Freedom Flyer 10

Mr. Chairman: I am going to go to Mr. Polsinelli, but I want to make one comment. I think all of us on this committee are aware of circumstances where child labour has been exploited, where females have been exploited in so-called sweat shops, where all kinds of circumstances that are totally unacceptable in today's society have been looked upon by all three of our parties as being totally unacceptable to us. The question is, where do we evolve to from here? That is what Bill 154 is all about.

It does cause me some concern that you do not see any need under any circumstances, however extreme, for government to protect those who are in a weakened position or who are unable to protect themselves.

Mr. Metz: Your implication is that all those people in the sweat shops and in the circumstances you describe were forced there through some coercive or illegal method. You are saying they were not there by choice, that they did not make an agreement with their employer, that somehow someone came up to them and forced them into that situation.

If any individual in this room decides to work for another individual for even the ridiculously low rate of $1 an hour, how does that make it anyone else's business? We are not in a situation to predetermine what a person needs for himself and what situation he would like to have in terms of his own priorities. It gets very dangerous when government begins to set priorities for its citizens and individuals within its society.

Mr. Polsinelli: I would like to thank you for presenting the other point of view. I have two or three very short questions. I would first like to ask whether or not you believe in equal pay for equal work.

Mr. Metz: If you define the terms, yes. Who will be doing the defining? If I am the person doing the valuing, then it becomes a moot point, does it not?

Mr. Polsinelli: Let me give you an example. A woman and a man are sitting side by side on an assembly line and are doing exactly the same work. Would it be proper for the employer to pay the woman less than the man?

Mr. Metz: Yes, it would be proper.

Mr. Polsinelli: Secondly, are you familiar with any other jurisdictions that have implemented equal pay for equal value legislation?

Mr. Metz: Just vaguely.

Mr. Polsinelli: Are you aware it has been federal law in Canada for, I believe, the last seven years?

Mr. Metz: Yes.

Mr. Polsinelli: Are you aware no one has died from that legislation yet?

Mr. Metz: No one has died from a lot of the legislation that even exists in the Soviet Union, but that does not mean the Soviet Union would be a preferred country to live in.

Mr. Polsinelli: This is my last and final question. Are there any ties between the Freedom Party of Ontario and the National Citizens' Coalition Inc.?

Mr. Metz: None in a formal way whatsoever.

Mr. Polsinelli: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your presentation. Perhaps I could start off with the questions. I have only one. With the basic thrust of the brief you have put before us, I gather that a form of pay equity, primarily the establishment of minimum wage in this and other provinces and other jurisdictions many years ago, is something you would also not support. Is that correct?

Mr. Metz: You are absolutely correct, because we do not believe in legislating unemployment. If you have a minimum wage of $6 an hour, people who are in a market worth $5.50 an hour are legislated out of work.

I know of many instances of people who cook the books so that people can work. They are people who do not have to deal with minimum wages and do not have to fear their own government. It looks all nice and legal to the government, but they are not working the number of hours that are being reported. That is a private deal that any employee and any employer can make, and no government could ever be in a position to find that out. As long as the paperwork is filled out, it is going to look very nice, clean and aboveboard. This is going on. This is part of the underground economy we are talking about. Let us not fool ourselves by denying that it exists.

If we are going to be a free society for much longer, we had better consider the consequences of what we are doing these days. We are looking at a justice system. What happens when the average citizen starts to realize he is going to be treated the same by his government, whether he commits a serious crime such as theft, rape or robbery or whether he fails to pay someone in accordance with a certain government-prescribed amount; whether he opens his store on Sunday or whether he is a doctor who wants to charge his patients. None of these controls works, and we are seeing evidence of it every day in the newspapers. I cannot understand a government putting itself in a position of going headlong into action that has proven consistently time and time again that it does not work.

Mr. Chairman: I gather that, with respect to my initial question about minimum wage laws, you would not agree with the premise that there are some elements of exploitation in the work force, where a worker may be subjected to the power of a particular employer who can subject that employee to a level of income which is considered to be less than acceptable. In other words, the employee, being in a position which is less firm or not as strong as the employer's position, may well be forced into a situation where he has to accept something. In your particular example, you are saying that is going on in the underground economy now. I am suggesting to you that, as I understand it, government has to protect the liberty of individuals and has the responsibility to protect those who are not able to protect themselves in some instances.

By extension, if you do not accept the philosophy that there are exploiters out there or people who would take advantage of those who are weaker in our system, then obviously you cannot accept the philosophy upon which Bill 154 is based, because minimum wage is perhaps a lot less controversial than Bill 154.

Mr. Metz: I accept the philosophy of a government protecting its citizens. I do not accept the premise of your definitions. Coercion exists between an employer and an employee only when one or the other is using an explicit threat of force, not when they are using mutually agreed-to situations and terms they have both agreed upon. Unless an employer is holding a gun to an employee's bead and forcing him to come into that building to work for him, how can it possibly objectively be said that coercion or force is being used in that relationship?

Mr. Stevenson: Government can get involved in the operations of business directly or indirectly in a great many ways. One way is through various tax incentives, special tax write-offs, protection from competition from similar businesses in other jurisdictions through tariff and nontariff barriers and so on. Do you support that sort of government involvement in business?

Mr. Walker: Absolutely not.

Mr. Stevenson: Let me use a particular example such as the European Community where there is substantial subsidization of several industries. Would you suggest that other governments such as Canada, the United States and Australia step totally aside and allow those policies to hit our countries on a free and open market?

Mr. Walker: I would say to you if the European Community wants to subsidize something it is sending to us, we should say: "Thank you very much. We appreciate the fact that all those people in Europe want to give us things cheaper." Our consumers would love the idea of having things subsidized by other countries. When those countries finally catch on to the idea that all they are doing is paying us to buy something, they will change their ways. You cannot run an economy giving away money for ever.

Mr. Stevenson: Thank you.