I guess you might call this yet another crappy idea from the bowels of Socialist Silly Hall. 

At yesterday's licensing and standards committee the councillor who has made it his mission to regularly find someone or something to regulate, Howard Moscoe, led the charge to impose new rules that will force all Toronto retail outlets of a certain size to provide washrooms to their customers. 

The over-the-hill trougher -- who regularly pisses tax money away as if it is water -- proposed that all Toronto stores, restaurants, banks, grocery and drug stores and other retail establishments of 3,230 square feet or more be given six months to ensure a loo is available to clients whenever they ask and that appropriate signage directs clients to such facilities. 

The motion passed 3-2 with Moscoe, Sandra Bussin and Anthony Perruzza in favour and Mike Del Grande and Denzil Minnan-Wong opposed (Rob Ford was missing in action). 

The plan will go to the next council meeting for debate and approval. 

Moscoe, who seems not the least bit concerned that the world economy is in the toilet and retailers in this city are already hurting, pontificated that a washroom is a "basic necessity" and it's the "best kept bathroom secret" in Ontario that stores must offer their washrooms to clients when asked. 

The councillor, it seems, embarked on his potty crusade back in July when he "tested" the situation one weekend and was denied use of the loo at three Shoppers Drug Mart stores. 

"I was told point blank 'we don't have washrooms,' " he said. 

"The city has a moral authority to demand this now ... I don't think this is going to impose a burden on anyone." 

Now far be it from me to suggest that perhaps the council blowhard -- who can't seem to help himself from dumping on struggling businesses -- might have better things to do than stir up s--- about washrooms. 

May I suggest to Moscoe if he wants to make a case about "moral authority" he might start by setting a proper standard with the washrooms on the first floor of City Hall. They are forever a disgusting mess. 

But I digress. 

When questioned, the city municipal licensing and standards staff made it pretty clear that since 1976 the Ontario Building Code has required retail establishments to build washrooms during construction. But once completed, the code does not regulate maintenance of such facilities or access. 

Both staff from Public Health -- which oversees the cleanliness of washrooms in food premises only -- and MLS officials conceded they're not aware of any complaints from the public with respect to retail establishments not providing washrooms. In fact, MLS does not even track complaints. 

Nevertheless, Sandro Testa, senior policy and research officer for MLS, told the committee that under the new bylaw provisions proposed by Moscoe, if a store has removed its washroom or is using it for storage, etc., his officers will be able to issue an order asking them to "reinstall the facilities." 

If that order is not followed, the city can impose a $305 fine or ultimately take court action. 

You should pardon my potty mouth, but what a pile of crap! 

UNWARRANTED INTRUSION 

Gary Sands, vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, said his members believe such an intrusion by the city "into what should be an individual proprietary decision" is completely unwarranted. 

Minnan-Wong, who felt the proposal needed further study and analysis to see if it is really warranted, accused Moscoe of pushing it through because he won't have to "absorb the cost or inconvenience" himself. 

"This has not been properly thought out," he said. "This is another example of where the city is imposing regulations on business when there is no proof they are necessary." 

Judith Andrew, v-p Ontario of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said there's no doubt there will be extra costs for businesses which must comply with this proposal -- costs not only to bring washrooms up to snuff, but to keep them clean and sanitary and to maintain security. 

"I find the way this thing came up to be objectionable," she said. "It is another cost imposed, certainly with very little notice. It is quite insensitive (to business.)"