What began as a simple public information and advocacy campaign for the right to shop on Sundays soon evolved into what could possibly be Ontario's most philosophically focussed and effective drive against the province's immoral and reprehensible Retail Business Holidays Act. By no means are we trying to imply that our efforts will cause Sunday closing legislation to disappear in the foreseeable future. But Freedom Party's role in spearheading a philosophical attack against Sunday closing laws, combined with its increased political presence in upcoming provincial elections, will guarantee that Sunday closing laws will soon become an uncomfortable subject for the three major parties to have to face.

Last issue, you may recall, we reported on the launching of our information campaign promoting Sunday shopping as a matter of personal choice. During December 1986, while many retailers were "flouting the law" under the false expectation that the Supreme Court of Canada would rule Ontario's Retail Business Holidays Act unconstitutional, Fp members and supporters spent their Sundays stationed outside illegally-opened retail exit doors, handing customers our brochure which refuted the arguments most commonly used to restrict freedom of choice in Sunday shopping. It was also during that same period that Fp action director Marc Emery took some personal action to fight Sunday closing laws by opening his London bookstore illegally on Sunday, and he was charged by police for doing so. (Details in last issue of Freedom Flyer.) His case is not due before the courts until August 20, 1987, and we'll keep you updated as to developments (see Since our last report on the subject, much has developed on the political Sunday shopping front for Freedom Party.

On February 25, 1987, Fp president Robert Metz presented an oral and written submission to Ontario's "all-party" Select Committee on Retail Store Hours. Titled "Freedom of Choice ... even on a Sunday", the brief was essentially an expansion of Freedom Party's already-produced and distributed brochure on the same subject.

The 11 page report addressed the inherent hypocrisy in creating yet another forum for "public consensus" (i.e., the Select Committee itself), by pointing out that its only purpose was to justify what the government already had planned --- namely, the retention and enforcement of Sunday closing laws.

Metz fielded a number of questions from committee members, few of which had anything directly to do with Sunday closing laws. For the most part, the questions asked were strictly philosophical in nature and ranged in subject matter from issues like Fps position on minimum wage laws to the nature of lease agreements which contain clauses "forcing" retailers to open their stores according to pre-determined hours.

Because Metz argued that it would be equally unjust to force businesses to open on Sundays as it would to force them to close, he was challenged by a committee member as to how Fp would deal with clauses in lease agreements that "force" mall retailers to open in accordance with hours pre-determined by mall operators.

Since the clauses in question represent a contractual agreement between two parties, Metz responded, the lease agreement should be enforced and retailers should comply to the terms with which they have already agreed. In fact, emphasized Metz, it was retailers themselves who originally were responsible for the inclusion of such clauses. Of what advantage would it be to be located in a mall if each store in that mall operated on its own, non-uniform hours? Mall retailers depend upon the customer traffic generated by uniform shopping hours, and the maintenance of such hours merely represents the cost incurred in obtaining the greater benefit of increased customer traffic.

It is that very clause that makes malls attractive --- both to retailers and to customers.

Other terms in lease agreements, added Metz, require that the retailer must pay his rent on a specified day each month. Would it be equally logical to conclude that the payment of rent has been "forced" upon the retailer, simply because he is legally obligated to do so? Should we pass laws preventing the payment of such rents?

After a barrage of similarly misguided philosophical questions from committee members, Metz concluded his presentation on behalf of Freedom Party and was followed immediately by Marc Emery, who presented his own brief on behalf of his own London business, City Lights Bookshop.

Emery's arguments focussed on identifying the various interests and lobby groups promoting restriction of choice on Sundays, and his scathing attack on religious, business, and labour groups made it to the front page of the Toronto Star.

Copies of both briefs are available by contacting Freedom Party, and supporters are encouraged to arm themselves with the philosophical ammunition necessary to win the war against state control on Sundays.

In any event, Metz's original prediction that the committee would recommend the retention and enforcement of Sunday closing laws became a reality when it announced its "findings" in May 1987.

But then, what else could be expected from an "all-party" committee composed of "all the parties" who created our Sunday closing laws in the first place? No surprises here --- because restriction of choice is what they're all about!

[email protected]
Freedom Party of Ontario