Freedom Flyer Winter 1988-89 Cover

Freedom Flyer 13

the official newsletter of the
Freedom Party of Ontario

Winter 1988-89




It's A Matter Of Choice!

On August 29, 1988, Freedom Party was represented before Ontario's Standing Committee on Administration of Justice by Barry Fitzgerald, our official representative in the riding of Welland-Thorold since April 1988 (see coverage, last issue), and our candidate in that riding's '88 Selection (see coverage, elsewhere in this issue).

Of the twelve presentations made to the committee that day, Fitzgerald's was the only one argued from a principled and consistent position which, as is so often the case with Freedom Party's public advocacy of individual rights, earned him his own headline in local press coverage of the event.

"I realize this committee is a sham, but I'm hopeful I created a spark in someone that they will take back to the legislature," Fitzgerald was quoted in the St. Catherine's Standard (Aug. 30, 1988), which then went on to observe: "That mix of anger and optimism was displayed by many of the presenters."

A brief, edited synopsis of Mr. Fitzgeraid's presentation to the committee follows:


Mr. Chairman, members of the committee:

Let me begin by reviewing some of the reasons it is claimed that we "need" Ontario's Retail Business Holidays Act.

"The common pause day": Well, "common" means "belonging to everyone". Obviously, there is no such day as many people are required to work Sundays, and many other people rely and depend upon those working for the goods and services they provide.

Some claim that "Working Sundays destroys families". I have yet to hear anyone claim that their family fell apart because one member had to work on a Sunday. But I have heard about the stresses of those workers who work on three rotating shifts, or workers who are required to work away from home for extended periods of time. These workers cannot be protected by law. They rely on the strength of their family bonds to overcome the hardship.

We must learn to recognize that every family is unique. We should also note that many families have come to depend on the money that they earn on a Sunday. How can we accommodate everyone? The only answer I can come up with is to give the choice to the individual.

We have heard the argument put forth that "We don't need Sunday shopping, it could increase prices by as much as 15%".

If we take this argument to its logical conclusion, we would find that with good planning, we could get by with only one shopping day a week, and thus reduce prices by as much as 70%!

Obviously, this isn't realistic. I have found that the Canadian Tire store in the official "tourist area" of Fort Erie has the same prices on Sunday as the Canadian Tire store in the unofficial tourist city of Welland which is only open Monday to Saturday.

Some claim that Sunday is a "Christian holiday".

Let us look back to the year 1906 when the Lords Day Alliance persuaded parliament to pass the Lords Day Act which banned movies, concerts, dancing and sporting events on a Sunday. The Retail Business Holidays Act became a companion Act which legislated that virtually every business close on a Sunday.

Times have changed. The Lords Day Act was found to be unconstitutional under the Canadian Constitution and it was repealed. The Retail Business Holidays Act was amended, with all references to the Lord's Day removed in a effort to disguise the intent of the Act.

We are now considering amending this Act once again, when we should be considering its repeal.

The religious argument boils down to this: "We don't believe in doing business on Sunday --- so you can't."

I would like to bring to your attention Ontario's Religious Freedom Act. It begins: "Whereas the recognition of legal equality among all religious denominations is an admitted principle of provincial legislation... "

Did you notice the term "legal equality'? Do the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 113 or Bill 114 conform to this principle? I think not.

The Act made an exemption for Jews, Moslems and Seventh Day Adventists, since they observe the Sabbath from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. They were allowed to open Sundays if they closed for 24 consecutive hours within a 32 hour period immediately preceding Sunday. But what of their further restrictions which only permit a maximum of seven employees and the use of 5000 square feet on a Sunday? There is no day that stores who are closed on Sundays must be subject to these restrictions!

Bill 113 would change the wording of these restrictions to allow Sunday openings subject to being closed on another day during the week, without employee and store size restrictions. But consider the case of the Bahai Faith, which has its own calendar, with months of 19 days each, and no "weeks", as such. Now are the Bahai's accommodated by the law? They are not.

The only way we can achieve LEGAL equality of religion is to repeal the RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS ACT AND FORGET ABOUT Bills 113 and 114.

Bill 114 allows a retail employee to refuse "unreasonable work" on a Sunday. But what about employees of different religions who think that working on Saturday or any other day of the week is "unreasonable"? And why only retail workers?

Bill 113 Section 5 Subsection 2C raises some interesting problems since it now forces corporations to adopt a "religion". The government of Ontario is in the retail business, so what I'd like to know is what is the official religion of the Province of Ontario?

The real issue is choice:

We should never forget that businesses belong to people and as such, are someone's property. Sunday closing laws violate their property rights by denying the business owner peaceful use of his property for one day of the week. Some retailers believe that the customer is always right and have opened on Sundays in violation of the law --- not to flaunt the law, but to meet the needs of their customers.

The legal paradox of their action places them in the position where only one party to their illegal transaction is prosecuted, fined, or jailed. Who is the victim of this hideous crime? The only person victimized is the merchant, for being in the wrong business, in the wrong town, or in the wrong area of town where such transactions are perfectly legal elsewhere, or for just having "too big" a store, or for giving jobs to "too many" people. The customer he is serving is never charged, yet without the customer's involvement, no law would be broken.

The Employment Standards Act already sets the maximum number of hours one may work in a week, so Bill 114 is completely unnecessary.

David Peterson and Joan Smith are right when they say Sunday shopping is not a provincial matter and like them, municipal politicians are also correct when they say that Sunday shopping is not a municipal matter either.

Sunday shopping is a matter of choice. The only answer to the Sunday shopping issue is to give that choice to the individual.


Reaction to Fitzgerald's submission was predictable, given the collectivist philosophies of the Committee's members.

In response to Fitzgerald's assertion that "The only answer is to give the choice to the individual", committee member Ed Philips (NDP, Etobicoke-Rexdale) commented "You've got a real strange notion of freedom, sir", while Mike Farnam (NDP, Cambridge) concluded "I think you live in an unrealistic world."

The fact that this "unrealistic" world operates quite well for six days a week was obviously not enough evidence for those predisposed to regulating and controlling the lives of others, a strange notion of "freedom" if ever there was one.

Farnam's comment that "Freedom is an inter-related concept" is undeniably true, but his belief that "one person's freedom is an imposition on another person" reveals a gross misunderstanding of the nature of individual freedom and of its natural limits. These limits can only be legally enforced through the observance and entrenchment of private property rights, the very mechanism which is being directly violated by Sunday shopping laws.

Yet, Farnam's confusion on the issue is one that is popularly shared by many, and on which politicians of all three major parties have been promoting their positions. It is a tragic irony that the very people who claim to be expressing concern with the "imposition" of one person's choices on another person are those who seem to have no hesitation in imposing their opinions on Ontario retailers.

Their opposition to the entrenchment of private property rights, coupled with their organized resistance to any application of individual rights and choice is the proof of the three major parties' intentions: political power at any price. Another reason why... Sunday shopping is not just a single issue.




Contact FP
Freedom Flyer Newsletter

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002

FP logo (small)