CONTENTS
Monday 18 November 1991
Retail Business Establishments Statute Law Amendment Act, 1991, Bill 115 / Loi de 1991 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne les établissements de commerce de détail, projet de loi 115
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot NDP)
Vice-Chair: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East NDP)
Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough NDP)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West L)
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph NDP)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex NDP)
Mills, Gordon (Durham East NDP)
Poirier, Jean (Prescott and Russell L)
Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)
Winninger, David (London South NDP)
Substitution: O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York NDP) for Mr Winninger
Clerk: Freedman, Lisa
Staff: Beecroft, Doug, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1548 in room 228.
RETAIL BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉTABLISSEMENTS DE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL.
Resuming consideration of Bill 115, an act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act in respect of the opening of retail business establishments and employment in them./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 this meeting of the standing committee on administration of justice to order.
Mr Sorbara: I seek unanimous consent to have speeches welcoming Ms Swift back to the room. Is there unanimous consent?
The Chair: No, there is not.
Section 1:
The Chair: We will proceed with the vote on the Liberal motion on page 17.
Mr Sorbara: Is that where we were when we were voting last week?
The Chair: We had a division called at the end of last meeting.
Mr Sorbara: Page 17? I have that marked as defeated already.
The Chair: We will proceed with the vote. All those in favour? All those opposed?
Motion negatived.
The Chair: We will proceed to the government motion on page 20.
Mr Mills moves that clause 4(10)(b) of the Retail Business Holidays Act, as set out in subsection 1(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(b) governing the procedures and fees for processing applications, the combining of applications and public meetings and limitations on the number of public meetings held by a council."
The Chair: Discussion, Mr Mills?
Mr Mills: Just one moment, sir. I am getting myself in order.
Mr Sorbara: Perhaps while the parliamentary assistant is trying to find the paper that tells him what this section means, I might just say that we continue to object to the notion -- it is contained in this clause that is to be added -- that a council should limit the number of public meetings it holds. This makes no recognition at all of the fact that the economy is a dynamic thing. Right now under the current government the economy is a stagnant thing, but sometimes in Ontario the economy is a dynamic thing.
It would be foolhardy to empower councils to limit the number of applications at the beginning of the calendar year, for example, and find that by June or July there were a number of new businesses, given better economic times, that wanted to take advantage of at least making an application. That is why this amendment is foolish; that is why the government should not be proposing it, and that is why the whole damn bill is foolish.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sorbara. That is duly noted.
Mr Mills: This technical amendment arises from the government's proposed amendment. The "public meetings" provision replaces the "hearings" requirement and accordingly references in proposed clause 4(10)(b) must be to "public meetings" and not "hearings." We spoke to this before. That is the rationale behind it.
Mr Carr: I will be very brief. Again, as I said, because this ties in with one of the other government motions, I am opposed to telling councils how they will proceed. I think back to when the mayor of North Bay came in and talked about Toronto-based solutions. As I look at this, I can just see the councils across the province rolling their eyes about the provincial politicians telling them exactly what limitations there will be on the public meetings and how they will be held. I will be voting against this.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of the motion? Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Just before I move the next Liberal motion, which is designed to bring some reason and sense to an otherwise terrible piece of legislation, you will recall that the standing orders provide that where possible the government and each of the opposition parties shall bring forward their amendments to bills considered by a committee at least two hours before the committee begins deliberation of a bill clause by clause. It is not two hours before we begin deliberation of clause-by-clause; it has been several weeks since we began deliberation of clause-by-clause.
This is the bad news right here: I want to know if the government has the audacity at this late hour to present us with another amendment. I do not have to ask that question any more, because the clerk has just put another amendment before us.
Mr Carr: But we are holding up the bill, right?
Mr Sorbara: But we are holding up the bill. That is right. Just on that point, we held up the support and custody orders enforcement bill too, did we not? The bill that is now going to be put into force next March is the one we held up back in May. Mr Carr makes a very good point.
The Chair: Your point?
Mr Sorbara: I am speaking to that rule in our standing orders. I see now that the government is putting forward another amendment, sir, because the amendment they had, number 30, was clearly out of order and you would have had to rule that out of order.
Worse than that, sir, there was an agreement, a week ago Thursday, that we would complete this legislation today and that we would even go beyond 6 o'clock if we needed to. We agreed to do that and they agreed to do that. The agreement was that all the government motions would get passed, save number 30, which the Vice-Chair of this committee agreed was out of order and would not be proceeded with and which you, sir, advised me candidly, privately, in the Legislature you would have to rule out of order. The agreement was that we would proceed, but you would not get this one little piece, this one little offensive provision, the vigilante provision which allows any citizen who is upset that a store is open to go to the court and ask the court to close it. This is vigilante legislation.
The Ontario I know is an Ontario that has police enforce these kinds of statutes, that does not invite any citizen, perhaps for economic reasons, because he is upset that the store is open and his store is not open, to go to the court and get an injunction. This is ill advised. This is a gift to some trade union somewhere that wants to have its members unleashed on those terrible, naughty storekeepers who actually want to try and make a living.
But worst of all, we had an agreement. The great NDP, this great party of collective bargaining and making agreements and honouring agreements, tells me today: "Sorry, that agreement's off. We figured out a way to overcome the technicality. Technically we can ram this down your throats, notwithstanding what we said a week ago Thursday."
I find that so offensive. I find that you have no honour. I find that you have no dignity. I find that you are not people of your word. To slip this into my hands at the end of question period today is the worst thing that has happened throughout the whole course of consideration of a bill that has not been entirely pleasant. I do not know why you do it. You could have got your law. It could have been passed. The stores could open in December under the agreement we had, but you offend and you offend and you offend.
I just want to tell you, because I have had experience of being in a government that has been defeated, that it is just this kind of offence that leads to the lack of confidence and the cynicism that will bring you down. I just want you to understand that. There is a way of conducting yourselves with honour that goes beyond the rules. Oh, yes, you are technically in order now. Yes indeed, there is no doubt about it. You solved the problem. You broke your word. You did not sign a document, but you broke your word, and any one who tries to deny that -- well, there is a special place in you know where for that kind of person. We had an agreement.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sorbara. When we get to --
Mr Sorbara: I am outraged and I object to the presentation of this amendment now. It is out of order, it is inappropriate and it brings dishonour on the minister, on the ministerial staff and on the members of this committee. It is an insult. I know my friend Mr Carr has a word to say on this point of order.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sorbara. I will listen to any comments anybody has when we get to amendment 30.
Mr Sorbara: I want a ruling on the point of order. I say that it is out of order. I say that to present me with an amendment now is out of order. The rules say two hours before.
The Chair: The ruling is, when time permits.
Mr Sorbara: Are you ruling that you are not upholding my objection?
The Chair: I am not upholding it.
Mr Sorbara: I would like a recorded vote on that. I challenge the Chair or whatever I am supposed to do. I challenge the integrity of the Chair and the government members.
Derek, you shake your head, but you are a big trade union negotiator. After you have negotiated an agreement, do you go back the next day and say: "Hold it. We want one more thing"? You make me sick.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sorbara. All those in favour of appealing the Chair's ruling to the Speaker?
The committee divided on Mr Sorbara's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes -- 3
Carr, Poirier, Sorbara.
Nays -- 6
Carter, Fletcher, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor.
1600
The Chair: The appeal is defeated.
Next is the Liberal motion on page 21.
Mr Sorbara: Oh, boy. It would be so good to defeat you guys. I tell you, I could almost taste it. Just a little bit of honour, that is all we want.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, on the Liberal motion, page 21.
Mr Sorbara moves that clause 4(10)(b) of the act, as set out in subsection 1(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(b) governing the procedures and fees for processing applications and the combining of applications and hearings."
Mr Sorbara: The purpose of this amendment is to clean up some of the mess you put in the original bill.
The Chair: Further debate? Seeing no further debate, all those in favour of the Liberal motion? Opposed?
Motion negatived.
The Chair: The Liberal motion on page 22.
Mr Sorbara moves that clause 4(10)(d) of the act, as set out in subsection 1(1) of the bill, be struck out.
Mr Sorbara: Let's get it on the record. Let's set out clearly why clause 4(10)(d) is no good. That comes within the regulation-making section, subsection 4(10). It begins, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations," and then we go down to clause 4(10)(d), which reads, "requiring that a bylaw that applies to a retail business establishment within such class of retail business establishments as may be set out in the regulation may be considered only on the application of the person carrying on the business."
Do you not see what is wrong with that? It does not give people enough freedom and flexibility to bring matters before council for their consideration. Leaving that section in does not add anything, it is restrictive.
Mrs Mathyssen: It is not that.
Mr Sorbara: Well, Mrs Mathyssen, you and your constituents are going to have to live with this bill and that is the sad news. That is the unfortunate part of what we are doing here. The whimpering over there is -- I guess your constituents will remember it.
We would prefer that the views of the people in the province who want greater freedom and flexibility be reflected in the regulation of Sunday shopping. That is the reason we are arguing to strike out this section through this amendment.
Mr Carr: I will be supporting this motion. Again, I think the key words are the restrictive provisions as a result of this. I will be supporting this motion so we can remove clause 4(10)(d).
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Carr. Seeing no further debate, all those in favour of the Liberal motion? Opposed?
Motion negatived.
The Chair: We move on to the PC motion, page 23. Mr Carr.
Mr Carr: Due to the defeat of our motion 6, I will withdraw motion 23.
The Chair: We will now move on to the Liberal motion on page 25.
Mr Poirier moves that section 4 of the act, as set out in subsection 1(1) of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:
"(12) A municipality may by bylaw refuse to consider or pass bylaws under subsection (1).
"(13) A bylaw under subsection (12),
"(a) may be effective until a specified date;
"(b) may apply to one or more classes of retail business establishments;
"(c) may apply to all or any part or parts of the municipality;
"(d) may be limited to the opening of retail business establishments on holidays at specific times or for a certain number of hours;
"(e) may apply to the opening of retail business establishments on some holidays and not on others;
"(f) may be restricted to the opening of retail business establishments on holidays during specific periods of the year;
"(g) may classify retail business establishments."
Mr Poirier: Gary, did you have some points to make on that? Do you want to open it up?
Mr Carr: Yes, I will be supporting this particular motion. I believe that on the one hand we have brought in some of the motions on the government side to basically restrict the municipalities in their ability to open, not the least of which is that now you are going to be able to appeal it to the Ontario Municipal Board. What this does is plainly and simply lay out the criteria a municipality will follow under those circumstances. If you are going to be fair and say on the one hand, "This is what you are going to do if you are going to open," then there should be some corresponding restrictions on the other side. This does that, so I will be supporting it.
The Chair: Further debate? Seeing none, all those in favour of the Liberal motion? All those opposed?
Motion negatived.
The Chair: We will now proceed to 26 1/2, the government motion.
Mr Mills moves that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(1.1) The act is amended by adding the following section:
"4.4 Despite any other provision of this or any other act or the bylaws or regulations under this or any other act, a retail business may be carried on in a retail business establishment on the Sundays in December preceding Christmas Day."
Mr Mills: I do not think this needs too much explanation. It recognizes the needs of the community in December when 25% of the business is done. The government, by introducing this amendment, has shown a degree of flexibility and balance.
Mr Sorbara: Your hand is going to get sore patting yourself on the back.
Mr Mills: I am not patting myself on the back, I am stating facts. These are the facts.
Mr Sorbara: How about honour?
The Chair: To the Chair, Mr Mills.
Mr Mills: I beg your pardon, Mr Chair. I get somewhat carried away.
Mr Sorbara: I wish you would get carried away. I wish you would get serious about this.
Mr Mills: Nevertheless, I think this amendment is needed and is well received. Without further ado, I will leave it for the discussion of the committee.
1610
Mr Sorbara: The parliamentary assistant points to this section and uses it to indicate that the government is flexible, that the government is listening and that the government is responding to the needs of the people. Why do that for only one twelfth of the year, sir? Why tell the people of the province, "For one month you can have the freedom, opportunity and liberty to make up your own mind"? Why do that? What are you trying to achieve?
I suggest this little provision, which you thought would somehow save the government's reputation in respect of Bill 115, destroys the government's reputation because it adds a great deal of hypocrisy to a bill that is an insult to the people of the province.
Mr Chairman, can we go right back to the beginning of the bill? The whole purpose of this bill, believe it or not -- we forgot this -- is to provide the people of Ontario with a common pause day. This is an opportunity for workers to spend a day with their families. This is the great worker party giving something to workers -- not nurses, not flight attendants, not factory workers, not clerks who work in lawyers' offices, not lawyers, not journalists; they are not workers in the minds of the New Democratic Party. But there are 50,000 retail workers out there who need the government's attention and the right to a common pause.
Why would you ever need a right to a common pause? I think the answer is clear: You work a lot, you are busy and every day you have to go to the workplace and earn the money to put the bread on the table. I do not say "bacon" for reasons I will keep private. There you go. Society is too busy. We have to close down the Eaton Centre, we have to close down the jewellery store in the plaza and we have to close down the sporting goods store, even though you might want to buy a baseball on Sunday and take your kids out to the park to play. Why do we have to close all that down? Because workers need a rest.
We looked to the Supreme Court of Canada for guidance on that: "This is okay. Workers need a rest." The great irony and hypocrisy is that for many of us December is the busiest month of the year when we are running around to the office Christmas party or shop-floor Christmas party or Rosh Hashana Christmas party, all that stuff. Other people are running around like crazy. You are trying to get your shopping done. It is hectic. The kids want you to go to the school Christmas play. It is the busiest time of the year. "Damn the retail workers. They do not need a common pause in December. No, no, there are other priorities in December."
Allan Pilkey, the great Solicitor General who is going to bring the great common pause to Ontario, says: "But not in December. Heavens no." What does Gerald Vandezande say about this? He is trying to protect the Christian faith.
Hon Mr Pilkey: He will not be shopping on Sundays in December.
Mr Sorbara: The Solicitor General says Gerald Vandezande will not be shopping during December. If this economy gets any worse, if many more people are out of work, if the Treasurer does not start to do something pretty soon, nobody is going to be shopping on Sundays in December or any other day because they are out of luck, they are out of money, they are out of hope, and tomorrow they are probably going to have a tax increase.
It is okay, because December is a special month, although not for the Muslims surprisingly. They can shop now. Every store can open in December. "You people of the Islamic faith better realize that we have our priorities down at the Eaton Centre. Never mind human rights and never mind fairness and never mind constituency. We have to worry about our revenues."
I would love to have been at the caucus debates on this. The only joy I have in this whole exercise is taking up your caucus and cabinet time. You have it all wrong. The people of North York told you that you had it all wrong in a referendum. They said, "Freedom."
Mrs Mathyssen: You financed that waste of time, did you not?
Mr Sorbara: Your voice is a lovely background for this speech.
Mrs Mathyssen: I know, Mr Sorbara, but in your diatribe you forgot to mention who finances your ability to waste the taxpayers' time.
The Chair: Order. Mr Sorbara has the floor.
Mrs Mathyssen: I think you should fill that part in for the taxpayers.
Mr Sorbara: I think you will have your opportunity to speak on this. I am desperately waiting to hear the government rationale. I could not believe it when they started to whisper in my ear and in the ears of the other members: "Maybe we can get you December. Maybe we can get December open."
What about the common pause? What about the workers from the United Food and Commercial Workers Union who have no interest at all in working on Sunday in December? What happened there? They want to be with their kids. I want to be with my kids on Sunday in December. I do not want to have to be forced to go down to Canadian Tire and buy a wrench. I do not want to have to go down to the local Pro Hardware store and buy Christmas tree bulbs on Sunday in December. This is outrageous. I thought Christmas and December was about peace and joy to the world, not about Sunday shopping. I thought that was what the common pause day was about.
We are going to have a common pause in July and August. Do you know why? Because there ain't no work. So you might as well sit at home and have a common pause, not one day a week, seven days a week.
I think Mel Lastman -- my God, I am looking to him for authority; things have really gotten bad -- said it best. He said, if you are going to make an exception, for goodness' sake do it in January and February when retailers are crying out for an opportunity to recover. Do it in March and April, in the beginning of the new year when you may have a new sense of hope and faith and opportunity for the future. Do it in June or July or August. Do it in September when the kids are going back to school. Do it in October for Thanksgiving. Give thanks, open up the stores. Do it in November when the Legislature debates on an almost annual basis what to do on Sunday shopping. But do not do it in December when people are so busy and tied up and their lives are so burdened with all the joy of Christmas. My God, keep those stores closed.
In fact, we should have more restraint. We should have Shoppers Drug Mart close in December so that not too many people will be drugged for Christmas; they can actually really enjoy it. Change the drugstore provisions to allow only the ones that the United Food and Commercial Workers Union wants open, the ones that are 2,400 square feet and smaller. You know the ones. There are not very many of them left. They cannot survive with that size of store any more, but that is what they want, so keep those open. But my God, let us give people a common pause in December and let them have the freedom to make up their minds the rest of the year.
I think you look silly. I have already established that you are not a party of honour. You broke the word given a week ago Thursday and now you look silly. One more strike, coming in about three years, and you guys are out of here.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sorbara. Further debate? Mr Carr.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I will be supporting this motion. I see the other side has now changed its opinion because I am supporting it, so it will probably be defeated. I have not won one yet. I have not had as hard a time winning since my last year of playing hockey. I have lost every one, I think, on this.
My bill would have done the same thing. It would have allowed the stores to open during that period and then we could have had the debate on this bill. We would not have had people lining up saying: "When is this thing going to get passed, if it gets out of the justice committee? What is going to happen? We want to open for Christmas." It is interesting; I am even getting calls from the former Solicitor General's office. Mr Farnan's office is calling me and saying, "When is your bill going to pass?" I guess since young Michael has moved on to other things he does not worry about who replaced him. Maybe you should say hello to him, Mr Pilkey, and tell him that you are the new Solicitor General. But it was kind of interesting to get that comment.
Unfortunately, it will be late for some of the workers. Some of you may have seen on TV as recently as the other night that one of the stores will be closing down. They said the reason those people will be laid off and out of a job is that they cannot open on Sunday. Mr Sorbara referred to a couple of plebiscites that were on the ballot, one in North York, and I guess the region of Wentworth had a vote on Sunday shopping; both of them wanted to be open.
It was interesting to see where this particular piece of legislation came from. I will not embarrass the member who told me this, but one of the NDP members came to me and said the same thing Greg said, "Boy, maybe we can get December open." He said something which really struck me, and he did not even realize he had said it. He said, "We had to go back and check with the unions on this before we could proceed with it." You will know it is a "he," but outside of that I do not want to embarrass him by saying who it was. He did not even realize what he had said to me, but what an offence that was. You talk about talking all summer with the public, but when they made a change to the amendments, it was, "We had to go back to the unions to see if it was okay with them." I think that is basically what this entire bill is about. That is what is driving this bill. The people behind this bill are not the average people that we heard from in the summer. In fact, it is UFCW that is driving this agenda.
I will be supporting this motion because I hope some of the stores will be allowed to remain open in the Christmas period. I am doing it reluctantly, because we could have had a bill that would have been separate, that could have passed through the House. Quite frankly, we could have been shopping last weekend if the advice I put forward at that time had been adhered to and if it had not been for the date. The Solicitor General said the only thing holding it up was that the date was wrong. He could have changed it and made it December 1, and we would not now have all these people waiting on pins and needles to see how fast we can get this through, to see if we can have Sunday opening during the Christmas period. So I will be supporting it.
1620
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Carr. Further debate? Mr Morrow.
Mr Sorbara: Pontius Pilate.
Mr Morrow: I am speaking in favour of this, obviously, but now that the Tories are in favour, well, what a difference.
Mr Sorbara: They will probably vote against it.
Mr Morrow: We talked as a caucus about this term being a part of economic renewal. I can see how this amendment would basically make for economic renewal, especially in December, when most of the stores do 80% of their sales. Just in that, this amendment makes a lot of sense.
Mr Sorbara: It is a common cause.
Mr Morrow: Excuse me, Mr Sorbara. I gave you time to talk. Will you please give me time to talk?
We heard over 285 submissions in 11 cities this summer. People were basically saying yes, they did want something. I think it is really unique that the New Democratic Party finally listened, or that any government finally listened, to the people who made submissions. This is a really good move. We represent all of Ontario, not just parts of Ontario.
Mr Poirier: This is obviously very much a compromised government motion. I do not know what I would pay to get a recording, an Instant Hansard of the NDP caucus discussion or cabinet discussion when this proposed government amendment came forward. That would make for some very interesting reading or hearing; or even better still, a video. I can just imagine a video of caucus or cabinet discussion on this particular motion.
Mr Mills: Or write a book.
Mr Poirier: We could write a book. A film, maybe a horror film.
Mr Sorbara: A horror movie; you have it. That is it. Ding, ding, ding. Five points. Do you want to move up to the 10-point question?
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Poirier: Friday the 13th Part 9 or something like that. What I see here is a compromise. I can imagine a lot of the NDP supporters upset with this, because they will say this creates a precedent. With time, if reason prevails, they will understand that with the situation of the economy and everything, retail business will have to have the opportunity to choose when and how it does business in this province.
I spent the weekend looking at some statistics that showed what businesses feel Christmas sales are going to be like. It is a very bleak outlook. To tell you the truth, I am glad you were able to compromise on this at least. What I am afraid we would have seen even more, had you not done this, is that in January and February a lot of small businesses would not be able to pull through what is traditionally their best economic segment for sales, the month before Christmas.
I do not know what happened to the NDP members, but thank God, maybe they fell on the floor or something, hit their heads, and sensed that as a compromise --
Mr Sorbara: They had a Liberal moment.
Mr Poirier: They had a Liberal moment in the sense that business people will have a chance to open in December. It is a compromise. It does not go as far as I want, but I think if you respect those people, the small businesses that create the vast majority of jobs in this province, at least you made enough of a compromise to allow them to be open for December. Hopefully, God permitting and the economy permitting, they are going to be able to pull through with enough sales in December so that when January and February come along, they will be able to say, "Maybe we can make it."
I am sure that deep down you realize they are not just suffering from the December blues these days; they have been suffering from the retail sales blues for many, many months. If you look at all the economic indicators, they are going to suffer the economic retail blues for many months to come. This is not a short-term problem. You have offered them a short-term solution to try and help them at the toughest time of the year. I tip my hat to you, but time will demonstrate, with what is happening to the retail sector in all of North America, especially if the federal Tories are nerdy enough to bring Mexico into this free trade deal, that retail business is going to scamper even more.
Mr Sorbara: Bob Rae is not going to let that happen.
Interjection: There will be a revolt in the streets if he does.
Mr Sorbara: The guy who is going to have a war on the GST would not let that happen.
Mr Poirier: I think it will be shown that the government suffered enough pressure to make sure this amendment does not go beyond December. I will support this only because it may help our friends, the people who own and operate the small businesses that create, as I said earlier, the vast majority of Ontario jobs. Hopefully it will help them along. But, my God, I wish you would have let your reasoning go beyond that; and I have a feeling deep down that you would have wanted that too if it had not been for the pressure on your party and your government. But I respect that; we know who your friends are.
Time will demonstrate that you should have allowed that year-round because their problem is year-round, but at least you were able to bend a bit, like a willow. I will support this motion. Thank you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Poirier. Further debate? Seeing no further debate, all those in favour of government motion 26 1/2? Those opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Okay, on Liberal motion 27?
Mr Sorbara: Withdrawn.
The Chair: Withdrawn?
Mr Sorbara: We have another plea to make.
The Chair: On Liberal motion 28?
Mr Sorbara: Yes.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara moves that subsection 6(2) of the act, as set out in subsection 1(2) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(2) A bylaw of a municipality that was in force under this or any other act immediately before the coming into force of subsection 1(2) of the Retail Business Establishments Statute Law Amendment Act, 1991 and that relates to the opening or closing of a retail business establishment on holidays continues in force until the third anniversary of that subsection coming into force or until the bylaw is repealed, whichever is first."
Mr Sorbara: I want you to support this one, and I want you to understand the problems that arise for the people in Windsor if you do not support this one. Look what has happened in Windsor. Under the law that exists right now, they voted in favour of more or less allowing stores to stay open on Sunday. I think some stores are still not permitted to stay open, but more or less the retailer has an option to stay open on Sunday.
They passed that bylaw in July or late June; I cannot remember which. If we do not put this amendment in, then notwithstanding that they have done that, the very day this becomes law the stores will have to close, because as subsection 2 now reads, bylaws in force on the third day of June 1991 continue in force "until the third anniversary of that subsection coming into force or until the bylaw is repealed, whichever is first." Bylaws that come into force after June are immediately made null and void under subsection 2.
We should not do that to Windsor because its bylaw was put before council before June 3. There was some delay -- I am sure my friend Mr Mills remembers our hearings there -- in considering the bylaw because it was anticipated that the government would be bringing forward a bill. They delayed consideration and they did not get their bylaw passed till after June 3. They should have the same opportunities to have their bylaw continue in force as other communities who have passed similar bylaws; for example, Sault Ste Marie. There is no need to go against the wishes of the people of Windsor and their council on this issue.
I plead with you. It is simple and straightforward. If you pass this, it is basically the Windsor amendment and it allows the retailers of Windsor to continue to open, if they wish, under a bylaw passed legitimately by the city council in the city of Windsor.
1630
Mr Carr: I will be supporting this, and hopefully the government will. It is something practical. I am hoping we will not have to go back to a place like Windsor and start all over again, with all the problems, and rehash something that has been decided, so I will be supporting this motion and I hope the government will as well.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of Liberal motion 28? All those opposed?
Motion negatived.
Mr Sorbara: Can we just send a big thank you to the committee on behalf of the people of Windsor? You have just closed them down again. Congratulations. We will get the press releases out as soon as we can. You had an opportunity to defer to their wishes with this amendment. You just closed them down. There is 14% unemployment in Windsor right now. I was there on the weekend; 14% of the people are out of work.
The Chair: Order, Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: They will thank you for this; they really will. All you had to do was pass this. It just affects the community of Windsor. This is stupidity beyond belief.
The Chair: We will move to government motion 29.
Mrs Mathyssen: Imagine, 14% of people unemployed and someone like you still working.
The Chair: Order, please. Mr Mills.
Mr Mills moves that subsection 7(3.1) of the Retail Business Holidays Act, as set out in subsection 1(3) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(3.1) The minimum fine for an offence under this act, other than for a contravention of subsection 2(2), is $500 for a first offence, $2,000 for a second offence and $5,000 for a third or subsequent offence."
Mr Mills: No debate.
Mr Sorbara: Here you are increasing the fines, just making them heavier and heavier. This is good business stimulation, actually, because storekeepers who stay open on Sunday are evil, demonic people, and if you fine them these big fines, they aggressively go after a larger part of the market. This is a sort of Floyd Laughren bill. This is how we are going to deal with a $2.1-billion shortfall in revenue. Interesting: On the same day as we are talking in question period about a budget that is in shambles because the economy is in shambles, you say: "We're going to fine these guys even more. We're going to spank them hard. Look at these fines: a minimum of $5,000 for a third offence." Some storekeepers are just going to say: "Forget it. This government doesn't want me to do business on Sunday or any other day."
I object to this. I think it is foolish. I think it is unprecedented. If you look at the system of fines that exists under these sorts of provincial offences, you will find that this is out of all proportion and order. Once again, it is driven by the people who send donations in to the New Democratic Party. During the course of the public hearings --
Mr Fletcher: You were hearing things.
Mr Sorbara: Yes, I was hearing things, that is right. I heard from a worker from the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union talk about the fact that they had actually discussed --
Mr Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Was that not ruled on when we were in Kingston at that time?
Mr Sorbara: This is part of my speech. I know where this amendment comes from.
The Chair: You have no point of order.
Mr Sorbara: I am just saying, sir, that during the course of these hearings, we heard a witness say in front of this committee that there were discussions among the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union local "to withhold our donations to the NDP until we get this Sunday shopping matter dealt with." That was the testimony before our committee, the little pressure, "No more donations, no more campaign funds unless you pass the bill we want." This is what they wanted. I heard their submissions. They wanted higher fines, and lo and behold, here it is in the amendments, greater fines for storekeepers.
This is great economic stimulation. Ten per cent of the people in this province are now without work; 10% of the people do not have an opportunity of the kind you and I have. Do you think this stimulates that? Do you think this helps that? This is foolish. This is dumb. We are going to vote against it.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of government motion 29? All those opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: The original government motion 30 has been withdrawn and we are on the replacement government motion 30.
Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Chair: This is the one that has been slipped to us today, the revision, is that right?
The Chair: Yes, Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: My colleague and I are not participating in this. We will return. Can you just send for us when you get beyond this?
Mrs Mathyssen: Why don't you just throw yourself on the floor and stamp your little feet?
Mr Sorbara: We are not going to participate in this.
The Chair: Mr Mills moves that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(3.1) Section 8 of the act, as enacted by the statutes of Ontario, 1989, chapter 3, section 6, is amended by adding the following subsection:
"(1a) In addition to its powers under subsection (1), the Ontario Court (General Division), on the application of any interested person, may order that a retail business establishment close on a holiday to ensure compliance with this act or a bylaw or regulation under this act."
Mr Mills: This amendment allows an interested person to ensure that the business establishment in violation of the act is in fact made to close. What happens now all too often is that a minimum or small fine is levied and the business continues to violate the act. This amendment will stop that. It will order the business to close.
Mr Carr: I too am opposed to this idea, although not as violently as Mr Sorbara. I guess I am not too surprised that the decisions were made. I will not hold anybody in this room responsible, because having dealt with members of this committee and other committees I realize that the shots are not called by the people in this room, and that agreements that may be made in good faith, when they go back to be ratified by the House leader or the whip, are sometimes changed.
We saw that in support and custody where the parliamentary assistant went out on a limb a lot of times and made decisions on his own. Unfortunately, some of them got changed when they went back, so I am not holding anybody responsible for this. I suspect that the people who negotiated and talked about the so-called deal did it in good faith. If you look through your submissions, I suspect the pressure really came from the United Food and Commercial Workers.
Notwithstanding the fact some deals were made, I would like to speak on this. This is one of the things that in this day and age, when we are talking about resources in our court system and when we have such backlogs that people are being sprung for serious crimes such as assault and drunk driving, we are going to throw more into the system.
Some will say it is a different section. The big problem is that we are talking about resources, and if the resources are going to be put towards prosecuting people for being open on Sunday at a time when we are having assault victims and drunk drivers sprung free in this province, I say you are out of touch with the people of this province. When they look at it they will say, "What are the priorities? Should we be having people go to court to debate whether somebody should be open or should we be prosecuting drunk drivers and people who commit assault in this province?" I suspect the vast majority would say we should not be trying to prosecute individuals.
When I look at the time and effort that has been spent and will be spent in the courts dealing with whether somebody can open or not, it is little wonder the public is cynical and sceptical about politicians and the political process. It is absolutely insane that we would open up the door for people to apply to the courts over whether you can open or not.
1640
Very clearly, all this is about the amendments the United Food and Commercial Workers brought in. If you look through the presentation, the original wording was identical to theirs, word for word. You did not even have the wherewithal to change a few of the words. You had to because of the circumstances here, but basically they said, "We want to be able to shut somebody down, to go to court and get an application."
We heard during the period of time when the presentation was made that the police of this province said: "We don't want to be involved in this. We have a 38% increase in serious crime in this province. We have murders that have basically doubled in this very city we're sitting in. We don't want to be spending our time going up and down Spadina Avenue to see who is open and who is closed."
I am very opposed to this. I wanted to get it on the record. Obviously it is going to go through. The decision has been made. The deals that were cut here do not matter because the deals that were cut with other groups supersede them. I am definitely opposed to this and I would like to call for a recorded vote on this motion.
The Chair: Seeing no further debate, all those in favour of the replacement government motion 30?
The committee divided on Mr Mills's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes -- 6
Carter, Fletcher, Mathyssen, Morrow, Mills, O'Connor.
Nays -- 1
Carr.
The Chair: Next is government motion 30 1/2.
Mr Mills moves that subsection 1(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(4) Subsection 8(2) of the act, as enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1989, chapter 3, section 6, is repealed and the following substituted:
"(2) An order under subsection (1) or (1a) is in addition to any penalty that may be imposed and may be made whether or not a proceeding is commenced under the Provincial Offences Act for a contravention of section 2 or of a bylaw or regulation under this act."
Mr Mills: This amendment merely prescribes the procedure that if someone is made to close under the previous amendment, he still can be charged under the Provincial Offences Act, in addition to the court order forcing him to close.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of government motion 30 1/2? All those opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: We will now go back to Liberal motion 12, which was stood down.
Mr Sorbara: Hold on a second. It is withdrawn. We debated that, did we not?
The Chair: Yes, we did. Mr Sorbara withdraws it. We will now go back to Liberal motion 1, which was stood down.
Mr Sorbara moves that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"0.1 Subsection 3(2) of the Retail Business Holidays Act, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1989, chapter 3, section 3, is further amended by striking out `and' at the end of clause (b) and by repealing clause (c)."
Mr Sorbara: Can I just say that this amendment deals with the drugstore issue and the problems that are confronted by large discount drugstores, which we have tried unsuccessfully to remedy during the course of consideration of these deliberations. I appreciate that you may have to make a ruling unfavourable to further consideration of this section, but before you do so, sir, as we are winding down, I want to congratulate those who have struggled to try and get the attention of the government on this issue.
I acknowledge quite freely and frankly that the defect in the act now, which makes an unfair and arbitrary distinction between drugstores over 7,500 square feet and those under 7,500 square feet, is the result of a Liberal law that was passed under Bill 113 about four years ago. I do not think that is reason enough to say we are not going to deal with it today.
I was particularly impressed by the hundreds of workers in those stores who were anxiously pleading with the government to consider this matter. I was impressed by the extent to which the discount drugstore operators argued their case and tried to bring their case to the government. During the course of these deliberations we were given some sense of hope that the government may even respond to the inequities here, and now I am sorry to report that the door has been slammed shut.
I do not think it is sufficient to say, "We will consider that at some other time." That is, first of all, an insufficient answer and, second, it is dishonest to say we will look at it at some later date. The government would not dare open up the Retail Business Holidays Act again during the course of this Parliament. All of us who understand how Parliament works know that to be the case. The only recourse now is for those storekeepers to go to court and pay the huge costs that go with the pursuit of a legal action. That did not have to be the case.
The Chair: A point of order, Mr Morrow.
Mr Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: If you will please correct me on this, I am not sure which amendment Mr Sorbara is referring to, because I have not heard you read an amendment. Am I correct in that?
Mr Sorbara: You know precisely what I am talking about.
The Chair: The Chair is trying to be flexible at this moment, since we are winding down and almost at the end of our deliberations. Before I make my ruling, I will allow a few comments.
Mr Sorbara: The last glimmer of hope on this was that somehow the government would agree to at least put this provision in the regulations so that after further argument the matter could have been changed, if the government decided, by an act of cabinet rather than by an act of the Legislature. Even that door was closed. It is disappointing in the extreme to think of how little opposition MPPs have been able to accomplish during the consideration of this bill. We have to change the system to give MPPs more responsibility in the shaping of public policy.
We acknowledged at the beginning that you wanted to bring in a bill that was more restrictive, but we thought that, in the course of our argument and the matters we brought before you and in the course of matters coming before us through public hearing and the lobbying that has to go on here, this was one of the things we could have changed, that we could have set up some sort of system, because on balance it was so unfair and provided such a grand economic opportunity to those drugstores that come within the provisions. It is such an economic disadvantage to the rest we thought the party that talks about fairness and puts democracy in its very name would have seen this was an opportunity. It could have done it without any blemish, because it was our mistake. It was a Liberal mistake, a Liberal fault.
I am not saying I had all the answers, but if we could have opened up this section and even put it in the regulations, we could have done a little justice to those businesses, and particularly to the workers who work in them.
I am terribly disappointed to report that the battle is over, the struggle has been lost. Those discount drugstore owners are now going to have to pursue court action and it is not a happy day for me to have to end on those notes. I would like you to rule this out of order, sir.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sorbara. Before I make my ruling, Mr Carr would like to make a comment.
Mr Carr: If this had been something we might have had a look at -- I guess I feel the same way and have gone on record that it is unfortunate all the efforts of the people to convince the government have not worked. They have tried everything, all the techniques known to all of us, to try and convince this government. Had they been successful and had this gone forward -- I personally think that if you are going to have a ruling, it should be for all businesses, regardless of size. If you are going to open, they should all be allowed to open. If you are going to close, there should not be discrimination.
It is out of our hands, and now the only people who will benefit from this are the lawyers who will spend time fighting this in the courts of the province. I would have been supporting that, had we got the chance.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Carr. My ruling on Liberal motion 1 is that it is out of order because this section of the act has not been opened.
1650
Mr Sorbara: What about the one you just drove down our throats?
The Chair: Liberal motion 2.
Mr Sorbara: Before I move this, sir, let me describe what this amendment is all about.
This amendment is about acknowledging that you need to have a standard of fairness in determining who can and cannot stay open on Sunday.
In Ontario, under the law as it is now and the law as it will be after this has passed, those who operate bookstores are allowed to stay open. If they sell music in the form of cassette tapes or records -- very few sell records any more -- or compact discs, because they are a bookstore they are allowed to sell those products and that is fine. If they are a video store and rent or sell movies, they can stay open in Ontario. There was a strong lobby from the video store owners and they got the right to stay open. If they sell records, tapes and CDs, that is okay; they can sell those. But if they have a music store, they cannot stay open in Ontario.
You can go out and read a book. You can buy the sequel to Gone With The Wind and you can sit down and read it on Sunday and, if you want, you can go to the video store and get a videotape copy of the movie Gone With The Wind.
Mrs Mathyssen: Does that mean you have given up the pornographic movies you used to watch?
Mr Sorbara: Will you just quit insulting me for a moment? Would you ask her to withdraw that? She said, "Does that mean you have given up watching the pornographic movies you used to watch?"
The Chair: Mrs Mathyssen, would you withdraw it?
Mrs Mathyssen: I withdraw it. It is just that I am confused. Last time it was pornographic movies.
Mr Sorbara: You have not added to the enjoyment of participating on this committee, I say to the member for Middlesex.
You can get a copy of the movie Gone With The Wind and sit down and watch that, but if you want to listen to a taped version of the music from Gone With The Wind, the law says your store cannot stay open. You can read, you can look, but you cannot listen to music.
I brought this amendment here because one music store owner is now subject to some $15,000 in fines because of his own personal situation. He is in a little plaza where the bookstore sells tapes and music and can stay open, and just a few doors down the video store sells tapes and music and can stay open, but his main business is selling music -- Bach and Beethoven and maybe Bachman Turner Overdrive -- and he cannot stay open.
His customers come there on Sunday and the doors are closed, so where do they go? They go to the bookstore, they go to the video store and they buy the music, but he cannot stay open. The police come and they fine him -- $15,000 in fines so far. He talked to the policy people, or at least he had an appointment to talk to the policy people, and they just said: "Sorry, no. We are not going to help you."
What in heaven's name would be wrong with passing this right now, just approving it and allowing music stores to stay open on Sunday? Has the law not been strong enough? Have the unions not deliberated? None of those stores is unionized anyway. It would not be a big deal. Although I know it is out of order, and that is why I have not read it into the record yet, why not do something nice for one small group of storekeepers? Why not do that? Why not say, "We are going to make it fair"?
Entertainment is reading; entertainment is watching movies; entertainment is also listening to music. That would not destroy the common pause day. That would not upset anyone. No retail workers would be forced to work when they did not have to. So I plead with you and I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"0.1 Clause 3(3)(d) of the Retail Business Holidays Act, as enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1987, chapter 36, section 1, is amended by striking out "or periodicals" in the first line and substituting "periodicals or audio recordings."
I am seeking unanimous consent to at least have it considered and put before the committee.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent to put this before the committee? Seeing no unanimous consent, this motion is out of order.
Mr Sorbara: I am done. Thank God it is over.
The Chair: Shall section 1, as amended, carry?
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2:
The Chair: Mr Mills moves that section 39ec of the Employment Standards Act, as set out in subsection 2(1) of the bill, be amended by striking out "or" at the end of clause (a), by adding "or" at the end of clause (b) and by adding the following clause:
"(c) because the employee,
"(i) makes representations in respect of a proposed bylaw under section 4 of the Retail Business Holidays Act at a public meeting under that section;
"(ii) commences or participates in an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board of a bylaw made under section 4 of the Retail Business Holidays Act; or
"(iii) commences or participates in a challenge in any court to a bylaw made under section 4 of the Retail Business Holidays Act."
Mr Mills: I have a couple of brief comments. It is important to protect employees from reprisal for challenging a bylaw, in addition to the other protection provided in the bill, and from reprisal for refusing to work on Sunday or because the employee seeks to enforce his or her rights.
Basically, this provision provides protection to employees who are threatened, disciplined, suspended, laid off, penalized, intimidated or coerced by their employer as a result of refusing or attempting to refuse Sunday or holiday work, commencing or taking part in an appeal of a tourist exemption bylaw to the Ontario Municipal Board, commencing or taking part in a court challenge of the tourist exemption bylaw or participating in a public meeting to consider a tourist exemption bylaw.
The Chair: Further debate? Seeing no further debate, all those in favour of government motion 31? All those opposed?
Motion agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.
Mr Morrow: In closing, now that we have seen Bill 115 pass through the justice committee, I would like to thank everybody. Hansard and Susan Swift, we appreciate it very much. I also want to thank all the people around the province who participated this summer. Greg, I am even going to thank you and your party, and the Tories for all the input they had. I would also like to thank Lisa Freedman.
The Chair: Seeing no further business before the committee, we will adjourn until the call of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1657.