Freedom Flyer 19

the official newsletter of the
Freedom Party of Ontario

December 1991

"Yes to freedom of choice in Sunday shopping!" says Metz

Fp SUNDAY SHOPPING VIEWS
CLASH WITH ALL-PARTY COMMITTEE

LONDON (August 27, 1991) - Freedom Party leader Robert Metz, in a public brief addressed to Ontario's Standing Committee on Administration of Justice, condemned the provisions of Ontario's Bill 115 citing that "the bill is tragically flawed even by the terms of its own reference and is unsupportable in matters of principle, equity, fairness, and justice."

The bill, which contained amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act (RBHA) and the Employment Standards Act (ESA), was being justified by Ontario's socialist NDP government as offering "employee protection" - specifically to retail employees who work on Sundays. However, after examining the content of the bill, Metz could not accept its premise.

EMPLOYER RIGHTS REMOVED

"No, Bill 115 does not even represent a feeble attempt at justice," said Metz. "It has been so designed as to discriminate against and persecute a select class of retailers for blatant political gain. Bill 115 refers to an employee's refusal to work on a Sunday as the 'right to refuse work.' It is no such thing. What it really does is take away the employers' right to refuse employment."

After thoroughly condemning provisions of Bill 115, Metz found himself challenged by representatives of all three of Ontario's major political parties. Hans Daigeler, Liberal MPP for Nepean, brought up the issue of "the freedom not to work," to which Metz responded: "Everyone has that freedom. No one can force a person to work."

"According to the unions," responded Daigeler, "there already is undue pressure on retail workers to work on Sundays. How do you feel about that?"

"There is no pressure on them to work," replied Metz. "They can stay home and let other people work. What the unions' interest is in, is maintaining a labour monopoly and excluding those who are willing to work from the labour force. When we look at the opinions that are behind a union, we have to understand the nature of a union. It is not in the interests of unions to see competition in labour."

MONOPOLY ON FREEDOM?

At this point Jean Poirier, Liberal MPP for Prescott and Russell, joined the debate. "Are you of the opinion that only those who support the Freedom Party respect freedoms and rights?"

"No," replied Metz, "I am of the opinion that only those who respect individual freedoms and rights respect them. Any number of groups - lobby groups, political parties - could easily stand for these principles. I do not claim a monopoly on them, nor did I invent them."

"I was wondering if you could tell us what you see happening (with) freedom of choice (in Sunday shopping)," asked Gary Carr, Progressive Conservative MPP for Oakville South. "How would you see it working?"

"The entire beauty of freedom of choice is that all possibilities are possible," replied Metz. "Some retailers who find that staying open on Sunday is not profitable will choose not to remain open; those who find it profitable will open. There is no conflict here."

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE

Derek Fletcher, NDP MPP for Guelph, clearly saw the Sunday shopping issue from a more fundamental viewpoint: "In 1986 the Supreme Court of Canada decided six to one that the Retail Business Holidays Act, even if in violation of some people's freedoms, is valid legislation by virtue of Section 1 of the Charter. Would you repeal that piece of legislation?"

"Absolutely," replied Metz. "The 'notwithstanding' clauses in the Charter are devastating to this country. You have to ask yourself, when the Supreme Court of Canada openly admits that it is justifying legislation that violates our individual rights, then what is it there for? Is it not the purpose of a court in a free society to protect our rights?"

Fletcher offered no response.

WHO WANTS TO WORK?

Although committee member Diane Cunningham, Progressive Conservative MPP for London North, had a lot to say on the issue, her comments were very unfocussed and contradictory. After repeatedly trying to assure Metz that she "agreed" with his position on Sunday shopping, she finally concluded: "From the bottom of my heart, the reason that I do not like Sunday shopping is that I have not met anybody who wants to work on Sundays in retail stores, with the exception of a few students going through school."

"Depending on how you word the question," challenged Metz, "you could get the same response to 'Do you want to work on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday?' - given the choice of a law being there that would stop you from having to work on that day."

To which Cunningham begrudgingly replied: "Unfortunately, in our society I think there are a few who would answer that way right now; they do not want to work at all."

At a time when unemployment rates are higher than ever in Canada, the prospect of our governments expending so much time and energy to protect a "right" not to work seems counterproductive, to say the least. Of course, the real goal of legislation like Bill 115 is to keep the power of choice in the hands of politicians, and away from the individuals whose livelihoods depend on having this choice.

Highlights from Fp's Address to the Committee:

"Although Bill 115 claims to be based on the 'principle that retail business holidays are common pause days,' it is clear that there is no 'principle' of a common pause day involved behind the legislation, since the law is applied arbitrarily and inconsistently."
"Bill 115 gives absolute subjective power to politicians. While the provincial government is permitted to 'prescribe different tourism criteria for different classes of retail,' municipal governments may still force Sunday closings even if the provincial tourism criteria are met."
"Sunday closing laws violate individual rights, including Sec. 2a (freedom of conscience and religion) and Sec. 2d (freedom of association) of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
"Sunday closing legislation violates fundamental principles of private property rights."
"Bill 115 is a potential management nightmare since it grants employees the right to refuse an assignment to work on a Sunday - even if the employee has previously accepted that assignment!"
"What about the rights of those who are unemployed - or underemployed - as a result of Sunday closing laws?"

GET THE DETAILS! Metz's address on Bill 115 is available to Fp members and supporters on request.

Articles electronically reproduced from:

August 28, 1991

What they said

Mayor Tom Gosnell, Deputy Mayor Jack Burghardt, city of London: They want the province to take responsibility for the issue. Burghardt said the committee must consider the social and financial costs of having employees work on a day when bus service is reduced and municipally supported day care isn't available. Ted Zientara, London, chairperson Tourism Ontario: Supports Sunday shopping as a boon to Ontario tourism. "Sunday and holiday shopping has become an economic necessity for many thousands of Ontarians as they struggle to balance working realities with personal and family responsibilities." Robert Metz, Freedom party of Ontario: Supports freedom of choice on Sunday shopping issue. "From the outset,' Bill 115 (the Sunday shopping legislation) is tragically flawed ... and is insupportable in matters of principle, equity, fairness and justice."

Ab Player, London, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union: Opposes Sunday shopping. "Our members already are exposed to one of the longest and least stable work weeks.. . . Few consumers who shop on Sunday would opt to work on Sunday and pay the price that retail men and women do."