. I am the boss. I have to be there. If I start something, it has to get done. I am sure there is a law against a three-year-old son working in a store, but --
Mr Klopp: They want that.
Mr Pleet: Who wants what?
Interjections.
Mr Pleet: I do not know who wants it. All I know is that Michael -- whatever his name is; M. Farnan -- has been fired. Does this mean his work is not satisfactory, and why are we discussing it? So I do not know; I just do not want Sunday shopping at all.
Mr Mills: Am I hearing things?
Interjection.
Mr Pleet: M. Farnan, or "Honourable," I do not know his right title. Thank you. I am done.
Mr Sorbara: It was an absolutely refreshing presentation. Do I understand your position to be that there should be one rule for everybody?
Mr Pleet: One rule for everybody, but always you find exceptions. When you read this you find exceptions. I am thinking of a corner drugstore. You go to the emergency in the hospital, you have to find a drugstore for medicine. I am talking about how you need medicine at 3 o'clock in the morning or you need it Sunday afternoon for a child. There are businesses out there that should be open. I am not talking of a Shoppers Drug Mart. Loblaws is mad at Shoppers Drug Mart because they carry some grocery stuff. Loblaws wanted to be open because Shoppers Drug Mart is selling some cans of Coke or something. That is what I am talking about. I am talking prescriptions, necessary items.
Mr Sorbara: But if we decide to open Shoppers Drug Mart or drugstores, and the Byward Market and the stores that can put a tourist front to the world on Sunday, then should we let everybody open?
Mr Pleet: No. What I am saying on the Byward Market is that when you go travelling -- I do not know where you are from, but you come to Ottawa and you are a tourist. How often are you going to go buy a head of lettuce? Are you going to go buy hamburger meat? It is very, very unlikely because you are either staying in a hotel or --
Mr Sorbara: Yes, but I might want to buy shoes for my kids.
Mr Pleet: You might want to buy shoes for your kids, but there are another six days of the week that we have always had. I think that in those six days things can be done. I would like a common pause day. It gives me a breath of fresh air. For a year I did not know what I was doing. All I knew was I was opening a store and Saturday night, instead of saying, "I'm going to be back here 8 o'clock Monday morning," I said, "I'm going to be back here at 11:30 Sunday and make sure the staff shows up and make sure everything is open."
Mr Sorbara: Is your store in a mall?
Mr Pleet: Yes.
Mr Sorbara: Were you required by the landlord to open?
Mr Pleet: I was not required, but it was suggested that we open. One, I had to maintain sales. I was losing sales Saturday afternoon. I was going home Saturday afternoon, and my wife had never seen me come home Saturday afternoon at 4 o'clock. I was sitting in the store doing what I am doing right now, twiddling my thumbs. There was no business Saturday, but all of a sudden on Sunday -- the people who had come Saturday afternoon were coming Sunday.
Mr Sorbara: So you stayed open on Sunday to maintain a share of the market?
Mr Pleet: Right.
Mr Carr: We were up in Collingwood a week or so ago and one of the things they said up there is that they are a tourist area. As you know, they get people from the Toronto area who have cottages. What they were saying is that people will not shop for a head of lettuce any more, will not buy an extra head just because they are opening on Sundays. But one of the things they say is that people will go up there and those same people who would spend the money from Toronto in the community of Collingwood, go out and buy the hamburgers or the lettuce or whatever on Sunday, if they are not open will go back to Toronto and not spend any more. They want it to be spent in their community as opposed to Toronto, because they have been hit by a lot of problems and tourism is the number one area. Do you think places like Collingwood should have the tourism option there? Just for your own information, they voted 9-0 on council for that, to have and be open as a tourist option. Should they have some type of tourist exemption for areas like that which survive on tourism?
Mr Pleet: I think when you have tourist exemptions and you do that, you are going to spread yourself. I do not know how far Collingwood is from Toronto, but there might be a community 10 minutes or 15 minutes down the road that is going to say, "Collingwood has it; we want it." Then it is going to go 15 minutes down the road and all of a sudden you are going to be in Toronto and Toronto is going to be wide open.
I have said for years -- I am in the children's shoe business -- why is there a different tax structure on children's shoes in Ontario than there is in Quebec? I lost business for years because people used to go across the border. Nobody ever listened to me. We sent letters. For years things have gone back and forth in the shoe industry just by taxes.
I think once you start giving a little, if you cut up a piece of the pie, you are going to run into problems all over.
Mr Carr: One of the things some of the communities are saying is that if you left it up to the individual stores -- and I will use the example of Collingwood where during that eight-month period when it was wide open, virtually unregulated, there was still a large percentage of stores that decided not to work because the owner decided not to. Of course, there are other people who say there is too much pressure and they lose business. But during that period a lot of them did not think they would lose the business. They said, "I'm not going to choose to do it, but if Joe Blow next door wants to do it" --
What do you say to that? Do you think that would work or is that unworkable?
Mr Pleet: I am in a peculiar position. If you go to most major malls, there are major tenants and they have supervisors or managers and they can manipulate their staff. I am a franchisee, and a franchisee usually works in his store. The McDonald's guys work in their store. All of them work in their stores. Any franchisee type will work in his store. You have to have a manager if you are going to provide the quality of service that people now say is lacking in Ontario or anywhere in retail in Ontario or Canada. We are providing it. We are trying. We are a small business trying to provide it. As I said, the majors do not provide it, so they do not care. We are trying to provide that service. It is pretty difficult to provide that service. Can the banks be open?
Mr Sorbara: Yes, they are.
Mr Pleet: They do not open. They have an automatic teller.
Mr Sorbara: They are all open with their machines.
Mr Pleet: But that does not help me. I am a business. I am trying to do it.
Mr Sorbara: I appreciate that, but virtually they have overcome the Sunday shopping problem with technology.
Mr Morrow: Thank you for coming here today. It is so refreshing to see an individual come and make his or her own thoughts known. We will take that back. We are trying to set up some guidelines as to the legislation.
What does it cost you to open on a Sunday?
Mr Pleet: Basically staff and hydro. Most of those costs are built in, so it is staff. But if I am not there and have hired staff -- and usually nobody is better than the owner in the store. That is debatable, but nobody is better, let's say, than I am. If they lose sales and they go down the block, because I cannot split myself in two, I have lost sales, I have lost managers who cannot work. So who knows what the costs are.
Mr Morrow: Do you feel you are missing out on the market share if you do not open on Sunday? What if everybody did not open on Sunday? Would your market share then be secure over six days instead of seven?
Mr Pleet: Could not open on Sunday?
Mr Morrow: Yes.
Mr Pleet: Yes, my market share would stay the same. I think even if you open on Sunday, your market share is not going to change. It is going to just be spread out and your costs are going to go up.
Mr Morrow: Obviously, when everybody opened on Sunday you said you also had to open on Sunday.
Mr Pleet: Right.
Mr Morrow: Do you want to work on Sundays?
Mr Pleet: No.
1620
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON
The Chair: We now have a presentation from the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. Mr Rick O'Connor is the barrister-solicitor with the regional municipality. You have approximately half an hour. Usually that is divided between your presentation and questions from the committee members, who I am sure will have a number of questions. Please proceed when you are ready.
Mr O'Connor: I have known Jeff Pleet for a number of years. I hope I can be as candid as him, but unfortunately in my position that is unlikely. I advise this committee that I am attending on behalf of the regional solicitor this afternoon who sends his regrets and is unable to attend.
On August 6, 1991, as most of the committee can see in the information before them, the executive committee of the regional council accepted three recommendations with regard to Bill 115. I am here to try to explain that and, I hope, to try to put it in the context of Ottawa-Carleton for this committee. In doing that, I will try to be brief, but again, as a lawyer, that is sort of a death knell for most people.
As you can see, the first recommendation is to advise that the council of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton has consistently been opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping in its jurisdiction. Again, as I said a minute ago, I hope to put this in the regional context for you. In doing so, what I have done is set out some of the chronology and intersperse it with the provincial events, the jurisprudential events that have interrupted this legislation throughout the past decade, and also in the regional context.
The initial act for the province, which I believe began about 1976, set out a tourist exemption under subsection 4(2). That is listed in the chronology I have given. Basically it says, "Where it is essential for the maintenance or development of a tourist industry," a municipal council can pass a bylaw. Then there are a number of conditions. That was, to my understanding, the first piece of legislation in Ontario.
Following that, on March 9, 1983, regional council, pursuant to a request by the council of the corporation of the city of Ottawa, passed a tourist exemption bylaw for the Byward Market. This committee has heard it discussed in great detail and I will not spend any more time on it. Mr Sevigny was here this morning discussing it and other possible tourist zones for the city of Ottawa. That was under the initial legislation.
Following that, in 1986, in the case of Edwards Books the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutional validity of that particular piece of legislation. Also, that was the year regional council re-enacted that bylaw with regard to the Byward Market. The temporal time limits on it were from approximately April to November, and what they did was they made it year-round that year, in 1986.
Subsequent to that, of course, in February 1989, there were major amendments to the act which deleted this initial tourist exemption and now brought us up to what we have today as the municipal option.
Having said that as background, note that on April 12, 1989, about six weeks after the legislation was passed, regional council resolved to take no action to enact any bylaw to permit additional Sunday shopping under this new amended act. The resolution was carried, subject of course to the Byward Market. The region and the local municipalities recognized its importance to the tourist industry. That was, as I say, the first time they discussed this.
Later on that year, in August 1989, regional council had a request from the Westboro business improvement area. That is an area within one of the wards in Ottawa. They wanted to remain open for one day, a Sunday, for what was called the community's Village Fine Arts Festival Weekend. Regional council took this as an opportunity to say that it was not in favour of wide-open Sunday shopping. Even in that instance -- again, I think they were afraid of the floodgate syndrome -- it decided it would not allow the exemption.
Moving on to December 1989, a few months later, executive committee -- I should add that that is the board of control for the region, which has authority to deal with applications under the Retail Business Holidays Act -- rejected a request by A&P Ltd to open its four stores on holidays in the Ottawa-Carleton area.
Further to that, the following month, January 1990, executive committee deferred a request for an exemption by Miracle Food Mart/Xtra Food and Drug Centres -- they were two large pharmacies in Ottawa-Carleton -- to remain open on holidays. The reason they did that at that time was we were well aware that the Supreme Court of Ontario -- the High Court of Justice -- was going to hear the Sunday shopping constitutional case in the coming months. Also, the regional solicitor's office was looking at putting together a regional plan for setting down criteria for applicants with regard to exemption bylaws, pursuant to subsection 4(7) of the act.
I think this committee is well aware in June 1990 Mr Justice Southey ruled this act unconstitutional and we had wide-open Sunday shopping. Now, a scant two weeks after that, on July 11, 1990, regional council, for the second time, reaffirmed its opposition to wide-open Sunday shopping in Ottawa-Carleton and in fact requested area shopping centres to keep their doors closed on Sundays and also called upon the provincial government to act.
The following year, in March, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned Mr Justice Southey in what I think is an important 5-0 unanimous decision and upheld the constitutional validity of this act.
Seven days after that, regional council, for the third time in three years, reaffirmed its previous decision that stores will remain dosed in Ottawa-Carleton and that the provincial government, the new government, assume responsibility for enacting such legislation, as was part of its election platform.
That, I think, sets the regional framework for you. It might perhaps have been better to do this at 9 o'clock this morning. I apologize for that. Unfortunately, we had some problems.
I think it is clear when you look at this background from the region's point of view that in 1989, when the act was amended, back in 1990 when the act was struck down, and again in 1991 when the act is resurrected by the Ontario Court of Appeal, regional council has been consistent that it has been opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping in Ottawa-Carleton. It has done this with applications from major food stores like Miracle Mart and A&P and, alternatively, by a small community festival. That, I think, puts better into context its first recommendation that it would like this committee to understand.
The final two recommendations are actually alternatives, and that is that the proposed Bill 115 be withdrawn and the status quo be maintained with the addition of any expressed exemptions, such as trade shows or flea markets or whatever the public, through the consultation process, deems necessary, or that the proposed Bill 115 be revised so that the current mandatory regulations be drafted in the form of optional and unofficial guidelines, thus enabling municipal councils to better determine what a tourist exemption is.
With regard to the first recommendation, I would like to submit that the proposition by regional council is not unlike the old adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Again, I remind the committee that the Court of Appeal, in a 5-0 decision, said this legislation is constitutionally valid. In fact, I think they indicated that it was better than the previous legislation.
As the committee knows, the current act provides for a municipal option which is an unfettered right on municipalities to either allow shops to stay open on Sundays or demands that they stay closed on Sundays. In Ottawa-Carleton, we have only passed one by-law, and that was at the request of the local municipality. That was the Byward Market, which you have already heard about.
In the light of all that, I was going to go into how the Byward Market came about, but I do not think I will bore the committee with that at this time. In any event, the region is happy. It had some difficulty, I admit, adapting to the February 1989 amendments. They have since done that. They have looked at that and they feel that the municipal option is something they can now, at this point, live with.
1630
With regard to the executive committee's alternatives and final recommendation, I can advise as follows. What is perceived by the executive committee as to what will be the problems that will arise from this legislation are largely found in the regulations, and I am sure this committee has heard this ad nauseam over and over again, specifically being: What are the tourist criteria that municipalities are going to have to deal with? Without going into unnecessary details -- and I know this is not a legislative drafting committee -- terms such as "historical or natural attractions," "cultural or ethnic attractions," as well as "hospitality services," would seem to be somewhat vague and perhaps unclear, and will result in varying definitions throughout the province.
Furthermore, there would seem to be some problem with the requirement -- and I know this committee has heard from chambers of commerce and various tourist bureaus -- that they give their approval or sign a letter of approval for an applicant. In this regard, what we perceive from the legal perspective to be a problem is if an applicant goes forward, does not get that letter of approval -- and the regulation, if I understand it correctly, says, "shall have," it is mandatory, and then it cites paragraph 4, says, "a letter of approval" -- we go to council, council says, "Oh well, we believe it's a tourist zone anyway," passes the bylaw, what we are going to have is some disgruntled group out there who will say, "No, I don't believe in Sunday shopping." They will bring an application to the Divisional Court. I am fairly certain the Divisional Court will read into that that it is a mandatory regulation, a regulation being a law of the land; we have not adhered to it, and therefore the whole bylaw is thrown out. That type of administrative problem is something that we foresee and do not really want our councils dealing with.
Furthermore, it is suggested that the passage of mandatory tourism criteria in the form of regulations to the act unduly complicates and, I think, rigidly formalizes the application process and, indeed, requires municipal councils to act as quasi-judicial tribunals. I do not want to bore you with legal principles as I am sure you are all aware of them, but the principles of natural or fundamental justice, audi alteram partem, and bias would all be invoked in this process, and for every application a municipal council would have to adopt these particular principles, which I do not think is what the Supreme Court, in its most recent decision on municipal councils, had in mind at all.
In addition, the prospect of descending, as I said, such decisions before the courts would result in the matters often being determined by the judiciary as opposed to the elected representatives, who, I think, the legislation deems the party that is supposed to resolve this matter. Alternatively, even if a municipal council could find its way through what I call "the proposed maze of tourism criteria," there is no guarantee that the decision that is subsequently arrived at is the one that reflects the desires of the local community. For example, a local community -- and that is why we have put in the terms "trade show" or "flea market" -- may not, and I have not gone through the academic exercise of looking at this, particularly fall within the criteria that have been set out in the regulations. However, the community may, over a period of time, have accepted that, and it may have told its local council, "This is what we want." In any event, you would then have, again, a disgruntled group coming forward, trying to strike down a bylaw that the community is happy with but may not fit the exact definitions set out in the tourism criteria.
In effect, the establishment of uniform criteria province-wide may remove from the local council its authority to determine matters solely on the basis of a policy or the accepted community standards. This is not to say that the criteria that have been set out even at this point in time are not of any assistance, and that is quite to the contrary. It is suggested that some of the criteria expressly set out in the regulations are of assistance in guiding municipal councils with regard to what is a tourist exemption. Nevertheless, it is held that this delegation to the local authorities would be best served by enabling municipal councils to pass bylaws not unlike what would be the former subsection 4(7) of the current act, and that is that we can set out our own bylaws where we will set out procedures, fees and our own criteria that each area could deem to be its most important facets.
As committee members have said on a number of occasions today, they have been in northern Ontario, Toronto and eastern Ontario, and I am from London in southwestern Ontario. I am sure you will find different reactions everywhere you go, and clearly the criteria that are important to us are not going to be those that are important to Windsor or Sarnia or even somewhere in northern Ontario. As such, the criteria and the regulations, we would hope, would be removed from the regulations and perhaps put in a draft bylaw which could be distributed to the municipalities and adapted accordingly to whatever they prefer.
Subject to any questions, those are my comments.
Mr Daigeler: I will make it very quick. Thank you very much for appearing before the committee. It is rather good to hear that you are supporting the wisdom of the Liberal legislation, even though there has been some change in the viewpoint of the Ottawa-Carleton region, as you indicated yourself.
I would like to ask you about the change. In terms of the division on regional council itself, has it basically been the same? Is it the suburbs against the city of Ottawa or is there a particular pattern that has been established or that has changed over time?
Mr O'Connor: I am not aware of any particular voting pattern with regard to the reaffirmation year after year of regional council's opposition to wide-open Sunday shopping. If I could explain briefly how the city of Ottawa came to get the Byward Market, it may be of some assistance in this committee.
What developed in Ottawa-Carleton was almost an informal process whereby local municipalities would debate the issue of Sunday shopping first and then if they deemed an area that they wanted the tourist exemption they would come to regional council and present their proposal.
In doing so, the city of Ottawa already had the Byward Market under the old legislation. In 1986 when they wanted to expand it from the temporal limits of the summer to all year round, what they did was debate it at local council, then they went out and got a consultant. The consultant then went around and spoke to all the merchants in the Byward Market who would be affected. In addition to that, it surveyed, I believe, 12 community associations and various business associations, including tourist boards and the chamber of commerce, and in addition to that did a phone survey of some 300 residents across the city.
Having all that data in front of them, they sat down and debated it again and decided they were in favour of expanding the market to a year-round proposition and then brought it to regional council. I do not recollect what the exact vote was on that. I apologize, but I do believe the vast majority of council had no problem with that process.
M. Sorbara : Est-ce que je peux vous poser au moins une question en français ? Vous êtes confortable ?
Mr O'Connor: I am afraid I do not speak French, Mr Chairman.
M. Sorbara : Nous avons ici un service de traduction. We have a translation service. Je pense, Monsieur le Président, qu'il faut du moins poser une question et participer au débat dans les deux langues ici dans la ville d'Ottawa.
Interjection.
Mr Sorbara: Okay, then I will just place my question in English, although I would have hoped that we could have had more of this discussion --
The Chair: Is there is a problem with the translation?
Mr Fletcher: I think he was getting the ball game.
Mr Sorbara: You had better watch out, my friend, about making comments about ball games during parliamentary hearings.
J'ai une question simple pour le monsieur. Est-ce que c'est vrai que, pendant le débat sur le projet de loi 113, c'est-à-dire le projet de loi libéral, en 1989 la région d'Ottawa-Carleton était fortement contre le projet de loi ?
Mr O'Connor: Yes, that is my understanding of it at that time.
M. Sorbara: Et maintenant, après deux années d'expérience, elle est fortement prête à prendre les responsabilités des municipalités sous les prévisions du projet de loi 113.
Mr O'Connor: Yes, that is also true.
Mr Carr: Thank you for coming to appear before the committee. I agree with a lot of what you have said. We have heard from some of the municipalities that regardless of what decision they take, whether they are in favour or opposed, there are going to be those groups that say, "You didn't interpret it right," and that what is going to happen is we are going to spend a lot of time in the courts.
However, there was some disagreement among the municipalities. I was interested in point (b), where it says that the proposed Bill 115 should be withdrawn. It would seem that the municipality in Ottawa and Carleton does not want to deal with it. In North Bay we had the mayor who said that he did not want any TBSs, which means Toronto-based solutions, and that he would like to decide in his area. When we went to Thunder Bay they said, "We would like to make the decisions up here, regardless of what way we go." Ottawa-Carleton is one of the few regions that seems to not want to have a base solution in this area. I know you touched on a little bit of what the reasoning is for that, why you see the rest of the province saying, "We don't want any Toronto-based solutions; we'd like the municipalities to decide," and yet Ottawa-Carleton seems to be going off in a different direction.
Mr O'Connor: I am not certain as to the terminology of Toronto-based solutions. Maybe we do not get these out in eastern Ontario.
Mr Sorbara: I am sure Toronto would want to send you a few.
Mr O'Connor: But with regard to that, I think some of the committee members have been right in their questioning that Ottawa-Carleton has somewhat reversed itself after dealing with the municipal option and has been able to grasp on to it.
What I think we have looked at in Ottawa-Carleton more seriously now is the regional plan proposed under what would be the former subsection 4(7), which says that we can set our own criteria. I think that is something we have looked at. We would very seriously review the regulations and the criteria set out in there, but I am not certain that that is necessarily a Toronto-based solution or that it takes anything away from the municipality itself dealing with these questions.
Mr Carr: That is helpful. The other question relates to that. As you know, the big question that has come up is the tourist exemptions. They are so broad that any municipality could interpret them to be open. There is virtually no part of the province that could not be open. I just wanted to see what your thoughts were on that. I know the ideal situation you would like to see, but what is your feeling on the tourist exemption? Are they too broad or are they too narrow?
Mr O'Connor: Again, speaking for myself, I do not think that regional council has a position on this yet, but from my own point of view as an administrative law lawyer, I think they are arguable either way and they are probably a lawyer's dream and a politician's nightmare in that respect.
Mr Sorbara: Lots of work for lawyers, as the former Attorney General said.
Mr O'Connor: Exactly.
1640
Mr Carr: One of the questions that came up with other municipalities is that a lot of the police forces are spending a lot of time going to the municipalities over the decision of who is going to open. I think one of the solicitors in Muskoka said that he spends a lot of his week dealing with the police because whoever decides to open illegally, its competition calls them up and says, "Did you know XYZ is open?" He spends a great majority of his week dealing with the police. Is this your situation as well? Do you spend a lot of time doing that?
Mr O'Connor: No, as a matter of fact, we are the only region out of a dozen regions in Ontario that does not have a police force, so what happens is that this becomes a local police issue. That in itself does cause some aggravation, because the region has the ultimate say in this and then the local municipalities have to deal with the policing and enforcement of it.
Mr Carr: Okay, thank you. Good luck.
Mr Mills: I thank you for your presentation. I would just like to ask you about point (c), "that the current mandatory regulations be redrafted in the form of optional guidelines, thus enabling councils to better determine." Tourism Ontario went to great lengths with consultation with many bodies, its own body, all over the province and I believe all over North America to come up with that draft regulation for what are the tourist criteria. It was not easily arrived at and it was arrived at through consultations with the so-called experts in the field.
My question is then, first of all, do you like the draft regulations or do you see how they can be improved or what do you want put out or what do you want put in? I am a little concerned that the municipal council says it will better determine when the criteria have been set in such a manner that it will assist the councils in Ottawa here, in London, in North Bay, all over. Those criteria are a common thread to assist councils in arriving at a decision. To say leave it to the council to better determine takes away from what these regulations are trying to do.
I suppose, as the parliamentary assistant to the minister, I am particularly interested in what you see can make it better and what we should take out that you do not like. I know time is short. Thank you, sir, if you can say that.
Mr O'Connor: In 30 seconds or less, I apologize for that wording if it brings the committee some trouble. What we were looking at, again, is more of a regional perspective, the simple fact that the criteria seem to be so broad, that perhaps we do not want it that broad. I liken the situation again because -- we run into this problem -- it is going to allow all sides to attack it in litigation form, and that if it was more restricted --
What we are suggesting is that ther e be some sort of guideline we can adapt as our own bylaw. I do not know how feasible that is, and I know that putting optional bylaws in front of municipalities may not be the best solution, but we think it would be able to geographically assist us better because we are not looking at the same situation as Windsor. I know they have a bylaw that now says they are wide-open Sunday shopping. From our brief history dabbling in this, that will not be coming to Ottawa-Carleton, if that can be of some assistance to the member.
Mr Kormos: I appreciate that you have come here with these recommendations, but I confess I have always found very interesting that the council or the municipality "may by bylaw permit," but then the next subsection, of course, says that it "shall" consider. What that does in my mind is avoid the argument wherein some courts have permitted the word "may" to mean "shall" in various circumstances, and other times "shall" to mean "may." But here, since the two words are used in consecutive subsections, do you see some issue with the fact that, notwithstanding the guidelines, notwithstanding the regulations, we still have what may well end up being merely a discretionary power on the part of a municipality?
Second, one of the concerns a whole lot of people have had is the lack of review procedure, and that is to say an applicant may well feel aggrieved, or members of the community feel that their municipality conducted itself inappropriately in granting the exemptions. If there is that review procedure, where should that be to?
Third, the distinction between those parts of Ontario wherein city councils which, I think most of us will agree, have a different fibre to them, a different character from regional councils. In some parts of the province without regional government it is municipal councils that make decisions; in other parts it is regional councils like here in Ottawa-Carleton, like Niagara region. As you know, or as you may have been told by some people who are cynical about that, there is often really regional interests at play and some thrust and parry between those regional interests. I put that to you. I would appreciate your comments on those, if you feel comfortable.
Mr O'Connor: Again, speaking just on my own behalf and perhaps more as a municipal lawyer than as a representative of the regional council, in looking at the legislation as it is drafted, I think any time you have a delegation to a local municipality in this respect you are going to get people challenging it, particularly because subsection 4(7) says that "The council is not required to pass the bylaw even if the criteria are met." I think that will be one of the first challenges. Someone who goes through all the hoops is going to say, "Look, I did everything you told me to do and now you're telling me that you don't want it anyway." I think that raises the first administrative law problem.
With regard to the "may" and "shall," as I think the honourable member knows, there are always problems in courts. They will define a man a woman and a woman a man if they get the opportunity to, and they have done so.
With regard to whether there is any sort of dichotomy or controversy between cities, city councils themselves and regional councils, I think this committee would know better than I, as it has heard from more of them. I decline to respond any further on that matter.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr O'Connor. You answered a couple of difficult questions very succinctly and we very much appreciate your attendance and your information.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, just before we adjourn for the day, might I do two things: first of all, apologize to you for my outburst about your chairing of the committee, and request that we have about a five-minute in camera session before we adjourn for the day.
The Chair: I imagine that would have the agreement of the other members.
Agreed to.
Mr Morrow: Just before we go in camera, I would also like to thank the city of Ottawa and the region of Ottawa-Carleton for allowing us to be here today.
The Chair: Yes, that is an excellent point, Mr Morrow. I would like to extend my thanks to the city of Ottawa for its hosting of our delegation today and to the many people who have appeared before us from this area. We are now in a very short recess to have a short in camera session here.
The committee continued in camera at 1653