CONTENTS
Tuesday 22 October 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)
Clerk: Freedman, Lisa
Staff: Beecroft, Doug, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1547 in committee room 1.
The Chair: I call the standing committee on administration of justice to order. First we will have the vote on the question: Shall the Chair's ruling be appealed to the Speaker? All those in favour? All those opposed?
Motion negatived.
Mr Sorbara: Recorded vote? Oh, I am sorry.
The Chair: The vote has already been taken, and defeated.
On the next one, a vote on Mr Morrow's closure motion. All those in favour?
Mr Sorbara: Recorded vote.
1548
The committee divided on Mr Morrow's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes/Pour -- 5
Carter, Fletcher, Mathyssen, Morrow, Winninger.
Nays/Contre -- 3
Carr, Poirier, Sorbara.
The Chair: Now we will vote on Mr Morrow's main motion, that we resume consideration of Bill 115. All those in favour? Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
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.
Suite 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: We will now commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 115. The parties have agreed to 10-minute opening statements. Can we have the Solicitor General make his opening remarks?
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, before Mr Pilkey, the Solicitor General, makes his opening statement, can I raise a point of order? I ask the clerk for a copy of the rules so that I can make sure my reference to the point I raise is correct.
I am referring to section 73 of the standing orders of this Legislature and its standing committees. The section comes within part XV of the standing orders, dealing with public bills. Perhaps what I might do is just read the section to my colleagues on this committee. It deals with amendments to public bills and reads as follows:
"When time permits, amendments proposed to be moved to bills in any committee shall be filed with the Clerk of the House at least two hours before the bill is to be considered, and copies of such proposed amendments shall be distributed to all parties."
Mr Chairman, you will be aware that my colleagues and I, on behalf of the Ontario Liberal Party, submitted amendments to you and to the committee several weeks ago for distribution. In fact, we submitted those in anticipation of clause-by-clause consideration on September 16. At that time, my friend the Vice-Chair of this committee, the member for Wentworth East, moved a motion that we postpone indefinitely clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 115. Nevertheless, we did, as I say, submit a number of amendments. As I recall, I do not think the Progressive Conservative Party has submitted any amendments.
Mr Carr: You just got them.
Mr Sorbara: There are amendments? I apologize to my friend Mr Carr. The government has also submitted amendments. I will be making arguments later on, sir, that at least one of those amendments is out of order, but we can take that up later.
I refer to the opening phrase of the section of the standing orders I just read, that is, "When time permits." My argument to you, sir, is that there has been an incredibly long amount of time. Time has permitted the government to submit amendments, and I would like to be advised at this point, sir, whether or not, under the standing orders, the government intends to submit additional amendments to this bill.
This bill has been a very contentious piece of legislation. The government is, in the view of many people in this Legislature and millions of people in the province, about to proceed with a bill that is not in keeping with the best interests of the province and the best interests of retailing in the province, but that is a substantive discussion.
What I would like to know, under that standing order, is whether we are to anticipate further amendments. The problem with proceeding with clause-by-clause at this point is that if the government does not know now what its position is going to be on several sections of this bill, we are better advised simply to postpone consideration until the government has come to a final determination. It would be capricious to begin clause-by-clause and present our arguments on each section, subsection and clause of this bill without any further information about whether or not the government plans to submit amendments. On that point, sir, I would ask that you make a ruling as to whether or not it is appropriate, given the time that has passed, that further amendments be submitted, or at least make an inquiry of the minister as to whether or not further amendments will be permitted.
The Chair: I would say you do not have a point of order.
We are now starting the clause-by-clause. The clerk has now passed out the amendments. The Chair does not know if there will be further amendments coming down. If the Solicitor General would like to respond to that, he may. Amendments can be brought in any time, when time permits.
Mr Sorbara: I just point out again that the section I read says that amendments are to be submitted at least two hours before consideration begins.
The Chair: When time permits. If the Solicitor General wishes to respond, he may. If not, he may start with his opening remarks.
Mr Sorbara: I leave it in your hands.
Hon Mr Pilkey: Mr Chairman and honourable members of the committee, I am pleased to be here today to begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 115. I look forward to constructive and productive debates throughout the committee's consideration of Bill 115 and proposed amendments.
I must thank many of the committee members for their very kind and gracious words the other day as I sat in the visitors' gallery. I thought they were appropriate and correct, and I hope that same spirit of good will emerges here as we continue to go through the amendments and the clause-by-clause.
Bill 115 is fundamentally about maintaining and enriching community life of Ontarians and ensuring that as many people as practically possible can take advantage of the benefits of a common day to pursue personal and family activities. This bill is about protecting the rights of retail workers and small retailers and their families to enjoy a day on which they can relax and rejuvenate from the daily grind and commercialism of the week. It is about recognizing the unique nature and requirements of Ontario's tourism industry, which promotes and enables leisure recreation and family activities.
Bill 115 is not about Sunday shopping; it is about Sunday working. It seeks to improve upon the existing Retail Business Holidays Act in order to ensure that a large sector of Ontario does not have to work in order to provide shopping convenience for other sectors who are able to enjoy a common pause day. It has been stated many times that the principles behind common pause day legislation are not up for negotiation but that the government is open to suggestions on how best to make them a reality.
The government has asked for and has received input both prior to and through the work of this particular committee. We take the public consultative process very seriously on Bill 115 and our proposed amendments are based on both our stated principles and the input received from the general public. I ask that you keep all of this in mind as you continue your deliberations on the bill and proposal for amendments.
I urge the committee as well to move quickly through these deliberations in order to eliminate uncertainty and minimize confusion for retail workers, retailers, municipalities, the tourism industry and the general public. I ask for your co-operation and constructive debate so that the people of Ontario can be assured a fair, enforceable law that enshrines the common pause day in our province.
The sooner we pass legislation, the sooner the municipalities and retailers can enjoy a significantly improved level playing field; the sooner workers and their families can enjoy a day of leisure and family activities; the sooner the tourism industry and municipalities can plan for the development of bylaws which recognize the unique nature of their respective communities.
The government is committed to quick passage of the amended bill and urges you to move quickly in order to correct the situation that now exists because of the flaws in the existing Retail Business Holidays Act and recent delays. I request that all parties move speedily on this particular bill.
As we move ahead during the clause-by-clause examination of Bill 115, the government will introduce and support amendments which address the following:
1. An appeals mechanism through which a tourism exemption bylaw can be challenged. This process will be administered by the Ontario Municipal Board and would ensure that those municipal tourism exemption bylaws are consistent with provincial criteria. The Ontario Municipal Board will make its best efforts to deal with appeals within a 90-day time frame.
2. Protection for workers who challenge tourism exemption bylaws. We believe that employees who feel their quality of life will be adversely affected by such bylaws should be able to challenge them without fear of reprisal.
3. Provision for ensuring that any person with an interest can apply for a court order which would compel a retail establishment to comply with the provisions of the Retail Business Holidays Act.
4. A minimum fine of $5,000 on third and subsequent offences. This clearly demonstrates the seriousness with which our government considers common pause day legislation.
5. A requirement for municipalities to hold public meetings when considering applications for tourism exemptions. This would involve a less formal, more open and accessible procedure than the public hearings called for in the original text of this bill.
1600
We are aware that the issue of drugstores, both with respect to their size and the types of goods they are permitted to sell on holidays, is a continuing concern. We believe the situation requires more public information, not additional legislation at this time.
As I have stated, our government has welcomed public input and we have taken public advice. In response to that input, an advisory group that will assist in the development of the tourism exemption criteria has been established. The criteria will be set out in a regulation made under Bill 115.
This advisory group is composed of representatives from business, labour, tourism, religious and other groups, and it will advise the government on the content of effective tourism exemption criteria. The group is chaired by someone from outside government and is supported by representatives from provincial ministries involved with the development and administration of common pause day legislation. We want to ensure that the criteria which define legitimate tourism areas are developed in partnership with the broad range of affected and interested Ontarians.
Throughout the public hearings on Bill 115, presentations were made to this committee by supporters of common pause day legislation which addressed the significance of the exemption criteria. Fairness and enforceability were chief concerns voiced by many. Establishing a level playing field for those seeking exemption was cited as a priority by presenters expressing a wide range of views. As well, it was made abundantly clear that municipalities want clear direction in the administration of their bylaw-making powers.
The work of this advisory group will greatly assist in the development of clearly understood exemption criteria that protect the tourism industry in Ontario and promote a common pause day for Ontarians. As a former mayor, I recognize the importance of such criteria. This is the most effective means to ensure consistency in the local application of a tourism exemption on a province-wide basis. The development of the exemption criteria should be made as closely as possible in co-ordination with the progress of the bill itself. With that in mind, we will endeavour to bring the efforts of the advisory group and the government to fruition as soon as is possible.
I can tell you now as well that the reference to the chambers of commerce will be removed from the text of any resulting regulation, and that at the chambers' request.
Common pause day legislation is fundamentally about enriching the community life of Ontarians and ensuring that as many people as practically possible can take advantage of the benefits of a common pause day to pursue personal and family activities. The work of this committee and the thoughtful input from the public are helping our government achieve our long-standing commitment to provide common pause day legislation that protects the rights of retail workers while recognizing the unique requirements of the tourism industry in Ontario. Thank you for allowing me to make this statement and to participate in the clause-by-clause deliberations as they now proceed.
The Chair: I believe you have agreed to a few brief questions.
Mr Sorbara: I have a couple of questions arising out of the statement by the minister. The first has to do with the reference in his statement to the so-called drugstore issue. I think, if I recall correctly, the minister said there is need for more public input.
First of all, does he not realize that we had a number of very significant submissions from the public on this subject, from the enterprises affected by the legislation, including small drugstores and large drugstores, and that there has been a rather fulsome debate and an incredible amount of discussion privately on this issue? Given all that, what does he mean in his statement by the necessity for more public input?
Hon Mr Pilkey: Bill 115 did not envisage approaching the drugstore issue. It was not then, it is not now; it does not fall within the four corners of this particular bill. On that basis, I believe it would therefore be required in subsequent legislation, and in order to do that, additional public input and consultation would need to be entertained.
Mr Sorbara: That answer is fine, except that although it did not fall within the four corners, as he says, of this bill, the fact is that there was an incredible amount of debate, there were lengthy submissions and a number of people went through a great deal of difficulty to make their point of view heard. The minister is entirely lacking in credibility on this issue, I am sorry to say.
I just want to make this point. We had virtually no public input on whether or not an individual citizen ought to be able to approach the Ontario Court (General Division) to seek an injunction. I do not remember one public submission seeking that sort of remedy here before this committee, and I attended virtually all of the public hearings; nor have we had any debate on it, nor was the amendment within the so-called four corners of the bill. In fact, the amendment the minister has brought to us is out of order and cannot be considered by this committee.
So I say to the minister, how can he at one point in his remarks say that it is okay to ignore the drugstore issue because it is not in the four corners of the debate, and at the same time put his signature and the authority of his office to an amendment which was not called for during public hearings, is out of order, does not come within the four corners of the bill and cannot be considered by this committee? How do those two things jibe?
Hon Mr Pilkey: Could I inquire through the Chair to the member which amendment the government proposed that in his opinion is not within the four corners of the bill?
Mr Fletcher: We have not placed any yet.
Mr Sorbara: I tell my friend from Guelph that the government has proposed amendments. I will tell you directly, sir, which amendment it is. It is the amendment --
Interjection: The OMB or the court?
Mr Sorbara: Not the OMB.
The Chair: I advise the members I will not be ruling on any amendment until it is moved.
Mr Sorbara: No, I appreciate that.
Hon Mr Pilkey: Perhaps I could assist in this sense, Mr Chairman. The government does not believe that any of the amendments it has brought forward are other than properly before the committee and would fall within the four corners of the bill, and we are prepared to debate that issue if and when it is raised for a decision by the Chair. That is why I do not have any difficulty with my comment about the drugstore issue not falling within the four corners, because we do not accept the premise that other amendments are out of order.
Mr Sorbara: Just to answer the minister's question, the amendment is the one dealing with an application to the Ontario Court (General Division). I will later on be submitting to you, sir, the authority for the proposition that this is entirely out of order, but it is not a difficult argument to make. There are all sorts of rulings by committee Chairs and by legislatures, both federal and provincial, saying that you cannot move an amendment to a section of an act that is not dealt with in a bill.
The Chair: I believe we could go through this debate later on somewhere.
1610
Mr Sorbara: But he is asking me the question. I think it is entirely lacking in credibility that the minister tries to propose here that this amendment is out of order. It amends a section of the Retail Business Holidays Act -- that is, subsection 8(1) -- which is not addressed in the bill. I would just like to hear the authority at this point of the arguments that we are going to have met, because section 8 is not addressed in the bill.
Mr Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Can we not deal with that when we move into clause-by-clause?
Mr Sorbara: Just to finish, sir, he is saying this amendment is in order, and every ruling of every committee would suggest that it is not in order. If he is putting that before this committee now, he has to provide authority, because these are different rules from what this House has been governed by for 130 years.
The Chair: We are not on amendments right now. We are on questions on the opening remarks by the minister.
Mr Sorbara: Okay, I have one more question for the minister then. I just want to ask the minister whether he is proposing during the course of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 115 to bring forward any further amendments for consideration by this committee. It is a yes or no answer.
Hon Mr Pilkey: If the question was asked in one word, I would feel compelled to respond in one word, but since the question was asked in a multiplicity of words, I will take equal advantage and respond in kind. The government has presented the amendments that the committee has to date. If there are any subsequent amendments to be tabled with the committee, that would be done under the rules prescribed, with the proper advance notice.
Mr Carr: I have a question on that same point too, whether you are contemplating bringing forward any amendments.
Hon Mr Pilkey: I could only offer you the same response. The amendments you have are it at this point in time. If there are additional amendments by the government, they will be brought forward and circulated with the proper notice.
Mr Carr: Are any under discussion now before anyone? That is what we are trying to get at. Have you finished the discussions or what?
Hon Mr Pilkey: I cannot really speculate. I can only bring you those amendments that are approved by the government, and at this point in time you are in receipt of those.
Mr Carr: On the question regarding stakeholders, I have your old comments that were going to be tabled. I understand they have changed a little bit. The group that is being put together to take a look at it -- what are the groups, again, if you could spell them out? I missed them.
Hon Mr Pilkey: I think somewhere here I have an exact list, if I can locate it. Basically, they were representatives of business, labour and various ministries who would have a direct interest in this, and certain other individuals who have had an interest in the ongoing development of the bill. I do have that list; actually, I can give you the specific names.
Mr Carr: What I wanted was what the proportion is, if you know that too. But if you give me the list, that would be great.
Hon Mr Pilkey: Yes. It is a variety of individuals, and I do not believe you will find this weighted particularly with any bias.
Mr Carr: As you know, everything falls down into the tourism criteria. That is the whole thrust of the bill. Why did we not take a look at this before we introduced it? Of course, we are going back and changing it now. Everything hinges on the tourism criteria and it is very difficult. Why did we not do this before we went through and introduced the bill? Why was it not done at that time?
Hon Mr Pilkey: I do not know that I can respond to that. As you might appreciate, when the bill was brought to the House for first and second reading, it was under the leadership of the previous minister. Since taking charge of the bill more recently, it was my view and, I believe, a view shared by a large number of people, that the preliminary criteria that were established really set a general direction but were not perhaps of a strength and definition that would be suitable to ensure that the intent of the tourism criteria was being accomplished and achieved. So the government has sought the assistance of people -- and I now have the list of the names if you would like them -- who would appear to be appropriate to make recommendations to the minister and the government. If you wish, I can indicate who they are.
Mr Carr: Or if you just want to make a copy, it might be simpler.
Hon Mr Pilkey: Whatever you wish. I will be pleased to circulate it. Just very quickly it includes: unions, Fairness for Families, the Ontario Federation of Labour, shoe retailers, hotel associations, Canadian Retail Hardware Association, a representative from a municipality which I believe also was or is involved with AMO, a vice-president of the Bay, National Grocers. I think you will find it is fairly balanced.
Mr Carr: As you may know, up in Kingston, I believe, there was some controversy with the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union saying that if it did not get support for the bill, it was going to withhold funds to the NDP, and it said there had been a vote on that. As I look at the amendments that were brought in, a couple of them are the fundamental proposals that the United Food and Commercial Workers had proposed when they said, "If the bill is not changed we are not going to give any money to the NDP." Could you clarify for the record that there was no undue influence on you regarding this?
Hon Mr Pilkey: I do not have any direct knowledge of that whatsoever.
Mr Carr: Do you know the circumstances of what was said in the committee?
Hon Mr Pilkey: No, I do not. I recall some press report or some verbal comment, I believe, during the summer when the committee was out that someone had made a statement of some sort. What exactly it was or whether it was valid or whether it had the support of the labour council or whomever, he said some suggestion was made, but I do not have any direct knowledge of that and I am not aware.
Mr Carr: Just so you know what happened, they said they were going to withhold money unless they got certain things, and it was very important. They had a vote and the vote was negative, but it was put on the table. These recommendations that have come through that you have now tabled this afternoon are the very ones they brought forward. Let us talk about the public perception being that you caved in to the United Food and Commercial Workers. So if you have not looked into it, I suggest you should, because I would like to bring this further.
Hon Mr Pilkey: Let me answer you. I have no direct knowledge of that. I do not believe there has been anything untoward that I am aware of. If this committee was directly involved in the presence of the individual who made any such assertion, I hope the committee would have acted judiciously and legally to resolve any such circumstances.
Mr Carr: I have two letters to the Attorney General, both unanswered, regarding this issue. I have asked the Attorney General to look into it as the top law enforcement officer. I had to do a follow-up.
Hon Mr Pilkey: It has had no impact on me, I can assure you of that.
Mr Carr: Just so you know, the perception out there is that you caved in to it.
Hon Mr Pilkey: No. How much was it, by the way?
Mr Carr: I do not know.
Mr Morrow: I am just going to be very brief, if you do not mind. I would like, first of all, to give you a pat on the back for a job well done. I think you really deserve that. That is from myself and my other colleagues on justice. It has been a long summer. We have hit 11 cities and we have had over 280 submissions. You came on board halfway through. You have done a fine job. You should really be commended. Again, thank you very much. There is no question there, I just wanted to thank the minister.
1620
Mr Poirier: There are two points while you are here, and I appreciate the fact that you are here.
The first point is, I am sure you saw the newspapers last week, "`Ontario Must Pay for Non-Christian Holidays,' Board Says." There were a lot of press clippings pertaining to the right of non-Christians to be able to take time off. From all the reading I have done on this particular topic, this seems to be indicating the wave of the future.
In your presentation you talked about, among other things, a level playing field. I was always under the impression that your party wanted to protect those who may be different, who are not part of the majority. With the ruling that the Ontario government should pay workers for the days they take off to celebrate non-Christian holidays, and for those Christians who celebrate holidays that are not on Sunday, with that in mind, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution, would you explain to me what you will say to those people who do not have Sunday as their day off?
You are giving protection to those who have Sunday as their day off for religious reasons under Bill 115. What are you going to tell the other ones? How the heck are you going to explain that to them? In 1991, and soon 1992 -- and I say this very much in sincerity -- I would not want to be in your shoes to try to explain that. I respect you very much personally, but especially for a party that has always claimed from the rooftops that it puts everybody on the same footage, with these kinds of decisions coming up right now, how are you going to do that? What are you going to tell them? I would like to know.
Hon Mr Pilkey: I think that is a fair and reasonable question. I cannot purport to speak knowledgeably with respect to those rulings and those issues that do not fall directly within my ministry, but I understand the context in which you raise them.
I suppose one way to solve that circumstance would be to say that because there is some level of difficulty surrounding the question you raise, perhaps the only answer would be not to have a common pause day at all. While that would be one way to deal with those exceptions, the government is committed to a common pause day, as imperfect as it is, that will hopefully reach out in at least a majority way to achieve the goal of having that common pause day for individuals and families on that common day of rest. I would have to agree with you in admitting that it would not cover each and every circumstance, but to the extent that it does so in the best way that it can in this pluralistic society, I think it is the best we can offer at this time.
Mr Poirier: We will surely be discussing that at some further point, but I want to make you aware that I am going to expand on that particular point. I am very upset by this. Call it what you will, it is discrimination. You know that and I know that, and they know that especially. I want to expand upon that.
Hon Mr Pilkey: There is one other element to that question. We do not need to explore it now. You did not raise it and it is probably not appropriate for me to, but there is the other question, on religious grounds, of the proprietor. If there is another day that is held in reverence, they can alternate, switch that off.
Mr Sorbara: Not the workers.
Hon Mr Pilkey: Not the workers.
Mr Poirier: We will definitely expand on that with your representatives on the other side at some point in the clause-by-clause.
Would you go back for me? I was just trying to grab this on the fly. Pertaining to the appeals mechanism, you mentioned the Ontario Municipal Board. I have had discussions with your colleagues in this committee in private and even in public. As the former mayor of a fair-sized city with a lot of experience with the OMB, do you honestly believe the OMB, the way it is now or even if you expand it, can handle the overload that will be thrown at it from the appeals mechanism that with your goodwill you want to bring forward in this law? Do you honestly believe the OMB can handle it?
Hon Mr Pilkey: If the Ontario Municipal Board was going to handle these challenges to tourism exemption bylaws in the normal sense and with the normal mechanisms, I would say I do not believe it could. I believe there would be such a delay as to render the circumstance unworkable.
However, the Ontario Municipal Board has indicated that it will use a special, unique, alternative -- whatever phrase we might want -- approach to the tourism exemption bylaw challenges: They will expedite them. They will use their very best efforts to deal with them within 90 days. In that way there can be certainty to the bylaws the municipalities pass and certainty to the applicants who have applied for them.
If the Ontario Municipal Board fails to do that, I would agree with the concern you raise that there could be great difficulty in Tourism Ontario. But it is our understanding and our belief that they will make those special efforts, they will go that extra mile, and they will achieve that within or very close to those 90 days, which then of course will render the problem not a problem at all.
Mr Poirier: With the existing resources of people, staff and budgets?
Hon Mr Pilkey: No. My understanding is that they are going to have to call on additional staff and make some additional expenditures in order to accommodate that. Not knowing the inside administration of the Ontario Municipal Board, but given that it has a large backlog now and municipalities experience significant delays before they can get cases heard, if it was going to attempt to only use those tools, there would be a problem. But their indication to us is that they are going to use those alternative methods to achieve the desired result.
Mr Poirier: Do you have any estimate of the extra cost that could entail per year?
Hon Mr Pilkey: I do not know what that cost will be exactly, but there were some estimates at some point in time in some printed material that was circulated or obtained, in the $1-million range. There was a question in the House similar to that, and I responded at the time that when you look at the $13-billion to $15-billion marketplace in tourism, that amount of money, when weighed against the kind of business and sales and taxes and all the rest that would be generated in that context, would be an incidental expense. I am not saying that $1 million is incidental. If I had that, I would not be before the committee today. I would be elsewhere. But it would be incidental when marked against the proceeds that will be achieved as a result of the tourism exemptions.
Mr Poirier: I have many more questions, but thank you for all those answers.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The minister and the government are playing fast and loose with this committee. The minister said, if I might paraphrase, "Well, there might be some more amendments." I do not see how we can proceed on clause-by-clause until we know what the government's position is.
I do not know what standing order this comes out of, and I do not know what he is going to discuss in cabinet tomorrow, and I do not know what they discussed in caucus today, but a month ago the government put this off because it wanted to have further discussions. A motion was brought to this committee asking us to put it off indefinitely and we agreed because we thought that maybe the government was discussing a few things. It is obvious from the answers of the minister that they are still discussing some things, that maybe they will allow Christmas shopping between Thanksgiving and Christmas. They are not going to deal with the drugstore issue, but maybe they will agree that music stores are unfairly discriminated against.
The whole tradition of committees of this place is that we get down to the business of clause-by-clause when the position of each of the three parties, including the government party, is crystallized. I have told the Vice-Chair and the whip of this committee on numerous occasions that I would be willing to proceed on clause-by-clause when the government's position is finally determined and it is crystallized, but for the minister to come here today and say, "Well, maybe there will be some more amendments," makes it very difficult to proceed. I just do not see how we can do it.
Mr Morrow: What is wrong with being honest?
Mr Sorbara: Mark Morrow says, "What is wrong with being honest?" I appreciate honesty, but why do we not just stop for a while until the government makes up its mind?
Mr Morrow: The taxpayers want us to proceed with this legislation.
1630
Mr Sorbara: I accept that. They are allowed to bring forward a common pause day, but do you not understand what a difficult predicament that puts us in? I want to level with you, Mr Chairman. I would be willing to proceed through the four sections of this bill in a matter of an hour or two if the government indicated that it would bring forward certain amendments. I would deal with it even more quickly if the government indicated it was prepared to support some of our amendments or some of the third party's amendments. But to ask us to proceed, after the minister has testified here that he is not sure yet whether further amendments are going to be brought forward, simply ignores the way in which a committee like this can proceed expeditiously.
I know the clerk is telling you that this is not a point of order. I am just asking you to indulge me for a moment. I want to put it on the record.
The Chair: All I can say right now is, thank you for your point of view. You do not have a point of order. If any amendments are forthcoming, I imagine they will be done expeditiously. Right now we are still taking questions on the minister's opening statements.
Mr Harnick: I recall reading that there would be 157 more people hired by the Ontario Municipal Board in order to handle the anticipated number of appeals. Is there some truth to that figure that you are aware of?
Hon Mr Pilkey: I am not aware of that figure at all. I do not know that figure. I have not heard that figure. It would be my impression that the initial volume of municipal bylaw exemptions would probably be dealt with very soon after the passage of the legislation and the bulk of them would soon dissipate. The number that would be coming through would be rather small. I suspect they will have quite a mouthful in the beginning and they will have to gear up to deal with that, but once that is cleared, I doubt whether this would stand as much of a problem.
Mr Harnick: Have you any idea, in studies you have done, how many appeals there are likely to be, how many thousands of them or hundreds of them there are likely to be?
Hon Mr Pilkey: No, I do not. There has been a suggestion from some historical data that less than 150 municipal bylaws have been passed over the past 16 years on the Retail Business Holiday Act. If it is in keeping with that, it will not be a problem. As I indicated, the board will deal with whatever number there are, but it is my personal belief that after a reasonably short time the volume will be a non-issue.
Mr Harnick: I gather from what you are telling me that you anticipate very few municipalities will avail themselves of the opportunity to seek an exemption. How do you know that?
Hon Mr Pilkey: I do not know that. All I know is that it is very important that those exemptions or appeals to municipal bylaw exemptions be heard promptly. It is necessary to the prompt and efficient operation of the tourism industry in Ontario. The board has indicated to us that it will use its best efforts, quite apart from the normal stream, to deal with them within 90 days. I believe they should be supplied the resources to do just that. I am being repetitive, but I believe there may be a sudden rush of them in the beginning that will taper off to a very minimal number subsequently.
Mr Harnick: I am glad to hear you are concerned about having those appeals heard expeditiously. When the legislation is challenged under the charter, which it will be, will you then ensure that you will expedite an appeal to the Court of Appeal so we can have this legislation determined without forcing litigants to go through years of preliminary decisions until they get to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada?
Hon Mr Pilkey: I do not feel equipped to respond to that question. I have counsel present if that would help clarify it. If it is a judgement of a political nature, I am sorry, I would have to defer until I could review that question. I could not stop anybody from taking action.
Mr Harnick: I am asking if you would help someone so that you could get an appeal about this legislation. Without question, there are going to be charter challenges to it.
Hon Mr Pilkey: Would I help somebody who is appealing against our legislation? No.
Mr Harnick: No, I am not asking whether you would help them, but would you ensure that the appeal was expedited as fast as possible so we could see whether it was constitutional or not? Are you going to make a litigant start out in the trial courts and then have an appeal from that decision to the Court of Appeal and then another appeal from that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, or will you just refer it, which the Attorney General could and should do and certainly would do if it was your recommendation?
Hon Mr Pilkey: I think it would go through the normal process. But the premise we are operating from is that this bill is in fact constitutional. I think the times it has been tested, it has stood the test.
Mr Sorbara: It has never been tested.
Hon Mr Pilkey: The times it has been to court.
Mr Sorbara: Your bill has never been tested.
Mr Harnick: What consultations did you undertake to determine that Sunday would be the preferred common pause day of this government?
Hon Mr Pilkey: As I indicated, when the bill was initially brought before the House it was under the previous minister. I am not aware of what determinations were taken at that particular time. However, when I was before the committee previously I believe Mr Kwinter or one of the other members asked me a similar question and I responded that traditionally Sunday has been the common pause day in this province and that is the day it would mean, in my estimation.
Mr Harnick: So it is the government's position that you are going to maintain the status quo of the Christian majority in terms of the common pause day.
Hon Mr Pilkey: I am not saying it is religious. I just think that is the majority common day.
Mr Harnick: The majority of whom?
Hon Mr Pilkey: Of the citizens of Ontario.
Mr Harnick: On what basis do you say it is the majority? If it is not religion, what other area makes them the majority stakeholders?
Hon Mr Pilkey: I can only offer you the explanation, on a personal basis, that I have been a resident of this province for 46 years and, as far as I know, traditionally it has been Sunday.
Mr Harnick: But traditionally based on what? Is it traditionally because that is the day most people go to church, or is it traditionally because that is the day most people go to ball games, or is it traditionallybecause that is the day most people go to the movie theatre? I do not know why you are afraid to give me the real answer -- because the tradition is based on a religious tradition. I do not know why you are afraid to say that. I do not know what other tradition there is that makes Sunday a special day.
Hon Mr Pilkey: I guess everyone can put his own interpretation on it. School is out on Sunday. It is a day that traditionally people have spent for their leisure activities with their family or pursued individual pursuits. You are asking me as a lifelong citizen of Ontario what is their traditional day. The answer is obvious: Sunday.
Mr Harnick: Saturday people do not go to school, and probably the vast majority of people do not work. So you have Saturday or Sunday as a choice, and for some reason you do not wish to acknowledge -- you are the NDP minister and all of a sudden you are saying "personally." I do not care what your opinion is personally; I care about what your opinion is as a member of the government representing the Ministry of the Solicitor General, because you are the minister. What you care about personally is of no interest to me whatsoever and none of my business, but as minister it is something that interests me. I do not know why, on the basis of the criteria you laid out, you picked Sunday instead of Saturday.
1640
Hon Mr Pilkey: I will not repeat my answer and you did not want to hear my personal answer. The government position is identical to what I offered as my own. I do not accept either that there are not an awful lot more people working in retail stores on Saturday in Ontario than there ever were on Sunday. I do not have the statistical proof, but just by actual observation I think everyone would agree that your point is not well taken.
Mr Harnick: You certainly have not convinced me about what tradition it is you are referring to. I do not know why you are reluctant to say it is the religious tradition of the majority, because that is obviously what your answer is except you are couching it in terms of not wanting to offend minorities. Let me tell you that the Christian majority is something that I think communities have respect for, but choosing Sunday shows a total lack of respect for the minorities in this province if you are looking for an honest pause day. The reality is that you cannot find an honest pause day unless you take religion out of it and I do not think you can do that.
Hon Mr Pilkey: All I can add is that my understanding is that the legislation has been upheld to be secular; in other words, not religious. I appreciate everyone's entitlement to his own view, but just because that is not my answer and it is not the answer the member likes he should not attempt to substitute his opinion for mine. I am trying to be fair about that.
The Chair: One last questioner, Mr Fletcher, and then we will proceed to the opening statement by the Liberals.
Mr Fletcher: Thank you, Mr Pilkey, for being here today. Can you make legislation that is going to appease every religious group, every ethnic group, every group that makes up Ontario? Is this law going to do that?
Hon Mr Pilkey: I have not found a piece of legislation that went through this House that ever did that on any topic, so it certainly would be very difficult. As I said when I answered Mr Poirier, I acknowledge the point he made and I gave an explanation as best one can. Short of not having a common pause day at all I do not know how one could address that. But in a circumstance as imperfect as it is, it is designed to deal with the majority who traditionally would like to have a common pause day in this province. It has traditionally been Sunday.
Mr Fletcher: As far as the formulation of the amendments is concerned and after listening to what Mr Sorbara was saying, as far as the procedure and the process are concerned, we came, we went back to discuss it again, we discussed it with caucus, discussed it with cabinet and discussed it with the committee. If I remember correctly, there have been four or five meetings where this has been discussed. As far as you are concerned, does the government have a position now?
Hon Mr Pilkey: Yes. The government's amendments -- and this is what I said earlier -- are properly before the committee. If an occasion arises that there would happen to be, and I am not saying there would or would not, any additional amendments, they will properly be served to the Clerk, distributed with the appropriate advance time to the members and hopefully dealt with, all according to the rules and regulations.
The Chair: Opening statement now by the Liberal caucus?
Mr Morrow: Just on a point, please. With the indulgence of my friends across the floor, would it now be okay that we move the parliamentary assistant, Gord Mills, to the front of the room to answer questions during clause-by-clause?
Mr Fletcher: It sounds like a good idea to me too.
The Chair: If he chooses to. The minister will be remaining, though. Opening statement by the Liberal caucus, Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, I am going to keep my remarks limited to about 10 minutes on this opening statement. I am required to advise you, sir, that my statements and the debate on clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 115 are going to be lengthy in the extreme. I want to tell you why that is. I am going to personally dedicate myself to making this bill the most difficult bill that the government has to pass in this session, and I want to tell you why that is. In part, it is because of the content of the bill. It is a bad bill. It flies in the face of what the people of Ontario want and what they expect from a New Democratic Party government, not a party interested in maintaining all the good traditions but a new, reformist, New Democratic Party government.
But that is just half of it, and if it were just that, I think we should just get on with it and pass this damnable piece of legislation. But what has so irritated me is the way in which the government and the members of this committee and, I am sorry to say, the minister have conducted themselves in respect of how we proceed here.
We were prepared a month and a week ago to begin clause-by-clause consideration and we have been coming back here week after week. Some people decided to forgo a holiday in that week before the Legislature resumed to come and consider clause-by-clause, and the government said, "Well, let's just put it off indefinitely."
We are asked now to begin clause-by-clause consideration of a bill, and the government's position has not firmed up. "We don't know," the minister said, "whether there are going to be any further amendments." I have said to the minister privately, I have said to the Vice-Chair privately, I have said to the parliamentary assistant privately, "We are prepared to move ahead on this bill when we know what your position is." Yesterday we were forced to end debate because of a closure motion. A week ago the government moved a motion to adjourn without any debate at all. Today the minister says, "Well, there might be some more amendments."
I invite you to visit the standing orders, which are designed to allow committees to proceed with consideration once the three parties have a view on the matter. I do not know what you talked about in caucus today and I do not know what you talked about in committee, but I think it is just a matter of pure and simple respect not to force members into clause-by-clause consideration when the position has not crystallized. We are not arguing here on behalf of some interest group. We are trying to formulate public policy. We are trying to pass a law that will accommodate the people of Ontario. The United Food and Commercial Workers' interest is represented in the amendment. The interest of the lobby groups who say "We must keep Sunday very closed" is represented in the bill itself. But our job here as legislators is to try to improve public policy. How in the world are we supposed to go ahead and do that when the government's position is not even quite clear yet?
I am going to save until later a rather more thorough examination of what is wrong with this bill, but in my opening remarks I just want to tell the minister that all of the rhetoric about this not being a bill based on religion -- he said today it is not even a bill dealing with Sunday shopping, it is about retail workers and Sunday working -- is about the stupidest, I am sorry to say, kind of argument that could be made in this committee at this point.
1650
Have a look at the bill. I invite everyone to read the final clause of the bill. It says clearly that no retail worker -- this is the group we are trying to protect -- who does not want to work on Sunday has to work on Sunday. There is pretty stiff protection in here, and the minister is providing an amendment to make it even stiffer. He put it in his statement. By the way, I will tell the minister that when a minister comes and makes a statement before this committee of this sort, as a matter of courtesy copies of that statement are distributed to the lowly members of the committee. It is a tradition. It is protocol, but you do not need to do it.
But you said in your statement, Minister, that this is about retail workers, that we do not want retail workers to have to work on Sunday. So you put in the bill an absolute prohibition prohibiting under any circumstances whatsoever any retail worker from having to work on Sunday. I would ask the minister and the committee what the rest of the bill is all about. Why are we closing the stores if the bill intends to protect the retail workers and the retail workers are fully protected? What is the rest of the bill about? You and your members say: "It's about Sunday work. We don't want the workers to have to work on Sunday." You have done that -- I repeat, thorough, absolute, airtight legal protection -- and yet all the stores that just might want to open for economic reasons or for reasons of culture or for reasons of religion or for any other reason whatever are forced to close.
I just want to tell the minister that it does not make any sense. It is like saying to someone who does not want to participate in a race that the best thing to do is to call off the race. Yet in your instance, to carry through with the analogy, you have already told the participants in the race that they are going to win the race, they do not have to work; there can be no retaliation whatever.
I think that is why people have such disrespect and such cynicism for politicians. You stand up on your high horse and you say, "We're going to protect retail workers," and so you protect retail workers, and then in addition to protecting retail workers you say all the stores have to close where they would have worked anyway. What is that all about? It is like saying that in order to ensure the health and safety of workers at the workplace we are going to close the workplace down.
Why are we doing this? Why are we kidding ourselves about what we are really trying to do here? At least if the government would stand up and say there is still a little bit of political benefit to be gained by playing to that audience, the Gerald Vandezandes of the world and the others who think we should not allow people to buy things on Sunday when they want to buy things on Sunday -- why not just stand up and admit that the government is playing to that audience, notwithstanding that it is unenforceable and that stores will open because the marketplace will dictate that stores will open? Why not simply stand up and acknowledge that this is what you are doing?
It is so hypocritical to say that you are protecting retail workers -- and, by the way, not the retail workers who work in this wonderfully different world called tourism, whatever that is; not those retail workers. They are second-class retail workers. They do not deserve the protection of this act, except, you know what? They do not have to work either on Sunday. They can refuse to work, but their stores are going to open, so who really is second class? What about the retail worker who wants to work at the A&P on Sunday and does not get the opportunity, whereas the retail worker in the tourist shop gets an opportunity to work?
If you were true to your faith, if you were true to your rhetoric, if you were true to your principles, you would bring forward a law protecting retail workers. What does this bill do? It does something completely different. It flies in the face of the fact that, community by community, there is a standard that can be established as to whether stores will open or close and to what extent stores will open or close, not based on some nonsensical, unenforceable tourism criteria but on the realities of what happens in the community.
Once we get into clause-by-clause I am going to tell you about how poorly this is going to work. But let me remind the other members of the committee -- the minister is already committed to all of this -- that when you pass this bill, every store that is now authorized to open on Sunday in Windsor, in a tough market, is going to have to close. Every store now open on Sunday in Sault Ste Marie, a tough market, is going to have to close. Will we get a common pause day there? Are you kidding? The trouble in Windsor and Sault Ste Marie is that workers do not have a common pause day; they have a common pause week and a common pause month and a common pause year because there is no work there.
So what do we get? We get a government that says: "All the stores should be closed. That way we'll protect the retail workers and we'll let the businesses go out of business; we'll let people who otherwise could maybe just eke out a living wallow in their common pause day."
It is nonsense. Do you know how bad a piece of nonsense it is? This bill says -- read it right here -- the governments that are going to be considering these things, the municipalities, when considering a bylaw have to take into consideration -- "into account" to quote the bill -- the principle that holidays should be maintained as common pause days. The government does not have the courtesy, the guts or the intelligence to tell the municipalities what a common pause day is. They will not define it in the act; there is no definition. The municipalities are going to sit there and say: "Should this store open? Should this store close? I don't know. We've got to take into consideration the New Democrats' common pause day. And what is that? We don't know."
There is no common pause day for Inco; they are going to manufacture nickel. There is no common pause day for Stelco; they are going to manufacture steel. There is no common pause day for nurses; they are going to be with their patients. There is no common pause day for flight attendants; they are going to work on aircraft. There is no common pause day for people who work in tourist shops; they are going to be open. What is this common pause day? Would someone from the government tell us what a common pause day is in statutory form?
This bill is so badly crafted and so poorly thought out as to make it unbelievable. But what is worse, I will tell my friend Mr Mills, who is now the parliamentary assistant and is going to be carrying it, is the way you have treated us. You have treated us badly. You have invoked closure on us on at least two occasions, I believe. You refuse and the minister himself refuses to tell us what sections he is considering for further amendment, yet you force us into clause-by-clause.
I want to make it perfectly clear to all of you that to the extent that you affront and insult opposition members you will have difficulty passing legislation. This thing could have been entirely different. Your Vice-Chair, parliamentary assistant or the minister himself could have said, "Take off your Monday and Tuesday afternoons or go on with the advocacy acts until we have come to a final conclusion," but we have been jerked around and jerked around. One day we are told, "We're going to proceed." The next day we are told, "There are further amendments in the works, so stand down those sections."
Mr Fletcher:. Baloney. You wouldn't let us.
Mr Sorbara: My friend the member for Guelph says "Baloney." You ask Morrow whether it is baloney. You ask the minister whether it is baloney. Yesterday I was told we could stand down sections because there were other amendments coming. Is that baloney?
Mr Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Chair: We spent over two and a half days in here on a Liberal amendment to my motion, so who is doing the stalling?
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Morrow. You do not have a point of order.
Mr Sorbara: My time is more than expended. I said I would speak for 10 minutes; it is now 15. I just want to tell the government that if it expects expeditious passage of this bill, it ought to change the style -- and I hope the substance, but particularly the style -- in which it treats opposition members. We are perfectly prepared to proceed on clause-by-clause if the government ever identifies what its final position is on this bill. You could bring forward some amendments which would allow economic opportunity or economic development to be a criterion. You could pass amendments that would satisfy the dilemma of certain small sectors of the retail economy, like music stores and larger drugstores. You could bring forward amendments that would acknowledge that we need different strokes for different folks around Ontario because of different economic circumstances. You could treat the real substance of the issue and, while you are at it, you could change the style in which you approach opposition members and their concern.
We are not speaking and delaying here for the good of our health. We think there could be significantly better public policy on this issue. We appreciate that you won the election and you have now a right to proceed with trying to implement some sort of common pause day. You campaigned on it and that is fair. In committee we could have had the opportunity to shape and mould. Every time I have talked to members about this they always refer me to the minister, they always refer me to someone else. Today I was referred to the government House leader. I said, "Are there going to be any amendments?" "Talk to the government House leader."
Mr Morrow: That is fair.
Mr Sorbara: My friend says that is fair. What does the government House leader have to do with it? Are we going to negotiate amendments based on time allocation? Is it coming to that? Okay. All I am telling you is that three and a half years from now the people of Ontario will remember. In a world that is changing dramatically, in a world where, as was absolutely clear from our public hearings, most of Ontario wanted you to back off and allow them to make their own choices on Sunday, we had a bill based on the negotiated needs and criteria and preferences of the government House leader. No member of this committee from the government side expressed any real interest in dealing with the real substance. On every occasion that we proposed substantive amendments we were told to see the government House leader.
Mr Chairman, I move adjournment of this debate.
The Chair: All in favour of adjournment?
Mr Sorbara: I call for a 20-minute bell.
The Chair: We have a 20-minute division.
The committee recessed at 1704.
1725
The Chair: All those in favour of adjournment? Opposed?
Motion negatived.
The Chair: Carry on with opening statements from the Progressive Conservative caucus now.
Mr Carr: I was going to say earlier here, and I will not change my remarks, that one of the things people said happens as a result of committees is that people come closer together. I think for those who spent time this summer that was the case, even though we had that little dust-up at the end which may have changed it a little bit. Personally, I think it was a good opportunity, my first as a member, to spend an extended period travelling together across the province. It was an enjoyable process.
Having said that, like Mr Sorbara before me, the difficulty I have had in this entire process is that we had a piece of legislation that was badly flawed in the beginning, and all of us hoped that as a result of the hearings in the summer there would be an improvement.
What we have with the amendments, as I look through them, is that they have actually taken a bad bill and made it worse. I had hoped to introduce a motion to express my feelings but the clerk informs me it would be ruled out of order. But I will quote from it because I think it outlines my feelings on this bill. The bill as it stands, even with these amendments, is so flawed that I believe it will not be able to be implemented, applied and enforced consistently and fairly. We heard this during a lot of the testimony and, as people will reflect and remember, people on both sides of the issue did not like it. Those who wanted Sunday shopping were opposed to this and had a tremendous number of recommendations, as did the other side. When we look at it, the government did very little other than to add more bureaucracy to it, like the Ontario Municipal Board.
As I was going to point out in the motion, the bill was defective in terms of design. It was originally mistaken in terms of its intent and there is no way this piece of legislation can be redeemed through the piecemeal amendment process that we are looking at. Taking a look at the amendments, nothing has changed.
As I pointed out many times in our deliberations, the bill did not have and has not had support among the population. People on both sides of the issue were opposed to it, and I think any objective individual will know that. Everyone on both sides of the issue said it was flawed for different reasons. Then we have the new amendments that came out on behalf of the government, which did very little to change that.
You will see where we are coming from when you get a chance to go through our amendments. We are taking a look at it and saying, "Okay, the first thing we should do with this piece of legislation is take it back and start all over again." What we are attempting to do in some of our motions is take this bad legislation and improve it.
As such, the fundamental motion we will be speaking to is with regard to the tourism criteria. I suspect our motion will not pass. We had hoped to have it entrenched in the legislation, for a lot of different reasons. In the past I have talked about how Mr Kormos in opposition and Mr Phillips went across the province on the Police Services Act and talked continually about how things should not be left to regulations, particularly when it is so fundamental to the bill as these tourism criteria are. We would like to see that entrenched in the legislation. That will not happen now because you have a committee that is going to take a look at it. Of course, that was what the United Food and Commercial Workers called for way back.
When you look at our amendments, also, the square footage will be taken out as a result. The basic feeling is, if you are going to have something set up for a tourism exemption, it should be a tourist area, whether it is 10 square feet or 7,800 square feet.
I note that the new chair of the tourism advisory group, when he made his presentation with the union -- it was Hamilton -- said that the one area where they differ is, "If you are going to proceed, then we do not want to have the square footage in there. We do not want Sunday shopping" -- to paraphrase them -- "but if it does come in, we do not want to have the restrictions." I think that is one of the areas where some of the court challenges will come in terms of discrimination between the square footage.
To my horror, when I found the government's amendments coming through, the Ontario Municipal Board was going to be used. As I pointed out to the minister in my questioning last week, in his statement that was to be made on September 30, the costs are in the back portion of the question-and-answer, and it says they will spend about $1 million to implement that. The problem is that they are resources that could better be used in other areas, and we have all heard about the backlogs at the Ontario Municipal Board.
As well, I had the pleasure, as a new MPP, of spending my first day at a rent review hearing this morning. We sometimes laugh at the delays we have here. It started at 10 o'clock in the morning. It adjourned at 11:45 and the only thing that had been decided -- well, it had not been decided at 11:45 -- was that they did not know if they were even going to continue that day. They spent whatever amount of time debating on whether there should be an adjournment because one of the lawyers was not there, and they went back and forth.
At something that is put together very simply, like the rent board, where we say, "We're going to put this mechanism in place where disputes can be settled," they spend literally all morning deciding whether they are going to even proceed. In that respect it is not unlike what sometimes happens in the Legislature and some of the committees.
We talk about putting together another level of bureaucracy to go to and, as you know, this was something that was put in by a couple of the groups as being another hurdle to those who want to remain open. The feeling is that if you put up another hurdle in there, another appeal process, it will make it more difficult to go through.
The advisory group that has been struck was another recommendation that came in. As I alluded to in my questions to Mr Pilkey, the problem I have is that, first of all, the appeal process as well as the advisory group were things that were called for by the United Food and Commercial Workers. It was interesting to note their presentation, which was done by Mr Jerry Clifford, at page 6. I do not know the date it was done, but I guess Peterborough is where Jerry did it. Then you look at the government motion. The wording is identical. The only word that has been changed has been the Supreme Court versus the Ontario Court. If you look at it, the wording is literally identical. I checked with my colleague who is a lawyer, and they did not even have, I guess, the smarts to change it a little bit. The wording is identical, the government motion as well as the United Food and Commercial Workers' wording, so somebody just lifted it.
We all know what happened in Kingston where the United Food and Commercial Workers said it was a very serious matter and they talked about in the executive withholding money to the NDP. They voted against that, but the fact is, it was now out on the table. Now what we have is a particular group saying, "If we don't get what we want, we're not going to give the money." Then the government turns around and its motion is identical in the wording. Then they say to us, "No, there was nothing that was" --
Interjection: Oh, come on.
Mr Carr: The concern people will have is that during that period of time people were saying, "If you don't do what we want, we might withhold money," and then the amendment that comes in is identical, exhibit A and exhibit B, if you will.
Mr Morrow: Is this a court of law now or something?
Mr Carr: So the perception would be, if somebody was to look at it -- and I guess the government could argue that the two opposition parties might not look at it objectively, but to the public out there that knows the story, when you lay it in front of them and say, "Here's a group that threatened to withhold money" -- and then what happens? The amendment that they bring in, they do not even have the smarts to change the wording a little bit other than the --
Mr Sorbara: The conclusion is irresistible.
Mr Carr: This committee was the one that looked at the conflict of interest when the Premier came in and sat in that chair, unless it was upstairs, in front of us and said: "What we're talking about is the perception of the public. That is what is important: the perception of the public."
Mr Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The statement made by the member opposite is not exactly the way it was when he says they threatened to withhold money from what we were doing.
Mr Harnick: That is not a point of order.
Mr Fletcher: I think if he remembers correctly, the motion was put and then it was lost.
The Chair: You do not have a point of order, Mr Fletcher.
Mr Carr: It was lost, and we had a tremendous amount of debate. As I mentioned earlier, I have two letters in to the Attorney General asking his office to take a look at it with the wording that was there. I sent to him copies of the Hansard to take a look at it. Not being a lawyer, I think that is the way to proceed. I also sent a letter to the Speaker, but I understand that probably unless the committee requested -- and as you know, the vote was such that the government carried the day on that particular vote, so I do not expect the Speaker to do anything with it.
The unfortunate thing is, getting back to where I was, that the Premier, during the conflict-of-interest discussions in front of this committee, said that what we are talking about is the perception of the public. That is what we have to deal with; that is why we are coming in with the most draconian piece of legislation in terms of conflict of interest -- because we want the perception. Then they turn around on another piece of legislation and make it so simple that the average person looks at it and says, "Well, maybe there's something here." I will leave that up to the judgement of the public and to the Attorney General to make the ruling on that.
Unfortunately, the problem we have as we sit here today is that everything that was asked for in terms of one particular group has been brought in, and I submit that it creates a very serious problem for this government. It was kind of ironic, of course, that the last campaign was run by the Premier of the day accusing the previous government of having close ties with special interest groups, and yet we have a situation where people came before a committee and basically talked about withholding funds, and then we see that the amendments that come in are identical to what they asked for. I think the Premier is going to have to reflect on that particularly. We looked at the conflict of interest in February of last year, I believe it was, so a year later I guess his views on what the perception is might be changed, although I suspect the public's view of him in that regard would have changed in a year as well. That was before the numerous problems.
To put it in terms of what my feeling was when we put something together, it was a tremendous challenge because we had heard from both sides how they did not like this piece of legislation. We had a situation where we were then called on as an opposition party to try and make amendments that would improve a bill that I honestly, truly believe was flawed and could not be put together in terms of this piecemeal approach.
Then, to my horror, when some of the government amendments came in, instead of going in one direction and improving the bill they took another step backwards. I remember the day it came in. I got the first advance copies of it going way back. Through that period of time, everybody on both sides of the issue said, and we heard time and time again: "By putting it to the municipalities you're creating problems. The government should decide." I could not believe that instead of streamlining the process and making it easier, regardless of what happens, wherever the decision is, the municipalities will decide. What they have attempted to do is put another hurdle in the way.
We questioned the Solicitor General regarding what the cost will be. Of course, I got the answer saying that about $1 million is what they are looking at. I guess we really will not know.
1740
The fact of the matter is, it is those resources at a period of time when we have the largest increase in crime in the history of Ontario and we are up about 38% right across the province, not just in Metro, although we focus there. We are putting our resources into an Ontario Municipal Board hearing at a time when courts are literally springing criminals for charges as serious as assault and drunk driving.
When the public takes a look at the process, they say that crime in the streets is now the biggest concern to them. In my particular area over the summer period, crime in the streets has become probably the single biggest issue, and we have unfortunately had the murders of the two girls out in Halton.
At Coronation Park in my riding, we had 4,000 people out for Take Back the Night. You could not get 4,000 people to come out for any other reason except for something very important like this. We had 4,000 people out, and then we turn around and say we are going spend $1 million to take a look at prosecuting people because they want to open on Sunday. I think even those people who want the stores to close would say that somehow, somewhere the priorities have been led astray in this province.
Having said that, I think the public is also going to take a look at it and say that this government made certain commitments to various groups. They have had to back away from some of them and now they are going to attempt to put some of the things in to keep some of those groups that got them elected happy.
I say to the people on the other side, regardless of what you say about the opposition parties, when you have pieces of legislation identical to a proposal from a group which said, "We are going to withhold funds unless we get what we want," and then you turn around and put the amendment in there word for word, can you wonder why the opposition parties and the public are taking a look at you and saying there has been no change in the process of government?
All we have done over the last period of time is change the interest groups being dealt with. The perception of this particular Premier, when he was so critical of the last government -- then he turns around and does the exact same thing, only this time we have a different special interest group. It is a very serious problem you have, because the perception out there is that groups that make presentations and make these threats can get their way at the end of the day.
I know the Solicitor General is here and listening to that. I think it is a very serious concern. I suspect he will be able to go back with his officials tonight and take a look at some of the concerns raised at that meeting. I can tell you right here and now, it was August 13. You might not have been aware of that. I think that might have even been the previous Solicitor General. The reason I know it was August 13 is that it was in Kingston and the following day was my birthday, so I remember the date very well.
Mr Harnick: The cabinet had already been shuffled.
Hon Mr Pilkey: How old are you?
Mr Carr: I'm aging fast, believe me, in this business.
The concern we have is that a piece of legislation that came in under the previous Solicitor General was rushed through. I have a tremendous amount of sympathy towards the various officials who were from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and from the Solicitor General's office. I suspect when the legal people get their directions their heads must spin sometimes because they are the ones who ultimately have to put this together and make it look like there is some semblance of order. They may have succeeded in the past, but this time they did not, because the general public and everybody is saying that this whole process has been one defective from the very beginning.
It was interesting to remember that the Premier said in the last throne speech that when they make mistakes they will admit them and try to correct them to the best of their ability. What should happen with this piece of legislation is you should say: "We have made some mistakes. We are not going to proceed with it until this group gets together with the tourism criteria. We are not going to put it in the regulations where they can be changed overnight at the whim of some individual, as was done with the oath to the Queen. We realize that is fundamental to the bill. We realize we may have rushed it for a lot of good reasons because we wanted to get the legislation in. There was a lot of good intent originally, but as a result of that we have had problems with it. We are going to take a step back. We are going to get this group together."
Something as fundamental as the tourism criteria should be done right. If you believe in it, it should be entrenched in the legislation so it cannot be changed. You are going to ask this group of individuals to put something together and spend a great deal of time hammering something out and it is going to be very difficult to do. I think everybody said that. The tourism criteria is the key to this bill. By putting it in the regulations you are saying to these people, "You could put it together, but tomorrow, for whatever reason, either to stiffen the regulations or to loosen them, depending on what is needed, we do not need to follow your advice."
They are the two particular amendments we will be moving. When we get to them, I will get a chance to speak a little bit further on them.
In conclusion, I would say that, overall, this piece of legislation was flawed from the beginning. The amendments I see here today make it worse. It is now about 5:45. Hopefully, we will be able to start fresh next Monday on these particular amendments. I have taken a little bit more time than I wanted to, so I would move an adjournment until next Monday.
The Chair: Mr Carr has moved adjournment until next Monday. Because of the lateness, we will adjourn until Monday.
The committee adjourned at 1746.