Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the member for St. George.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure at this time to present to this House 15 scouts from the 10th Toronto Scout troop of Christ Church. They are accompanied by Mr. John Spencer and Mr. Adams, one of the fathers. I would ask you to join with me in welcoming them to this House.

LIQUOR CONTROL ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister may continue his remarks.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, when we broke at 6 o’clock I was in the midst of responding to the comments of the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). He specifically asked me to respond to his charge of sexism against the Liquor Control Board, and I assume he was only talking about the Liquor Control Board.

In our ministry, we do have a woman’s adviser who has come on staff relatively recently, as most members know, as part of the programme to encourage and to enhance employment opportunities for women in the public service. Miss Moffat has been working half of her time with the Liquor Control Board and the Liquor Licence Board. The other half she spends in the ministry developing policies for improving employment opportunities.

The member can read statistics from now until doomsday and he is not going to change the rate of turnover in employment in the Liquor Control Board.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): No, it will take a change in government to do that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We have about 10 per cent turnover per annum. There are changes taking place. They are taking place slowly, perhaps too slowly for the hon. member but there certainly are physical requirements involved.

I am not one to say that a woman can’t be as physically able to handle some of the jobs as a man. Certainly, I know from experience that people who have had a history of back trouble are not employed by the Liquor Control Board for lifting operations because they simply can’t handle it. As for his analogy of a woman lifting a child, certainly they do not lift a child repetitively every five minutes or every 10 minutes; keep lifting it and putting it down, lifting it and putting it down.

I don’t want to be in the position of saying that women aren’t physically capable of handling heavy jobs. Some of them certainly are.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): It is basically not a heavy job; that’s the point.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There may very well be attitudinal problems within the board which are not going to be changed by a lot of verbiage in this Legislature but by a lot of hard work being done by a lot of concerned people at the employment and local level.

I want to say to the member we are aware of the statistics he brought forward and Miss Moffat, who is the woman’s adviser in my ministry, is working very hard to develop possible employment opportunities for women.

The charge is that most of the women are part-time. It appears this is a matter of choice on the part of most of them, because they want to be able to handle their family responsibilities as well as earn an income.

We are not about to lay off a large number of long-term able-bodied employees in order to make opportunities for women. However, we certainly will bear in mind that this is International Women’s Year, that we do have a women’s employment programme and we will do everything possible to make sure it works.

I would like to respond to the member for Stormont (Mr. Samis) very briefly on the question of the sale of beer in grocery stores, because this seems to be one of his strong platform points and he has been preaching it for quite some time. I would like to point out that I have heard it before and from the member and I’ve seen it mentioned in the media that he has been promoting this. I would like to point out, first of all, that beer in Quebec sells for $1 more per case than it does in Ontario; that all of the beer in Ontario is sold refrigerated and, therefore, in good condition; that in Quebec they have about 25 per cent returns because of spoilage. Also there is a problem of organized crime in the distribution system. Certainly it’s there, the possibility of it being there, pressure being put on private --

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Quebec?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In Quebec.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): We have it in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Certainly, I haven’t heard of organized crime pressuring the Liquor Control Board or the Brewers’ Retail warehouse stores for the promotion of brands. There is a tremendous amount of pressure being put on the private entrepreneur in Quebec to provide good, favourable shelf space to certain brands of merchandise. This is not a problem in Ontario.

They have a problem of bottle returns in Quebec. At the present time in Ontario, our rate of return exceeds over 96 per cent. In Quebec, we’re talking in terms of 50 per cent returns. I don’t think that as a protector of the environment, which I’m sure the hon. member is, he would want us to go to that position in Ontario.

We have looked at the other systems, as I said in my introductory remarks, and we have found them wanting. We have found some faults in our own and we think that we’ve corrected most of them in these bills. We recognize that we have not corrected them all. We will continue to work, and with the appointment of the advisory committee I hope we will be getting good suggestions for future amendments from the general public.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand this is to go committee of the whole House.

LIQUOR LICENCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves second reading of Bill 45, the Liquor Licence Act, 1975.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: Thank you. I would like to start by thanking the minister, in view of the occasion, for the fine dinner he served for those who are debating this bill. In particular, it was a very fine touch having Gen. Kitching and Commissioner Mackey serve that French champagne. I appreciate that and I want it to go on the record that we thank the minister for it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What dinner was that?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I wasn’t invited.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: That’s part of second reading.

Mr. Shulman: I’m sorry, was I not supposed to mention that?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well I don’t know. Frankly, I am still hungry.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): And he always will be.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’m going to remember that.

Mr. Samis: He’s better when he’s hungry.

Mr. Shulman: I have to express some disappointment in the minister with these bills. We were promised so much and given so little. I have to admit they’re a step forward. I’m sure that the good chief is delighted to be out of the censorship business and we’re equally delighted with him. It will save us all a lot of aggravation over the years.

The things that bother me, though, are incidents that have happened in the last week which indicate, what is it, plus ça change, more of the same thing. I want to mention just three brief incidents that happened to my constituents within the last week and which indicate that very little has changed in this world of Toryism.

The first one the minister and I have discussed outside the House, but I think perhaps it deserves some airing within the House, and it’s the case of the great umbrella incident. I wasn’t here the latter part of this afternoon, and I hope it hasn’t been brought up already.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We’d be glad to hear it again.

Mr. Shulman: There is a fine establishment in Yorkville which sells crepes. Let me say, to begin with, they do not sell liquor, they do not have a liquor licence, they have never applied for a liquor licence, they never intend to apply for a liquor licence. They don’t want to have any of the aggravations of selling liquor. But, believe it or not, they ran afoul of “Sydney’s rangers” this week, and found to their great dismay that the umbrellas which they had erected for their outdoor cafe -- so that neither the crepes nor the patrons would be rained upon -- were suddenly removed in one fell swoop.

When they left the night before, all the bright yellow umbrellas were up there, gaily advertising that everyone should come to this crepe restaurant -- no liquor, unfortunately. The next morning, boom, they were gone; seized, you might say. Who were they seized by? By Watleys.

Let me tell you the sad story here. It seems that this Thursday afternoon, one of the liquor licence inspectors was wending his way along the street, moving more or less steadily from one establishment to the other testing their wares, when he spotted these delightful umbrellas. With horror in his heart, he realized that on them was labelled “Pernod 45.” Now members may not realize it but this is a criminal act in this country. One may advertise Pernod 45 in the subways; one may advertise Pernod 45 in the newspapers, but one may not advertise Pernod 45 on an umbrella.

The gentleman from the Liquor Licence Board wasn’t really in his province, because this place wasn’t licensed; but this did not stop him. He promptly phoned his colleague over at the Liquor Control Board and said: “You will not believe the crime that is taking place on Yorkville Ave.” His colleague from the Liquor Control Board dashed up there and, by God, it was true. This crime was taking place.

Then some great investigation took place. The question was, where had the crepe place got the umbrellas? They could have laid charges against them but that was a little messy and would have got in the newspapers and everyone would have been embarrassed. By dint of clever examining of the umbrellas, they found stitched on the side, Watleys.

Who is Watleys? Watleys is an agent for numerous fine alcoholic beverages and it is their business to import these beverages and sell them to the Liquor Control Board. Needless to say, Watleys find it of some value to them to remain in reasonably good relationships with the Liquor Control Board, because they don’t want to lose their listings, particularly. In fact, that would not be good for business or for their clients.

Anyway, on Wednesday morning Watleys received a call. Poor Mr. Watley is off in Europe at the moment; he doesn’t know this whole horrible story. It was pointed out to the second in command, a non-Canadian who was not familiar with Canadian laws -- in fact, he was a Frenchman and in France it is not a crime to have a yellow umbrella with the word “Pernod 45” on it, particularly when there is a similar sign, half a block down, in a legal place.

They got this Frenchman on the phone, the 2-i-c at Watleys, and said: “Do you realize you have lent an umbrella, in fact several umbrellas, to this crepe place -- this crepe establishment -- and they are displaying them publicly?”

Well, Watleys got the message. A second word was not necessary. Their listings were not threatened. It was done in a very gentle way. But within one hour Watleys had rushed down to Yorkville, grabbed the umbrellas and stored them away in a cellar.

In fact, they are so stored away, I tried to borrow one to bring it down here tonight to show all members the great crime that had been committed and my French friend said to me: “Do you want me to lose my job? Do you want Watleys to lose their listings? My God, the world would come to an end if those umbrellas were ever displayed down at Queen’s Park. Never, never. But Mr. Watley will be back June 15 and if you want to borrow one then he has no use for them, because they will have to be shipped to France or some other uncivilized place where they can be put out. Those umbrellas will cause the end of the world.”

I went to the minister and I said: “Has someone flipped in the department?” And he said: “Let me check”; because this is not something he wanted to answer yes or no outright because there always is some doubt on this matter. He came back to me the next day and he said: “The law is the law. And the law says that umbrellas may not advertise Pernod 45.”

No? Not true? I see the minister shaking his head. Is that incorrect?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The law says where liquor can be advertised, and it doesn’t include umbrellas.

Mr. Shulman: I got it wrong.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It doesn’t include them.

Mr. Shulman: The law must spell out where liquor can he advertised. This law mentions newspapers and advertisements in the subways. It forgot to mention umbrellas. I guess it is a law of omission instead of a law of commission.

The poor crepe place is without the umbrellas; I was up there and the poor manager was looking very dismal. His business is down by 20 per cent since they took his umbrellas and he is finding a little difficulty in understanding why he can’t have his umbrellas back. He even offered to put scotch tape over the Pernod 45. But apparently if it’s there, it’s there, and the umbrellas are verboten and they are locked down in the cellar at Watleys.

This is a law of omission or -- what was the phrase the minister used when he introduced his new Act? He used a phrase when we asked him about censorship?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Silent.

Mr. Shulman: Yes, the law is silent on this. If it’s silent, it must be verboten. I trust somewhere along the line -- three or four ministers down the line -- we will have a change in this particular law; the law will cease to be silent and the poor crepe man will get his umbrellas back.

The law in Ontario as far as liquor is concerned has not always been known for its sobriety, one might say. It has weaved here and there; it has had certain whimsy and nonsense about it.

This was not my only experience. Everything happened this week for some reason.

I have a fairly large Maltese contingent who have voted faithfully for me in High Park. Inasmuch as they vote faithfully for me, I work faithfully for them. That’s the way politics works, I am told.

A week ago last Sunday two of my good Maltese constituents, Mr. Cutajar and Mr. Scicluna, decided to go on a picnic. It was a fine Sunday, if the minister will recall, it was really a nice day. It was really a beautiful day and they got up in the morning and it was a good day for living.

I think it was Mr. Cutajar’s fault. He got out and stretched there right in the middle of High Park, as it looked so nice. He said to his next-door neighbour, Mr. Scicluna: “Let’s go for a picnic.”

That’s a fairly harmless thing to do here on a lovely Sunday morning in May. Mr. Scicluna, to his ultimate and great regret said okay. Then they said: “Where should we go for our picnic?” They had been to High Park many times, but they had heard about a place called Innisfil Park. I am not sure where Innisfil Park is. It’s a Tory area so I don’t go there very often. It’s somewhere north of Toronto. They had read about Innisfil Park and they decided they were going to go there.

That was their first mistake. Their second mistake was that instead of having the lunch they decided to pack a lunch. No, they didn’t bring wine. Don’t jump to conclusions -- no wine. They called up their wives and said: ”Pack a lunch. We are all, the four of us going to have a picnic at Innisfil Park.” The wives packed the lunch, no wine, no hard liquor, nothing like that; this is a softer story, one might say -- and off they headed for Innisfil Park.

They had never been to Innisfil Park before and they were a little confused when they got there and didn’t know where to park the car. Fortunately, there was a policeman standing by the entrance of Innisfil Park. He was wearing his uniform and it said Innisfil township on his hat. They pulled over and called the policeman over and said: “Officer, we have never been here before, can you tell us where is the best place to park?”

The officer said: “Oh, yes, no problem. You go down 100 yards and turn left and there is a little parking lot there and you can park your car there. By the way, gentlemen, enjoy yourselves today. Do you have any beer in the car?”

They said: “Oh yes, we have got a beer for each of us.

He said: “Oh, that’s fine, you are both under arrest. Do you mind showing me the beer?”

They thought he was joking and they opened up the trunk of the car and they did have four beers. I am embarrassed to say it was a gruesome crime to commit, but these things will happen in Ontario occasionally. Anyway, both of them found themselves under arrest. Their lunches were seized. I can understand the beer going; I don’t understand why the lunches had to go too. These four law-abiding immigrants to Ontario found themselves in a strange condition of being arrested on this lovely Sunday morning for a crime which they were having some difficulty in comprehending.

Let me say the beer had been locked in the trunk of the car. I think if I had been in those circumstances I might have suggested to the officer I didn’t have any beer with me. I certainly wouldn’t have opened my car trunk. But being law-abiding and coming from a country like Malta where this is not exactly a crime, they found some difficulty in comprehending the situation and they admitted their guilt.

When the smoke all cleared, they lost their lunch, they lost their four beers and they were issued summonses to appear in court in Innisfil township on July 6. They were told that if they wished to plead guilty before coming to court it would be $53 each.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Per bottle?

Mr. Shulman: No, per customer, not per bottle. Actually, I think only one of them should be charged. Where the problem came in was the officer said to Mr. Cutajar: “Did you bring all four?”

And he said: “No, my wife got two and my friend got two.” So he arrested them all; I think that is only fair.

In any cases, they received summonses in due course to pay $53 each and admit their guilt and they would not be forced to go to jail. They came to me in some dismay. This sum of money was a rather large one and they felt the penalty was a little severe for going to Innisfil township to have a picnic. I went to the Attorney General (Mr. Clement) and told the story to him. It was just before his estimates were coming up, and he made a deal with me. He said if I wouldn’t bring the story up in his estimates, he would offer me “clementsy,” and he did. He gave me executive clemency and promised that they would, ultimately, get their money hack. I didn’t promise I wouldn’t bring it up in this minister’s estimates. Now that the matter has come up, for goodness sakes, this is not really a crime.

The minister decided, in his wisdom, that he is not going to allow wine in the parks because I can see that that would lead to all sorts of horrible things happening: rape, mayhem, gang murders and all sorts of other terrible things -- and children might actually see it being consumed. Does this also apply to beer? I wasn’t quite sure whether his feeling as to the downfall of the nation in this particular case would apply to beer also?

He’s not nodding. In fact, I am not sure, I think he’s gone catatonic.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Consumption.

Mr. Shulman: What was the reply?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I am saying I will reply in due course.

Mr. Shulman: Okay.

Let me say there are certain anomalies in the law that people from other nations find a little difficult to understand when they come to this province. Those are my two experiences for this week. No, there is one other, I almost forgot; there are three, yes, there are three.

I tell this story with a little embarrassment because I find that I am the anomaly, in this case, instead of the Province of Ontario. I wrote a book last year -- a year and a half ago -- and I gave various bits of advice, most of which was good, to my readers. I gave one dilly of a horrible piece of advice to a number of them. I told people to buy fine wines. As the price had gone up steadily for 10 years, and was sure to continue, if you wanted to make a great deal of money lay down fresh, fine wine. I said this in 1973. You could drink your profits, as the years went by, and whatever was left over -- you couldn’t sell it in Ontario, unless you bootlegged it -- but you could ultimately ship to the United States or England and make huge profits.

To my great dismay, having followed some of my own advice, the wine market collapsed in the last 12 months and prices are now at a fraction of what they were when I wrote those well-meaning words. I am having to drink my advice, you might say, with sorrow instead of with joy.

The unfortunate thing was that when the prices were soaring upwards some two, three and four years ago across the world -- do you remember the lovely double ticketing? I love to remember. Who was the minister in this portfolio at that time? I think it was the present Attorney General.

In any case, he got up and condemned double ticketing in the supermarkets -- it was the most terrible thing -- and I think the Premier (Mr. Davis) also said how terrible it was that those supermarkets had all this stuff already in stock and were raising the price. One could buy a cabbage at 50 cents and see three prices on it: 40, 45 and 50 cents.

Then one day we discovered the Liquor Control Board was doing the same thing. It was a little embarrassing, but as the Liquor Control Board put it -- and they had a certain justice on their side -- it was true they bought this stuff at $2 a bottle, and originally were selling it at a moderate $6, but now, because of the rise in prices overseas, they had to charge $28. It is not that they wanted to profiteer, but they were going to have to replace the stuff, sooner or later and they had to take that into consideration.

One would have thought, I expect, that this is business. It is free enterprise, and they have to make a profit too, a modest markup. One would have thought that when the worm finally turned, to everyone’s amazement, and prices began to plummet, perhaps -- and it is not unreasonable in view of the falling prices of alcohol all over the world -- they might reduce their prices.

No, their attitude is a little different now. Now they say we put a lot of this stuff in stock, stored it up and it costs a lot of money. Do we expect them to sell at a loss? So we have the ridiculous situation of something like Chateau Margeaux 1967, which is a lovely wine -- it won’t be ready for a few years yet, but it is a lovely wine -- selling here in Ontario for approximately -- I shouldn’t say selling here in Ontario, being offered here in Ontario -- for approximately $50 a bottle.

It doesn’t sell. It is going to be like the archives; in due course we will be able to down and look at the bottles. I think by the time they are ready to be sold, at that price, they will be fit to go to the archives and nothing else.

In any case, you can travel a modest 80 miles -- how far is it to Buffalo? -- and buy the same bottle. You could have bought it for $20 a year ago but you can probably buy it for $8 today, or $9 perhaps; and we find the price going down steadily.

What is happening? When there was a modest difference of 200 per cent, people didn’t bother taking this trip. Now there’s a difference of 1,000 per cent, there is a reasonable amount of traffic going down there. The demands for Chateau Margeaux, 1967, are being filled in Buffalo instead of in Toronto and I would suggest this is probably not what the minister had in mind. This applies also to somewhat less esoteric wines, may I say.

The minister can by to hold people up and he can succeed when he has a monopoly, but I am suggesting to him he has to put an embargo on that border. He is allowing people to bring stuff in now; we used to be allowed only a case a month, now we can bring in all we want and pay the duty on it. Canada Customs are really co-operative, they are not charging that much. Besides which the minister will be shocked to find that people sometimes undervalue the wine they bring in and pay even less than they should. They end up paying 20 or 30 cents a bottle.

I would suggest to the minister he has got to change the rules. If he wants to make a lot of money and charge $80 for something worth $5 or $6 or $8 elsewhere, that’s reasonable, but in that case he has to put an embargo on all importations. He must not let the public bring stuff in cheaply or it is going to ruin the whole system.

He might, of course, consider lowering the prices to a reasonable level, to the world level, just as he rapidly raised them to a world level when things were going up. It’s just a suggestion; nothing serious.

Two other little things; a question, really; or two questions. He promised us the rules would be codified so any licensee or would-be bootlegger could get a copy of the book and find out what the rules were, what rules he was breaking and how long he was going to go to jail for the rule he was breaking. We would know what was right and what was wrong because for a very long time it was difficult to know what was right or what was wrong. Members will recall the great sangria debate; it was okay in Café Madrid but not okay in El Cid. Is the book ready? Is there a book?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is the book you have.

Mr. Shulman: I don’t have one. There is a book? May I have one?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: You have one.

Mr. Shulman: Where is it?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It was distributed to every member.

Mr. Shulman: Somehow they missed me. Can I get a copy of this book of rules? Have you got one?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: A suggested code.

Mr. Shulman: Suggestions?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: A suggested code.

Mr. Shulman: A suggested code? Does the minister mean there is no code yet?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, nothing finalized.

Mr. Shulman: When does he expect to have it?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: After the House passes the Act.

Mr. Shulman: Tomorrow we will have it? Okay. One other question I wanted to ask: I understand from my northern colleagues that the unthinkable takes place in places like Armstrong and the grocery stores sell liquor. One of them even brought me a picture of a store with the liquor piled high on one side and the consumables on the other. I want to know what effect that has on the northern populace. Does the minister find their morals very much different from those down here? Has organized crime moved in there to attempt to influence the shop owners in Armstrong, as he suggested they would if it was done in Toronto? Has great pressure been put to get greater prominence for Rieder’s rather Walkers in the Armstrong shops? Has any muscle been used? Have any legs been broken in this particular field? I want to carry through what the minister was discussing before.

All right, I am not going to belabour it. I come to him more in sorrow than in criticism. I understand that the poor Attorney General did his best and failed and this minister has sort of picked up the pieces and has come in with this face-saving piece of material which is better than nothing. At least it is silent on some things, for which we are grateful, and on those on which it speaks, it does very little harm. On that note I will leave him and let us hope that perhaps in another eight years, after another eight years of criticism and labour, we will get an even better liquor Act.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I will try.

Mr. Shulman: Okay.

Mr. Speaker: Does anyone else wish to speak? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t like to leave the member in sadness and sorrow. I will try to cheer him up a little bit, and when I am still minister in eight years I will try to come back with a better bill which might make him happier.

He mentioned the umbrella incident and, of course, we have discussed this. It has been publicized. On the one hand we were criticized for not having any advertising restrictions. Some members of his own party have suggested we put a complete ban on advertising.

Mr. Shulman: I agree with them.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: All I am saying is I would agree with the member that perhaps it was an error of omission. In developing the advertising directives with the industry, with the help of people like Watleys and others, nobody thought at that time they might want to include advertising on umbrellas, ash trays, beer mugs, coasters or a variety of areas -- the kind of thing that we see in other jurisdictions -- and I am not suggesting that perhaps some provisions should not be made for it. The directives are not in stone, they are on ordinary paper. They can be amended quite easily and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there was an amendment of some kind once we have had a chance to sit down and discuss a new set of directives.

I was surprised at the story he told about his Maltese gentlemen friends. I suppose from the way he swooped down and defended them they are going to call him the Maltese Falcon from now on. I want him to know that if he examines the legislation which is before us there is provision for the conveyance of unopened bottles of liquor. Even if they are open, they could have been carried in the trunk, where they are not accessible to the driver while the vehicle is moving.

I think we do have to have some restrictions on the conveyance of alcoholic beverages. It would seem to me that if the gentlemen involved were able to get clemency from the Attorney General there was good legal grounds for it and I would assume that perhaps they might have been improperly charged. That was the reason they would receive clemency, because I don’t think that my colleague, the Attorney General, would interfere in the proper functions of the law officers of this province.

I think the LCBO appears to have followed the advice of the hon. member in doing its investing in fine wines, and apparently it is suffering the consequences along with other people who accepted his advice, no matter how well meaning it is.

I don’t for one minute accept that the Liquor Control Board of Ontario is a business like any other. It operates under policies, and his suggestion to raise prices wasn’t made seriously and I’ll give it the same consideration; not serious.

As far as the counselling of people to go to Buffalo and bring in their wine undervalued and paying duty, I would like to draw attention to an area that I used to be expert in. I have been away from it for a little while. There is a section in the Customs Act which considers it an offence to commit conspiracy to undervalue imported goods.

Mr. Shulman: There is no conspiracy.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, but openly advising people to undervalue their merchandise --

Mr. Cassidy: It is overpriced in Ontario.

Mr. Shulman: It is at its true value in Buffalo.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well, I understood him to say that the people were not averse to deliberately undervaluing for the purpose of underpaying duty. I hope he is not counselling people to do that.

Mr. Shulman: No, sir.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: But it is a free country; the federal government does not put an embargo, nor do we, on the importation of liquor as long as the proper duties and taxes are paid, and I suppose we get a little bit of revenue out of that too.

As far as the Armstrong store that he mentioned is concerned, we do have agency stores where the demand is not sufficient and the demand certainly wouldn’t be enough to attract the strong-arm people who might want to get larger volumes than their competitors. All I can say is if the volume ever came to that extent, then the Liquor Control Board of Ontario would close the agency store and open one of its own. So it isn’t really an anomaly, the fact that there are agency stores where the demand --

Mr. Shulman: Why doesn’t the minister lower the prices?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The LCBO supplies the stores. They are very closely regulated. They don’t deal directly with the suppliers. We are the people who supply them through the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. Once the demand is sufficiently large to warrant the opening of a store, then the Liquor Control Board of Ontario will open a store and close the agency. So we do control it. There is no independent supplier going in and telling the man what kind of shelf space he should have; nor would the volume warrant any action of that kind.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is all I wanted to say on this bill.

Mr. Shulman: Will the minister allow one question?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Certainly.

Mr. Shulman: It’s the one point he hasn’t really dealt with: Can the minister deal with the fact that fine wines are now selling at approximately 400 to 1,000 per cent more in Ontario than they are outside? Why doesn’t he lower the price so that he can sell some here, instead of having people import it all?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, it would be a matter of policy on the part of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario in determining wine prices. Certain suggestions have been made to me. They are being discussed and, of course, when government policy is announced it will be announced in the usual way.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for seconding of Bill 45. Shall this motion carry?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Committee.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House? So directed.

Clerk of the House: Order for committee of the whole House.

LIQUOR CONTROL ACT

House in committee on Bill 44, the Liquor Control Act, 1975.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister has an amendment to section 1, which I will ask him to present at this time before we deal with that section.

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves that clause c of section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out “Ontario” in the third line.

Agreed.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Selling the Niagara producers down the river again, are you?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): We’ve got to sell some of that foreign wine, too.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments, questions or amendments to section 1?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the minister how that word got in there.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody with a vested interest had put it in, Mr. Chairman. However, leaving it in would deprive some members of the opportunity of buying wine from other jurisdictions.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Maybe the Minister for Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch).

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Chairman, I presume it is germane here: Does the minister intend to change the differential mark-up policy on wines, whereby Ontario wines are protected by a form of provincial tariff which does not apply in the case of any other products?

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): They need it, they need it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question is no, although I don’t believe it is germane to the section we are discussing.

Mr. Cassidy: Does the LCBO intend to change its policies under which certain varieties of wine are simply not permitted to come into Ontario at all, nor those from California?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe there is any policy which prevents any product from coming into Ontario. The board, as I explained during second reading, has a policy of admitting new listings and they come from a variety of jurisdictions. There is no reason why California wines should not be permitted, except that they have not been under the testing procedures of the board.

It is the same thing with certain beers that are manufactured in other jurisdictions; same thing with certain liquors that are manufactured in other jurisdictions. There is only so much shelf space in the stores and I think they have made judicious and very wise decisions in deciding to provide a broad range of selection for the Ontario consumer.

Mr. Cassidy: If I can pursue that, Mr. Chairman. In my observation of the lists in Ottawa -- and they may not reflect the list down here in Toronto; the member for High Park would be more expert than I -- but there are a variety of wines which are offered from almost every country in the world. There is North Africa wine, there are wines from eastern Europe, there are certainly wines from the traditional countries of Europe. You now have some Chilean and Argentinean wines on your lists, and they have a wide variety of wines and fortified wines from Australia.

In all of this, of course, the great omission is American wines. In view of the quality and the variety of the vineyards of California, I can understand a protective policy as regards Ontario wines. That is a legitimate policy to have here in Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They want to keep the BC wines out.

Mr. Cassidy: But it doesn’t require that we simply shut out wines from California entirely. They are, after all, grown on this continent and are of comparable quality to wines from most other winemaking countries of the world.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, there are certain California wines which are listed with the board, and there are more in the rare wine shops. There is a problem with delivery from California. Apparently, there have been four other brands which have been submitted for approval and they have been ordered. They have not been able to deliver them. They’re not available everywhere. There are two brands of wine from New York which are listed, and again they are not available everywhere. It just depends on where you happen to shop. I don’t frequent the wine shops as much as my hon. friend, and therefore I have never really noticed it -- nor would I have ever missed them, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: On this particular subject: Are the newspaper reports correct and are you entertaining the thought of banning the sale of French champagne in this country if the product sold in Ontario under that particular name is no longer allowed to call itself champagne?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, first of all there is a matter before the Supreme Court of Ontario. There is a suit filed by a certain number of plaintiffs in France against a certain number of defendants in Ontario. I have met with the agents of the plaintiffs in Ontario, who are members of the Imported Wine and Spirits Association. I met this morning with the defendants in the case. I have met with representatives of the grape growers.

I will be discussing with my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) and the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) what action, if any, Ontario can take in this matter.

Certainly no decisions have been made yet. It has been suggested by some of the interested parties that retaliatory measures should be taken by Ontario. At the moment, no decision has been made at all in that respect and I suppose when the decision is made it will be announced in the form of a statement by one of the members of the cabinet to whom I referred.

Mr. Shulman: It’s pretty obvious you are going to lose the case; because we’ve already gone through this in Quebec, and as you know Quebec wineries can no longer call their product champagne. Will the minister assure us he will not contemplate banning French champagne, which would be a disaster of monumental proportions to a minority of our population?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think I can give that assurance at all and I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that the case will be lost. I think what the defendants are up against is the fact that a 1933 trade treaty which contains a clause I’ve never ever seen in any other statute anywhere -- that the trade treaty supersedes all other Canadian statutes -- has been enforced. Under the Supreme Court, as it was formerly constituted, a five to four decision was given in favour of the plaintiffs.

I might remind the member that the constitution of that court has changed a little bit. The Chief Justice today was on the minority side at that time. It is quite possible that as he is Chief Justice now and there has been a change in the court, there may be a change in the decision, based on other arguments and other facts. I don’t want to prejudge that case. I simply feel the Province of Ontario has a responsibility --

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): If you did that you would lose the election for sure.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Sure; it may not be for five years anyway.

Mr. Cassidy: The poor Minister of Culture and Recreation looks pretty worried.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We do have a responsibility, I believe, notwithstanding the interests of that very vocal minority, to protect a very important Canadian industry both in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors. We will take whatever actions are necessary to protect their interests.

Mr. Lawlor: The York Club; the National Club; and all your Tory friends.

Mr. Shulman: I have two more questions on this subject. Does the minister think it would seriously affect the sale of the Canadian product if it sailed under a different name? Could you consider retaliating against the French by forbidding them the use of names like Maple Brandy and Cold Duck?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable about wine to know whether or not it would seriously injure the sales of Canadian champagne if they were forced to call it Canadian sparkling wine. I do know there are other appellations of a generic nature such as burgundy, bordeaux, beaujolais, sherry, port and others. I think we’re more concerned about the possible prevention of the use of those appellations than we are of the champagne one, particularly.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Brant.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the minister, since whoever drew up this Act certainly had a commitment to the protection of the Ontario wine industry, which the minister is now withdrawing, is the Ontario wine industry still permitted, by special statute, to import concentrates for wine; or is Ontario wine, in effect, made from Ontario grapes?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, in a clause there is a definition of Ontario wines. They must be made from Ontario grapes, apples, other fruits or Ontario honey.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If I might ask the minister, until a couple of years ago, there was a special amendment -- to the Liquor Control Act -- was it?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): No, it was a separate Act.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was a separate Act, which permitted Ontario wineries to import concentrates since the grape crop in the Niagara Peninsula was insufficient to support production. Can the minister assure us that anomaly in government policy is now moving into history and that the supports we are prepared to give Ontario wine is a support for the Ontario grape farmer and not necessarily a support for Ontario wineries?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, that was a very temporary situation and there was a special concession given at that time to the wine manufacturers in Ontario to permit them to import concentrates. My understanding is that their experience was not a very happy one. They did not get the better concentrates, they came into the market too late; and as a result, they weren’t very pleased with the concession in any case.

At the present time there is no shortage of grapes. The grape growers are gradually increasing their plantings of the better-quality brands of grapes, and I am sure the consumers of Ontario, and perhaps consumers in other jurisdictions, will notice the improvement in the quality of Ontario wines very quickly.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: On this particular subject, which I must pursue, because I wouldn’t want the minister to give out misinformation; as you are aware -- I am sure you are aware -- for many years the Canadian variety was suitable only for external use because of the type of grape that was being used, the Lambrusca. After a while, the public having had the opportunity to taste wines from other areas --

Mr. Cassidy: That was your mistake.

Mr. Shulman: That was a terrible error -- they gradually cut down on their consumption of this Lambrusca joy juice. The result has been that while wine consumption has been increasing steadily, Ontario wine consumption has been going down.

In an effort to do something about this, the various Canadian wineries started producing a better wine -- the Marechal Foch, I think, is a very good example of that. Bright’s started off with that, and with their first effort I think they produced some 48 bottles at a cost of about $100 a bottle, which they very kindly sold to the liquor store at a reasonable price of around $4 a bottle. The profit was not great, and the stock didn’t do well, but it was nice for the few people who were able to try that wine.

I had the opportunity of talking to Joe Peller who I believe has an interest in one of the wineries in the Niagara region, and he told me the real problem is that they are still forced to produce mainly external wines because most of the stuff they get is Lambrusca, since the farmers have not planted enough of the new varietal grapes and there is no real inducement for them to do so. And as things stand now, the wineries cannot import concentrate from outside.

Mr. Peller pointed out to me that the small amount of the new good wine he is able to produce he sells out like a flash, and then he is finished, because he can’t get any more of the juice and you won’t let him bring it in.

The farmers can’t be persuaded to grow enough of it, for a very good reason. Most of their farms are still covered with the old Lambrusca variety, which is easier to grow and which the wineries have to buy anyway because they have no choice. They can’t get enough of the other stuff.

Until there is financial inducement or pressure to force the farmers to switch over, the Canadian wineries, particularly the Ontario wineries, are going to continue to go downhill, because we cannot compete with Baby Duck, Cold Duck, old duck, hot duck against a proper bordeaux. Anyone who has ever tasted either would rather pay an extra dollar or two dollars a bottle and be able to drink it.

In order for the Canadians to compete, you have to let them get the better grape -- and they are just not getting enough of it; it is coming out in minuscule quantities. It is here that the minister’s policy is short-sighted.

I would suggest to him -- I don’t suppose he will take my suggestion -- that he will have to use the carrot and the stick with the farmers and tell them that beginning in 1977 or 1978, unless a sufficient quantity of the new grapes is produced, he is going to allow the concentrate to be imported. If he doesn’t, we are going to continue to limp along, and Bright’s, Andres, Cartier and all the rest are going to continue to slowly slip into the dust. No matter how much more they cost, people are going to continue to buy the Portuguese, the Spanish the Californian and the other wines.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think I should deny some of the allegations that were made by the hon. member. Certainly there is a limited quantity, and we are quite aware of the fact, but there is an increasing quantity of varietal types of wines.

Mr. Shulman: It is minuscule.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is not minuscule at all. It is being sold in commercial quantities. I think the member for Ottawa Centre can tell him if he goes to the Bayshore Shopping Centres, he can get all the Gamay beaujolais he wants if he is willing to pay $3.15 a bottle.

Mr. Shulman: Some are available here.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Certainly, the carrot- and-stick approach is being taken; the Minister of Agriculture and Food can explain that far better than I. There are excellent relationships being developed between some of the wineries and the grape growers; not all of them, because there is the usual friction between the seller and buyer, and we have that problem. There is a marketing board.

I think the grape growers themselves have recognized the value of going into the better quality grapes and they are doing it. Obviously, there is the long-term investment which they now have in their present crops. They are not about to tear them out and have to wait three or four years without some kind of guarantees, and these are now being developed by the wineries.

I think we will see the day, in the not too far distant future I hope, when Canadian wines will be accepted on an equal basis -- on the basis of quality; not only in this jurisdiction, because I think there is a very large potential export market for the good Canadian wines. Of course, we have to increase the quantities and the Minister of Agriculture and Food and I are working with our respective client groups to try to do that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question about that. The minister indicated there were certain tests applicable to an importer before the product was stocked on a regular basis. Am I to understand that the test is one of salability, or what is the test? Quality? Why can’t I buy Lancers, Portuguese; is that available?

Mr. Shulman: It is available, you can buy it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not in Brant, unfortunately.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition might very well accept an invitation from the board to go down to the labs down at their offices. I did.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is it a quality test?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is a quality test. It is a test for consistency of product.

Mr. Shulman: Tasting test really.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, no; consistency of quality.

Mr. Shulman: There is another.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, but alcoholic content. There are a variety of scientific tests. They also have wine tasters.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, surely a bureaucracy is not going to dictate that?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There are wine tasters who are experts, who can tell one wine from another. In view of the scandals in France, I sometimes wonder at the credibility of these experts.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Did you people pick up the sag in quality since you started testing these products?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I really can’t tell you whether they did or not. There were a lot of experts who were fooled at that time, including the experts in France.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Don’t rely on the minister for that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: But I can tell you that the tests are done in lab setting. They are done in a wine-tasting setting and salability will obviously have a great deal to do with it, because you can have the best wine in the world and if it is not properly promoted it is not going to sell. So there are a variety of factors taken into account by the board in determining new listings. There are not that many new listings granted each year, because in order to have a new listing you really have to delist something else. The shelves are full.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Just to pursue it a bit further, there was a time many years ago when the listings were a matter of day-to-day concern, and I’m sure that we are concerned only with the availability of products that people want to purchase. Surely that is based on the salability.

Do you have products where an application is made for listing, when in fact the quality is such that you are not prepared to permit them to be listed? Is it the presence of bacteria or what are you concerned about? If the people want them what do you care, because you sell some of the worst rotgut, I would think, on the shelves anywhere.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. Leader of the Opposition should be challenged to name some of that rotgut that is being sold.

Mr. B. F. Nixon: I have tried it all.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Is it the first or the second or the third bottle?

Mr. Cassidy: Would you put the price up?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Certainly salability is one of the factors.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What else concerns you?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well, we might have 25 different burgundies. I don’t know how many different burgundies you can sell or how many different clarets you can sell. There is a limit to them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But why are there no California? I mean, I don’t care whether --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There is California, on a limited basis. It’s difficult to obtain delivery from them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: My adviser from Ottawa Centre said there weren’t.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: This is not new to me. I should have had it at my fingertips.

There are 700 products which are submitted to the board annually for testing, and 15 to 20 are accepted, simply because that is the number of new listings; counting the number of delistings, because there are delistings. Products which do not sell are delisted because the managers say: “I am not going to order any more. That case is still gathering dust in my warehouse.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It costs too much.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Maybe.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: On that same subject, if I may pursue that, you mentioned something about delistings and it isn’t always that they don’t sell. For example, I find that chocolate liqueur has been delisted. To my great dismay I found that chocolate liqueur is no longer allowed in Ontario, and yet it sold very well. Did someone fail to make a donation at the appropriate time? Was this the difficulty there? Why were chocolate liqueurs taken off the shelf?

The second point I want to ask is how does one become a wine taster? A number of my colleagues, and myself, have volunteered, on numerous occasions, to do it without charge; but our offers have been ignored. I was wondering how one gets that particular job.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I understand you are going to be unemployed.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s no fun, Morty, you can’t swallow it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I can’t really tell you why the chocolate liqueurs were delisted. I have asked the board for information on the criteria used for listing and delisting. I have been pressured as much as anybody, I believe, by representatives -- not particularly of the manufacturers, but of the countries involved which are very anxious to get Ontario listings.

Mr. Shulman: Well, specifically, tell me about Swiss chocolate and scotch?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I have met with consuls general and trade commissioners and they can -- well, scotch has no problem.

Mr. Shulman: Oh, no; Swiss chocolate.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I have a list of wines here from Sicily.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They might sell it in your riding. It is a dry riding.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Probably the hon. member for High Park would understand some of the terminology.

Certainly if they had an unacceptable taste score they were recommended for rejection. Then I see: “Fortified wine, possibly acceptable”; and they give the alcohol content. “Fluid contents: Declared 25.4 ounces, found to be 24.” This kind of thing.

They test all of these on a variety of grounds. I really don’t understand why they haven’t taken you on as a wine taster because I see one here: “Pollution with Poisonous arsenic residues exceed acceptable levels.” I think they might have tried that one on you.

Mr. Shulman: All right. I want to ask you a specific one, because this was not something they didn’t sell. I want you to ask your advisers why they took chocolate Swiss and the other chocolate liqueurs off the market when they were selling. I know they were selling. Would you ask someone under the canopy what went wrong in that particular case. Did the viscosity miss or something?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I can give it to you later.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since everyone is making his plea on behalf of his favourite liquor, liqueur or whatever it may be, I shall take the opportunity to make mine. For the past several years, my summers, those unimaginable zero summers, have been ruined by the absence on my table beside the pool, of a certain brand.

Mr. Renwick: Be careful of the pool. Is it indoor? Have you got an umbrella?

Mr. Lawlor: Well, that’s a ridiculous law. Nobody keeps that one.

Mr. Shulman: Charge him.

Mr. F. R. Good (Waterloo North): Leaky roof.

Mr. Lawlor: Let them come on to my property with warrants.

Mr. Shulman: They don’t need them under the Act.

Mr. Lawlor: I appreciate that. It’s the reasonable and probable cause nevertheless.

Yes, that favourite liquor of mine. A scotch company produced two varieties of Pimm’s, No. 1 Cup and No. 2 Cup.

An hon. member: What?

Mr. Lawlor: The cups have to do with gin base and a rye base; and as I say to my total desolation, if not dereliction or whatever it is that happens to one when one of your bases is taken away from you, No. 2 Cup was removed from the market. That’s the rye base one, that’s the good one.

I can’t stand gin, personally, in case you want to know. It is all because of a poem I once read by C. K. Chesterton. He has a line that shows the effect of language on a person by way of association. “The ginned-damned drunkard’s wry half-witted face.” Whenever I drink gin or see my wife do so, I have these revulsions.

So would you please make your best effort and try to get the rye-based Pimm’s back on the shelf? I mean, if I have done nothing else in this Legislature but to see that wretched thing returned, I shall feel vindicated, it hasn’t been completely worthless.

Mr. Cassidy: Generations will hold your name in honour.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, just to show you how co-operative we are, I have the answer for both the hon. members.

The Swiss chocolate liqueur simply didn’t sell enough to meet the quota. Obviously the hon. member wasn’t drinking enough of it. Therefore it was delisted because it fell below the quantity quota.

Mr. Shulman: What is the quantity quota?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I can obtain that for you. It depends, I suppose, on the particular liqueur or the particular beverage.

Mr. Shulman: Well, just a minute. I have to interrupt here because I happen to know that particular one outsold another one which you have continued to carry, Poire William, by something like three to one. Yet one got delisted and one didn’t.

Being of a suspicious turn of mind, I wonder is there some other factor that you are not confiding to us.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, I am certainly relying on the advice of the people on the board. They make these decisions. Nobody else makes them. They have advised that it did not make the quota. Now you are saying there are others that didn’t make the quota and continue to be listed. I can look into those.

Mr. Shulman: I’m saying that some manufacturers have different quotas than others.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That may very well be. I’d have to ask about that.

I’d like to reply to the hon. member for Lakeshore. Unfortunately for him Pimm’s now only make one, and it’s the No. 1 Cup. They have cancelled all their other products. We have not cancelled them. Unfortunately the only thing he can do is follow the free enterprise principle of opening up a competitive distillery.

Mr. Chairman: It seems to the Chair the debate is becoming a little too dry. Perhaps we could recognize the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I just want to come back to this question of quotas, Mr. Chairman. The minister may recall back in the days before he came into the Legislature there used to be a kind of a tollgate system, which involved the Conservative Party, in liquor listings. Now, I understand that system has ended -- requiescat in pace, as the member for Lakeshore would say.

But what now happens, from what the minister has been describing and from this interchange with the member for High Park, is that the Liquor Control Board doesn’t inspire all of us with confidence in its knowledge or its understanding or appreciation of these things.

The member for High Park, for example, has been very critical of its judgement in the matter of wines and in the fact that it has blown its purchasing assignment in a number of cases.

Whereas, for example, the state liquor monopoly in Sweden has on occasion used the marketing power it has, which is rather equivalent to the market power of the Ontario Liquor Control Board, in order to influence the suppliers from other foreign countries to bring the price down to provide a product which is suited to the taste of their consumers, and that kind of thing, the Liquor Control Board here has been very reluctant to do that. I understand, for example, it has tended to work through merchants rather than buying directly.

There are a number of importers, there are a number of distillers who have certain kinds of products they wish to bring onto the market or whose market share they wish to improve.

The minister is part of a party which runs a government monopoly in the liquor business, but also endorses some principles of free enterprise, I gather. But as the LCBO operates, it interposes its judgement as to what will sell and what won’t sell, and also its judgement as to quality control and that kind of thing in terms of what we even accept.

I find it remarkable when it says that many California wines won’t pass the quality tests, when one considers that because of the climate in California, California wines tend to be of a much more consistent quality than French wines. You will get a far greater variation between French wines of different years, for example, than you do between California wines, because in California the weather is much more predictable.

What I’d like to suggest is this -- and I put this forward for the minister’s consideration and for the consideration of Gen. Kitching and his people. If a manufacturer wants his product listed and stocked at a number of stores across the province, then you say right now: “We want to be assured there are a certain amount of sales, because otherwise it doesn’t pay the board giving those products shelf space. You make a judgement as to whether or not it will sell.”

I would like to suggest that a manufacturer who wishes to have his product listed should have the opportunity to put up, in effect, a guarantee. If the product doesn’t sell up to the quota, which is determined by regulation or by negotiation or whatever, then you call him in on his guarantee. He had a new product and he tried to make it go, and he had a promotion campaign in the media accessible to the company -- and it didn’t work -- so he pulls it off the market.

He gives $5,000 or $10,000 to the board to pay for the fact his product occupied shelf space or warehousing space over a certain period of time.

The board is not the poorer; there is no loss to the taxpayer in terms of the tax revenues you expect through the sale of liquor. But the manufacturer or the importer has the opportunity to test the company’s judgement about what the market will accept; rather than being compelled to accept the judgment of people who may or may not be expert in that particular field.

That would surely answer the kind of question about the Swiss chocolate brandy posed by the member for High Park, or the questions about California wines, which the board in the past has been pretty reluctant to accept.

A manufacturer or an importer who wants to bring in a number of California wines and try them out will have the opportunity. There will be a cost; it will cost him $50,000 or $100,000 to get a really good trial with his product. And if it works, he will simply get his normal return or profit on the merchandise; if it doesn’t work, he’s out that amount of money.

That’s no different from somebody trying some new product in the baby food market or the adult food market or the frozen fish stick market, where there are certain costs and risks entailed in launching the product. It may or may not work; if it doesn’t work you withdraw from the test market and try something new. If it does work you start to sell it across the province.

I would suggest that would be a more reasonable way for manufacturers to prove a market. The Liquor Board, as a government monopoly, could do this without loss; and the questions we and other people raise about the Liquor Board interposing its judgement in areas where it hasn’t proved particularly expert, could be resolved.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the member keeps saying things and I keep denying them and I don’t know why I bother doing that. I’m going to say it again: We have never said there’s anything wrong with the quality of California wine. We said we have listed certain California wines; we’ve listed certain New York wines.

Mr. Cassidy: You said others wouldn’t pass the quality test.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: What we say is we stock over 1,000 wines now. If we were to accept the member’s suggestion and there were manufacturers who were willing to stake a few thousand dollars on being able to sell in this market, we would have to build stores the size of Eaton’s or Simpsons in order to do it. There simply isn’t sufficient space. We’ve got 2,000 products; we have 1,000 different wines. We will list new products yearly as they come before the board.

He talks about not trusting the judgement of the board. The board’s judgement and it’s efficiency, I think, have been judged by more impartial observers than he is. They have not been found to be wanting. They have been looked at by outside independent consultants at the request of the government to make sure their efficiency and judgement does meet certain standards. All of the reports I have been able to find indicate that the Liquor Control Board of Ontario is second to none both in its judgement of products and its efficiency of operation.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can give an example which is away from the field of wine. I have this from somebody in the industry who obviously has a particular case to put, who came to me as a member and told me this. As I understand it, there are about five different grades of rye whisky sold in Canada and they vary in price by about 40 cents a bottle. If the bottom of the line is $6; they go $6.40, $6.80, $7.20, $7.60, something like that, for a 25 oz. bottle of rye. I understand as well that in the western provinces of Canada there is another grade of rye and if the present minimum price in Ontario is about $5.80, this grade of rye sells for 30 cents or 40 cents less, for about $5.40 or $5.50.

Mr. Shulman: A dollar less.

Mr. Cassidy: A dollar less? I’m not sure if it’s $1 less or 50 cents less. At any rate, I hate to contemplate what it may taste like but there is apparently a market for that among people who have to watch their pennies and who still like to have the occasional bottle of rye. Am I correct in understanding that particular sort of No. 1 line of rye is simply not stocked in the LCBO stores in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That is absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman, and I believe it’s a deliberate policy of the board, in line with government policy. Again, we get back to moderation and the possibility of alcohol abuses. All I’m saying is there are ryes which sell for considerably less than that; they’re made and they’re sold. I think the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) mentioned it in his contribution to the debate. You can go into stores in the United States and pick up some rotgut for $2.50 a bottle. We simply say there are certain minimum standards and we will not go below those. We will not encourage people to buy cheap whisky. As far as this government is concerned that will be our policy and the board carries out that policy.

Mr. Cassidy: We are talking about a 10 per cent difference in price, roughly, between about --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Then another 10.

Mr. Cassidy: Another 10 per cent difference in price?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: You can go another 10 and another 10.

Mr. Cassidy: No, you can’t; because in this country we have heavy taxes and a heavy markup, both. The Liquor Control Board markup amounts to a form of taxation as well. You cannot get the price below a certain fairly high level. We can’t have a $3 rye in this province when the Liquor Board’s basic cut is about $4 a bottle -- what per cent is it?

Mr. Shulman: I don’t know the percentage.

Mr. Cassidy: The Liquor Control Board’s cut is a very high markup on the price of the basic product. In other words, you can’t go down to $3. If people want to drink rye -- which may not be the minister’s taste, I don’t know; he has denied drinking beer or wine. I’m not sure what your taste is, actually.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Rum.

Mr. Cassidy: Rum, okay.

Mr. Shulman: That explains everything.

Mr. Cassidy: Why should this not be accessible? Why can’t the consumer make his own judgement? My judgement as an occasional rye drinker is that the extra 50 cents in price in every case brings a far more than proportionate increase in the quality of the product. In other words, if you pay an extra 50 cents, you get a much better rye and if you pay an extra $1 it’s much better again and it’s well worth the extra money. But if people want to drink it more reasonably and have to drop, it’s an expensive hobby.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, distillers, I believe, could sell us a supply in Ontario. Certain minimum standards have been established and they are going to be maintained.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: Before we leave this vote, I’m quite intrigued by the quota system. I’ve always been of such a suspicious bent. Has the minister had the opportunity to consult with his brain trust and can he now advise us why Swiss chocolate which didn’t meet their quota, according to him, was delisted while Poire William which sold so much less was not?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I haven’t got that information.

Mr. Shulman: I expect you never will.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We’re still on section 1 of the bill and I’ll try to get it before we complete this section of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: What is the quota system? Can you give us an example?

Mr. Shulman: Yes, when you are getting this would you find out what the quota is? Is it the same for every company?

In other words, do favoured companies get better quotas? The other question I would ask is what special attributes does the Poire William company have that the chocolate Swiss company didn’t? That’s what I’m curious about.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I’ll try to obtain that.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments, criticism or amendments prior to section 3. The minister has an amendment to section 3.

Mr. Cassidy: Section 2.

On section 2:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know why we do this. I noticed the member of the assembly who is presently a member of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario is not even here for this debate, which shows the degree of interest he takes in these matters. It seems to me, in line with the recommendations of the Camp commission, that the provisions that allow remunerative employment of a member of the assembly, of the government party obviously, or of any party for that matter, as a member of the LCBO, just simply don’t wash.

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 2 of Bill 44 be amended by deleting subsection 6.

Mr. Cassidy: This is a cheap kind of patronage. Among other things it furthers the kind of patronage that has existed about the board in the appointment of its employees. The government should be moving root and branch to stop this kind of patronage appointment and this kind of payment to a backbencher.

If the minister wants to have somebody from the assembly sit on the commission, then it seems to me the minister could sit on the commission or his parliamentary assistant could; though even that I would question. I don’t really see why it is necessary at all.

The proper means for communication between government and a Crown corporation such as the LCBO should surely be by means of a cabinet or ministerial directive. That is, the broad framework of policy is set by the cabinet or set by the government and is then communicated to the Crown corporation. Within those broad frameworks of policy the Crown corporation, in this case the LCBO, should be able to act.

If the government in its wisdom deems the LCBO is making a mistake in a particular area, then it should direct the LCBO to act in a certain manner. It should say: “We want you to list such and such a product; we want you to stop selling cheap ryes or we want you to do this or that.”

That is the way in which the policy should be communicated. This present vehicle is inadequate, is inefficient and is wrong. I urge the minister to agree to take out subsection 6.

Mr. Chairman: I must draw to the hon. member’s attention that any amendments must be delivered to the Chair in writing.

Mr. Cassidy: In that case, I will be happy to deliver it to the Chair in writing.

Mr. Shulman: While my colleague is writing, may I pursue this?

Mr. Chairman: Is the hon. member commenting on section 2?

Mr. Shulman: Yes. I would just like to ask the minister who are the members of the board and, how much time do they supply -- I know the chairman is full time -- and what is each paid for this effort? How often are the meetings? Give me some details as to what they’re being paid for.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I don’t have the details or the names of all the members of the board.

Mr. Shulman: You don’t know the names of the members of the board? Did the minister say he doesn’t know the names of the members of the board?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Not all of the members of the board, but I can get that very quickly. As you know, the chairman of the board is Gen. Kitching, and there are a number of other members whom I do know. Obviously, one of the members of this Legislature is a member of that board as well.

Mr. Cassidy: How many members are there?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: As I recall there are five.

Mr. Shulman: Have you never met with the board?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, I’ve met with the board.

Mr. Shulman: Were you not introduced?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I was introduced but I don’t recall all the members.

Mr. Shulman: You didn’t remember it. It wasn’t a memorable occasion, I gather.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, we had sandwiches.

Mr. Shulman: Was anything else served? What I want to know is who they are; do you know what they’re paid?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It’s coming now.

Mr. Shulman: Here it comes. The minister is new to his job.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The names given to me are Gen. Kitching, Jack Harris and the Rev. Downer. Gen. Kitching is full time. Jack Harris is the vice-chairman of the board; and Mr. Downer is a member of the Legislature. I believe, his additional honorarium for being a member is $5,000, but I would have to check that.

Mr. Shulman: What is Jack Harris paid and what is Gen. Kitching paid?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I’ll have to get that information for you.

Mr. Shulman: Would you also find out what services Mr. Harris supplies? Does he come once a week?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He is full time.

Mr. Shulman: He is full-time? Would you ask over there what his pay is? I want to see if I should apply for a job. I see there is room for five members.

Mr. Cassidy: This is a policy debate on the LCBO as well, which makes sense I think. We seldom have the opportunity to talk about it.

Mr. Shulman: No ex-members?

Mr. Cassidy: What will be the policy of the government on appointments to the LCBO when you’re going from three to five; and what kind of representation do you want? Right now you have two full-time employees with the board, who are on the board, plus a member of the assembly. He’s a member of the assembly who, among other things, has the distinction of having served in this place longer than any other member. He came here the year I was born.

It isn’t exactly a broad cross-section of Ontario society. There is nobody from the east; there is nobody from the north; there are no francophones; there are no people from any of Ontario’s ethnic communities; there are no women. It’s a very narrow kind of group. How many of the present board are, in fact, non-drinkers? I understand at least one is and maybe more.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult with a small board like that to have the wide variety of representation the member would like it to have. The new Act says: “There shall be not more than five members of the board.” The policy of appointments to boards and commissions, of course, will be through the Lieutenant Governor in Council designating members of the board through that medium. The manner in which the names will be chosen is in the normal course of events we will select them. We will try to make it representative.

Mr. Shulman: Through the Ontario Lottery would be a good way.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We will certainly try to make it as representative as we can. I want to repeat we will be having an overall advisory committee on liquor policy which, I think, will accommodate every possible area of interest in this province; every possible special interest group; every possible language group; ethnic group; both sexes -- I don’t know what I can do about anything other than that; there are only two as far as I’m aware. We will try to have a much wider representation on the board, which is very limited.

When we say not more than five, we may not add any more at all. If we do add, we can add women; we can add francophones; we can add representatives of the ethnic groups; and if we’re lucky we can find all those combined in one person.

Mr. Cassidy: What you want is somebody from eastern Ontario with a French mother from North Bay and so on.

Perhaps I can suggest that within the limit of five, bearing in mind this is a policy-making body, you try to get a broader representation even if you can’t get every kind of group represented. Particularly when the board is so small there really is no need to have anybody from the Legislature present. Wouldn’t the minister agree with the amendment that I put forward?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, no, I can’t accept that amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: Keep up the club, eh?

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy has moved that subsection 68 section 2, be deleted from Bill 44.

All those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment defeated and section 2 carried.

Mr. Shulman: Wait a minute. He was going to give me some answers to my comments on section 2.

Mr. Chairman: Before we carry it then, we will allow the answers to be given.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I still don’t have the answers the hon. member requested. I pledge that even though we have passed the section, as soon as I have an opportunity I will try to give them to him. Really what he did ask was the salary and remuneration of the present members of the board. I’ll try to get that.

Mr. Shulman: In addition to that, could you let me know, are there any other perks? We learned about one of them by chance a while back, as you will recall, but do they have any other unusual perks?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the unusual perk which the hon. member mentions was vastly exaggerated. Obviously the Liquor Control Board, which is a billion-dollar business, has cars available. One of them is used by the chairman in the performance of his duties. To the best of my knowledge, the uniform of which the member spoke is a grey suit, which is supplied by himself. I don’t really call that a perk at all.

As far as I know, the board has no other perks. They obviously travel widely in the conduct of the business of the board and their expenses are paid when they do so.

Mr. Shulman: Does Mr. Harris also have a full-time car?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I think we both noted that the estimates of the Liquor Control Board do not come before the Legislature, nor do they come before any committee of the Legislature. I am not aware of whether or not Mr. Harris has a full-time driver or the full-time use of a car, nor have I asked that question. It is not the kind of question I would have to answer in estimates, nor do I feel that it should be answered here. There’s nothing in this --

Mr. Shulman: Whoa, whoa, whoa. You are looking for trouble now.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There is nothing in the section we are discussing here concerning the performance, salary or other perks of the chairman or the vice-chairman.

Mr. Shulman: You had better read the section again; read section 2(5).

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Certainly I am prepared to obtain the remuneration, as requested by the hon. member, but I think we are getting into questions of the internal operations of the board which are not before the Legislature or before this committee.

Mr. Shulman: Oh now, Mr. Chairman. If these men are being paid in ways other than cash, the minister has got to tell us about it. Section 2(5) reads: “The members of the board shall be paid such remuneration as is fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.” If part of that remuneration is a limousine and a driver, for goodness’ sake how can you say you are not going to answer a question like that?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I can say to the hon. member that the Lieutenant Governor in Council has not fixed remuneration consisting of a car or driver.

Mr. Shulman: If it is not fixed, how do they get it? I mean, they have it; how do they get it if you don’t approve of it?

Mr. Good: They approve it themselves.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, the board manages its own affairs. Its responsibility is, of course, to carry out government policy in the sale and distribution of liquor. Mr. Harris does not have a driver. There are cars available; presumably when he needs a car, he asks for the use of a Liquor Control Board car. The chairman has a car available to him so that he can travel around in the performance of his duties. The board makes these business decisions in the same way as any other corporation.

Mr. Cassidy: What is their pay?

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments, questions or amendments to any other section of the bill?

Mr. Shulman: I understand the minister has just been given a piece of paper with the pay on it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, it didn’t have the pay on it, I’m afraid.

I have an amendment to section 3, if we are finished with section 2.

Section 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves that section 3(a) be amended by adding at the end thereof: “and other products containing alcohol and non-alcoholic beverages”.

Mr. Shulman: Can I inquire what non-alcoholic beverages you intend to start selling?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It’s not a question of starting to sell; what we are doing is authorizing the board, which does not now have the authority, to stock de-alcoholized beverages, which have been requested by a large number of people in this province as an alternative to alcohol.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Such as:

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The Carl Jung wines, which have been mentioned previously, and perhaps near-beers. All this does is give them the authority to do it. It does not order them to do it. Also, if you are talking about other products containing alcohol, there are certain specialties which are not alcoholic beverages, such as chocolates containing liqueurs, which cannot now be sold because they are not liquors. There are fruits which are stored in alcoholic beverages which are specialties in Europe. All we are doing here is giving the board, through this amendment, the authority to sell these products.

Mr. Shulman: I am a little confused, Mr. Chairman. Just in the last section we were talking about the tremendous number of alcohol-containing products -- so many that you are not able to stock many of them. Two of our favourites have gone here tonight already. Yet you want to take some of this very difficult space and put non-alcoholic beverages in which people can buy elsewhere. It doesn’t make sense to me; perhaps you could explain.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In the course of our deliberations and in the course of submissions made to us, it was suggested that many people in shopping at the liquor store are shopping for guests as well as themselves. In many cases, those guests are non-drinkers and in many cases they are young people, 18 or 19, who are below the legal drinking age and they have parties.

Mr. Shulman: They can go to the malt shop.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: All we are suggesting here is the one-stop shopping possibility. When you are picking up your wine, you pick up a non-alcoholic wine as well.

Mr. Shulman: It is none of your business.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It isn’t any of our business? We think it is. We think it part of the programme of moderation which is being promoted by the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Samis: Are you against private enterprise?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It certainly fits in with the whole thrust of the moderation programme. We are saying the non-alcoholic alternative should be available through our own outlets.

Mr. Shulman: Or is it other way around, to get the young people or whoever are the non-alcoholics to come to the liquor store to buy their non-alcoholic beverages so they will get into a habit of coming there as they get a little older? Is that perhaps the thought?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, the non-alcoholic beverages at the present time are simply not selling because they are sold in gourmet specialty stores where most people don’t shop; so they aren’t aware of their existence.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, we might do something like this, if we were in the government, but as far as you are concerned the tables are completely turned. The free enterprise vote is going to abandon the Conservatives the way they are going right now.

Mr. Samis: Against free enterprise.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 3, as amended carry?

Mr. Cassidy: They won’t know where to go, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): You let us worry about that.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other questions, amendments or comments prior to section 8?

Mr. Cassidy: On section 3, Mr. Chairman, a bit further on. That was section 3(a), I believe, that was amended.

Mr. Chairman: It was section 3(a), correct.

Mr. Cassidy: I don’t want to go on for long with the minister on a question of women, but I just want to say that in the comments that he made about sex discrimination, he is saying that the board is well-meaning, and I am sure that they are. He doesn’t acknowledge the failure of their performance.

The minister’s figures indicated that there is about a 10 per cent turnover in the staff of the board every year. According to the figures that I have, there are approximately 3,500 employees. That means there are about 350 job openings at the LCBO every year. The figures I read into the record, which were figures that were given to me by Mr. Harris and by Gen. Kitching, indicated that in the period from April, 1974 to March, 1975 there was an increase of 11 full-time women on the staff of the board and of 139 men, which would indicate that there is simply not any priority being given at all to increasing opportunities for women.

I had a pleasant chat with Gen. Kitching underneath the gallery during the course of the debate but I am afraid we did not reach a meeting of minds. I have to say publicly that I think part of the problem must surely be the attitudes which the board has right now; saying, for example, that it is wrong, to say that women don’t want to work where liquor is concerned; when you consider the number of women who work as barmaids and as cocktail waitresses and that kind of thing. There has clearly been no reticence by women to work in those particular positions. It seems to me that jobs earning $9,000 or $10,000 might be quite attractive to many women, given the limited economic opportunities they have in many other fields of endeavour.

I was informed by Gen. Kitching there are about 900 applicants for jobs on the rolls of the LCBO here in Toronto alone. I don’t know what the procedures of the board are. I don’t know whether it is really true that we simply have a queue and that for somebody whose name was put in two and a half years ago eventually his number will come up and he will be offered a job this year. When the list is that long, then the list -- which, of course, is almost entirely male -- will be used as a means of keeping women away.

Most people who are looking for a job are looking for a job now, or next week or next month. Women, who often are family heads and that kind of thing, in particular have got to find a job now. Bearing in mind that most women work because they have to and not because it’s a matter of choice, to be told there’s a waiting list of 2½ years is clearly a put off and a means of discouraging women coming to work for the Liquor Control Board.

I’m told by people in the board -- and I’ve agreed to go down and meet with their woman’s co-ordinator and their personnel people and so on -- that because of the number of applicants that come in unsolicited there is never any advertising by the LCBO for employees. It seems to me if you have now decided you’re opening up opportunities as liquor store clerks to women, that fact should be advertised. The evidence of one’s visits to the liquor stores are that this is an all-male occupation. You can count the number of liquor store clerks who are working full time who are women on the fingers of two hands as far as I can understand, apart from the ones in the duty-free stores.

As a consequence, women who might work in a liquor store and who go into the place as patrons from time to time to buy a bit of booze, never think of it because it’s always all men. It would seem to me, for example, that periodically a notice might go up in the liquor store saying that job applications are opened up every three months, and women as well as men are invited to apply, this is the pay and this is where you apply, and occasionally, at reasonable intervals, once or twice a year, the LCBO might advertise in the newspapers as well.

I am told, again in my friendly discussion with Gen. Kitching, that the board is out for the best people it can get, which is a perfectly laudable intention. Now once again, because of sex discrimination in our society in general, pay for women tends to be a lot lower than that of men. And therefore for a certain wage you tend to get a better quality of female applicant than you do a male applicant, because the male applicants have already been snapped up into higher paid jobs. It seems to me that among other things the Liquor Control Board is overlooking a very large pool of talent and ability and initiative from people who could serve the public and do the job of liquor store clerks very effectively and very well.

So I’m saying to the minister, I think there’s an attitude problem, I think that needs to be looked into very carefully. I think the ministry, the cabinet and the Liquor Control Board should dismiss the idea that because, as men they assume that women don’t want the jobs, therefore they don’t want the jobs. I would suggest that a certain amount of affirmative action in making these opportunities available to women and letting women know that they are available, would go a long way to finding them jobs.

I think you should go further, and that you should make a rule that, over the next couple of years, says at least half of the appointments of liquor store clerks should be women, provided suitably qualified women have applied. If they don’t apply, okay, then at least you’ve made the attempt. And then, when there is a significant proportion, that would get you up to 10 per cent or 15 per cent working in the liquor stores, then you would see whether in fact there was a flow of applications or not.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to get into a debate with the hon. members on sex discrimination in society as a whole. We did discuss this at some length during the debate on second reading.

Mr. Good: It is out of order here.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I have committed myself and my ministry and the board to attempting to improve the situation as far as employment opportunities for women are concerned. Miss Moffatt, I’m sure, is perfectly competent to determine the types of criteria the board should adopt towards that effort. I have every confidence she will be doing it and that the board will in fact cooperate with her in her efforts to carry out her task.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to go on long about this now; but I’m saying that up until now it hasn’t worked. There is an attitude problem, and I think something more than that kind of thing is needed. There’s too much of the attitude of: We can’t; it doesn’t work; women don’t want to come here; they don’t stay; they won’t move; they won’t go to a job 15 miles away. All sorts of reasons are offered that are the traditional responses when women’s employment is being considered. The minister, who’s a fairly sensitive fellow in a number of areas, knows enough about that to know whereof I speak. It’s been experienced in the banks; it’s been experienced in the government generally and in all sorts of areas. There is no reason for it to be allowed to continue in the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, these attitudes of the 1940s and the 1950s.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I think the member’s position and mine reflect the difference in our approach to societal problems. I don’t think they can be solved in a night. I recognize the attitudinal problems which exist and I have committed myself, my ministry and the board to doing everything we can to solve those problems. I cannot promise the member that they will be solved tomorrow, next week or next month. We’ll do the best we can.

Mr. Cassidy: I didn’t ask that. I asked for some progress and have not seen it.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for High Park have any comments on section 3?

Mr. Shulman: Yes, on subsection (b). I want to explore with the minister the mysteries of the sales the Liquor Control Board carries out periodically. To my everlasting regret I have been taken off the list. For some time I was notified of these sales, which were a great joy to me.

Mr. Cassidy: You kept on informing the House, that is why.

Mr. Shulman: That was my error, unfortunately. Twice in a row I got up in the House and made a public announcement and the public went roaring down there completely ruining it for everybody on the inside. I really don’t know what’s going on any more and I’m very upset. Could you tell me how many sales you’ve had in this past years and what determines -- the question I wanted to ask is why is it kept a secret? Why can’t we put a little ad in the paper and let everybody have an equal chance -- or maybe the day after so you can give us first crack at it; the next day put it in the paper?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I regret to inform the member that the board hasn’t had a sale in the past year.

M. Shulman: I feel better then.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If they do have one I’ll make sure he is informed.

Mr. Shulman: What about the question of putting ads in the paper, which is also of some minor interest, in addition to the other?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me know first.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I am sure informing the member is identical to informing the public.

Hon. F. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Placing your call will take care of everything.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Stormont.

Mr. Samis: Yes, on subsection (e), Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose an amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The subsection to subsection (e) shall carry.

Mr. Samis moves that section 3(e) be amended to read: “to authorize manufacturers of beer to sell their product, beer namely, to the public in stores owned and operated by the manufacturers or independent owner-operated corner grocery stores.”

Mr. Samis: Mr. Chairman, the reason I propose this is that I think, in the spirit of compromise, the consumers of Ontario should have a choice.

Right now, the present policy is really a legalized monopoly for the breweries. It doesn’t give the consumers a choice. It discriminates against small private enterprise. When I’m talking about small private enterprise I mean the independent, corner, neighbourhood operator who is trying to compete with the supermarkets, which he really can’t do.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Are you speaking of Becker’s and Mac’s?

Mr. Samis: No, I would specifically exclude any chain operation from this amendment, Mr. Chairman. It must be independent, owner-operated; the backbone of free enterprise; the basis of our economic system; the small Canadian neighbourhood operator who is struggling to keep our economy going.

Mr. Cassidy: It is your socialism that will lose you the next election.

Mr. Samis: I’d like to point out while --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Samis: -- there may be deficiencies in the system of our neighbour, the Province of Quebec, I would challenge the minister to take any form of poll among the consumers of Quebec and ask them if they would prefer to revert to the previous system.

There is competition in the price field. There are delivery options available. It does serve the neighbourhood interests, and most of all, it helps private enterprise -- the corner store, the small independent operator -- to compete with the chains. It was introduced by the Union Nationale. It was accepted by the Liberal Party; accepted by the PQ, and they have been able to survive in Quebec. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: And it has been a hell of a mess ever since.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Mr. Chairman, in my position as a citizen of Ontario, born, raised and ruined in Montreal, I am very happy --

Mr. Samis: Ruined in Montreal?

Mr. P. Taylor: Right, it’s a wonderful place.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. P. Taylor: If the hon. member for Stormont would just cool it, I might even support his amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: Your constituents will be worried when you are ruined in Ontario.

Mr. P. Taylor: I grew up in Montreal and I’m proud of that. I can attest to the statement made by the member for Stormont in connection with neighbourhood grocery stores dispensing beer and ale. As a young boy, I earned a lot of money carrying those cases of beer up the stairs of buildings and walk-up flats and so on for people who didn’t have the strength --

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Juveniles and so on.

Mr. P. Taylor: -- or the health to do it themselves.

Mr. Drea: Child labour.

Mr. P. Taylor: Seriously, it is a system that works. It allows these very valuable neighbourhood stores to remain in existence and to fight off the onslaught of the big chains.

There is another reason for doing it. There are communities in my constituency that want Brewers’ Retail to open stores in their neighbourhoods, but Brewers’ Retail doesn’t think those particular communities deserve one of their marvellous stores. In this way, we could almost adopt a system of having both. We could have Brewers’ Retail in large centres and allow the sale of beer and ale through neighbourhood grocery stores where Brewers’ Retail does not want to operate. I would be prepared to support the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor West.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment put forward by the member for Stormont. There are several small family-owned and operated corner stores in my riding which have approached me from time to time on this matter. They are of that class of store which does some business during the week but their major business is on Sundays when the beer stores and liquor stores are closed in the Province of Ontario. For that reason, they have felt -- not in the area of liquor, but in the area particularly of beer and wine -- that it would be appropriate for the family-operated corner store to be able to sell either beer or wine or beer and wine.

I would urge the minister to accept this very good amendment proposed by the member for Stormont, which our sister province has put into effect. It strikes me that this would be one way to preserve the family-operated and owned corner store from the encroachments of the heavy battle they have in existing with the large chains in the province. This would not rule out or cause to disappear the Brewers’ Retails across the province, although they might with time find that they don’t have much business and it would be up to the manufacturers themselves whether or not to continue their beer outlets.

I would support very strongly this amendment that the family-operated corner stores be allowed to sell beer in this province. We hope the minister would accept this amendment or, if he cannot feel in the context of the rest of the bill that he could accept this tonight, that he would very seriously consider this for another amendment to the bill in the near future.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I’m not going to support this motion. It makes as much sense to me as putting whisky in the drug stores. The State of Michigan does that and they’ve got some very dire consequences. First of all, let’s point out some of the practical concerns. I bow to the superior wisdom in the Ottawa and Cornwall area about independently owned corner grocery stores. I don’t see many of them around Toronto. We had a very lengthy case before the Labour Relations Board. Both Mac’s and Becker’s claimed they were independent corner grocery stores. We ruled them to be chains, so they’re out. I presume that what they intend is it would be, perhaps, a variety store or a fruit market. One of the great difficulties with the Province of Quebec’s sales in the grocery stores is first of all the quality control; it isn’t heard too often here. I think there are some remarkable figures on returned spoiled beer or skunk beer -- whatever you want to call it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Imagine a $50 wine sitting in a grocery store.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Drea: Yes, talk to the breweries about it. Secondly, this question of price -- there is no way the corner grocery store is going to be able to meet the price including the refrigeration; the handling of returns; the storage places. Remember that in this province it is now mandatory that you take back the can as well as the bottle. Many of the small grocery stores, it is of interest to me, keep telling me I have to talk to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman). They are in no position really to take back pop bottles as returnables let alone getting back beer bottles and beer cans.

It raises some problems for that small independently owned family store in view of the fact the children won’t be able to work there any more. You cannot be a minor and work in a place that is selling alcohol.

Mr. Bounsall: We will have to amend that part of the Act.

Mr. P. Taylor: Consuming.

Mr. Drea: No, selling; selling, my friend, selling.

Mr. P. Taylor: Another amendment obviously.

Mr. Bounsall: Can you amend that part of the Act?

Mr. Drea: I am not suggesting your life was ruined, although I pause for a moment. You suggested it -- I am not suggesting anything happened to you because you lugged beer cases but the fact of the matter is --

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): He put them all on his head.

Mr. Drea: -- if you really want a motion, if you really want an amendment to this Act which will allow the corner grocery store -- and we have had some very nice definitions of independent and family -- I presume you are prepared to follow through on space requirements and so forth and what constitutes a family-type business as against a chain. I am prepared to concede you may have that but you are also going to have to bring in amendments to this Act and to other liquor provisions of this province to allow children under 18 years of age to work where it is sold.

If you do that for the grocery store, I suggest you are going to have to make it equal across the entire liquor dispensing industry.

Mr. Samis: It’s 1975.

Mr. Drea: It may be very noteworthy that in Ireland little boys of nine and 10 years wear aprons and serve you beer or whisky but I don’t really think the people of Ontario are ready for that.

Mr. Samis: That is a green herring.

Mr. Drea: It is not a green herring, my friend. Just because you never thought of it and you don’t know anything about the merchandising of beer, be prepared to accept some valid criticism of your motion.

Mr. Samis: I have seen enough in Quebec to know that.

Mr. Drea: It has been followed through that maybe we should have some wine. Okay fine -- you don’t have to refrigerate most -- your friend raised wine.

Mr. Samis: Not me.

Mr. Drea: You don’t support your friend?

Mr. Samis: We are talking about the amendment.

Mr. Drea: Your friend expanded yours a little bit.

Mr. Bounsall: You’re the one who is talking.

Mr. Drea: Wine is all right; you don’t have to refrigerate most kinds of it. As I say, why not extend it and let the druggist sell it instead of just selling rubbing alcohol. Let him do as druggists can in the State of Michigan and a few southern states.

Mr. Samis: You are groping.

Mr. Drea: You walk in there any time and over in the corner you can buy whisky. As a matter of fact, why limit it? If you are really interested in the family firm there are a great many family drug stores now finding it very difficult to compete against the chains. You don’t want it in the drug stores? Just in the grocery stores?

I suggest some of the practicalities of the thing like, first of all, quality control -- it has been demonstrated very amply in the Province of Quebec and not too long ago either.

Mr. Samis: By whom?

Mr. Drea: By whom? I think there are a great many people who drank a particular commodity down there, what was it, four or five years ago, called Dow --

Mr. Samis: That was in Quebec City.

Mr. Drea: All right. I see; they don’t sell it in grocery stores in Quebec City.

Mr. Samis: What was the problem?

Mr. Drea: It was a problem of quality control.

Mr. Cassidy: That was in the taverns.

Mr. Samis: It was at the brewery; not the retail outlets.

Mr. Drea: There is a problem of price. You were asking for the small independent family man, who is supposed to be going to compete against Dominion Stores, Mac’s, Beckers and all the rest of them on this.

Mr. Bounsall: Not on this.

Mr. Drea: He is not even going to be able to compete against the Brewers’ Retail because his prices are going to have to be higher. It is a great fascination to me -- every time the socialist movement decides to break up something like socialist beer and turn it over to free enterprise --

Mr. Samis: Socialist beer -- what is that?

Mr. Drea: You talked about your monopoly. It shouldn’t be a monopoly, it should be open to free enterprise.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is when you slake your thirst with somebody else’s beer.

Mr. Drea: I would have never thought this. I suggest to the member for Stormont, I would never have thought anything about this -- about free enterprise.

Mr. Samis: Don’t tell me you’re against private enterprise.

Mr. Drea: You raised it. You raised it; so now that you’ve raised it let me comment on it. It fascinates me that every time you want to break up a thing there is only one supplier -- in fact, it’s controlled by the government -- so if it’s not socialist it’s quasi-socialist; it’s based upon the socialist model.

Mr. Samis: It’s a private monopoly.

Mr. Drea: All right, every time you want to do that, you want to go back to private enterprise or just a plain enterprise, or a family enterprise. You never really consider the practicalities of it. I suppose that’s not too uncommon, because every time you go the other way you never really look at the practicalities there. But in terms of what it would do for the people of the Province of Ontario

-- what would it do? What would it really do for the consumer? It would raise the price. It would have to.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It wouldn’t help the merchants in High Park.

Mr. Shulman: Definitely not.

An hon. member: Competition?

Mr. Drea: Competition? The government now, in effect, sets the price of beer. Every small merchant in this province who qualified for the special permit and had to pay a tax to do it, would have to be identified. Can you imagine the corner grocer having to submit himself to a police investigation, or to some kind of an investigation, the same as the owner of a licensed hotel does -- or don’t you think that he should?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Withdraw.

Mr. Drea: We’re just going to allow him the privilege of selling beer or wine in great bulk, but we’re not going to investigate who he is, what his financial background is, or anything else. And if we do have to follow the same provisions as we do for someone who is going to dispense in a retail establishment, in a hotel and so forth, don’t you really think that’s just another imposition on the merchant?

I think you’re sincere in trying to do something for the small businessman, although I think that the person who convinced you of this sold you a bill of goods. I would suggest, really, that you sit down and you consider the practicalities. Is the merchant, at this time, prepared to let go everybody in the place under the age of 18. If he is not, then you are going to have to say that people under the age of 18 can work in places where liquor is sold -- and that has very wide implications in the hotel industry, as well as in other places.

If you’re prepared to have home delivery, why would you want home delivery from the little store? You can already pick up the phone in terms of beer delivery. I suggest to you, much to the horror of my friend, the member for High Park, that the beer truck goes into High Park just as regularly as it goes anywhere else.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): It does.

Mr. Drea: They don’t need to ask for the address; they don’t even have to look at the map. You just make one phone call.

Mr. Shulman: Carry out the law and stop it.

Mr. Drea: It was always my fond dream that some afternoon you would get carried away; you would do it; you would get photographed; and then we could all sit back and watch.

Mr. Shulman: I don’t drink beer.

Mr. Drea: Well, neither do I, but I’m just pointing out one of the difficulties in your own riding.

Mr. Shulman: We’re counting on the minister to carry out the law.

Mr. Drea: Pardon?

Mr. Shulman: We’re counting on the minister to carry out the law. I want you to know that this amendment does not apply to High Park.

Mr. Drea: I know it doesn’t and you wouldn’t let it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Only to his representatives.

Mr. Drea: There are a great number of very, very serious implications in a thing like this. It’s not as simple as just letting the corner grocer, be he of small stature or independent from any chain, just stock one side of his cooler with beer and promise very faithfully on Sunday to do as they do in the States, to seal it off with a couple of pieces of masking tape and so on.

Mr. Shulman: You’re doing it in Armstrong, Ont. right now.

Mr. Drea: We’re doing what at Armstrong?

Mr. Shulman: You’re doing that in Armstrong, Ont. right now.

Mr. Drea: It’s an agency. Oh, there’s a big difference between an agency store and licensing every street corner grocery.

Mr. Shulman: What’s the difference?

Mr. Drea: Much.

Mr. P. Taylor: What?

Mr. Drea: Much, there’s a great deal of difference.

Mr. Shulman: What?

Mr. Drea: You are licensing one agency store in Armstrong. It is the only store in Armstrong. That’s why it’s licensed as an agency store.

Mr. Shulman: And every Sunday do they put the tape across the beer?

Mr. Drea: That’s quite true, but what you’re suggesting here -- despite the fact that you love it, even though it won’t fit into your own life -- you were suggesting we open up another beer dispensary on every street corner.

Mr. Shulman: Not me.

Mr. Drea: Well, you were behind him -- I won’t even say your party any more; I’m waiting until the 24th. Is it the 24th when the great announcement comes?

Mr. Shulman: Oh yes, on the 24th we get a new member-elect.

Mr. Drea: Oh, I thought they were going to give you what you wanted. There’s been a little bit of betting around here.

Mr. Shulman: No, my leader is a man of steel. He won’t bend.

Mr. Drea: Is that why he moved from Scarborough?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He just wanted to be closer.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Would you return to section 3(a) please; and the amendment?

Mr. Bounsall: So who are you voting for?

Mr. P. Taylor: Is the member for Scarborough Centre all right?

Mr. Drea: But I come back to you. Look, you know, it may be and as I said before, I don’t doubt your sincerity, but I really think that in terms of the practical implications of it, you have to consider the three things -- the price, the quality control, and the repercussions. Now, it’s very interesting to me that the Liberal Party -- are you listening to me? You were waving your hand before, I thought maybe you had to leave. I am talking about the member for Carleton East.

Mr. Good: We don’t listen to you at all.

Mr. Drea: You raised it, you stick to the point.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: Now I find it very fascinating that your leader this afternoon said he didn’t believe in the proliferation of establishments, or a great number of other things. He said he believed in a certain liberalization, but he really felt that there had to be a stop in a great many areas.

Mr. Cassidy: They are always divided. Don’t worry about them.

Mr. Drea: Well, it seems very contradictory to me tonight on this particular thing that would open up the floodgates on the disbursement of beer in terms of location; it would make it more available than ever before. It seems to me very peculiar for a party that has taken that particular stand that you are up at this particular time advocating that type of proliferation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is why half of them scooted out -- so they won’t have to vote on it.

Mr. Drea: I try very desperately to understand your party’s approach to alcohol. The more I listen to it, the more I watch the members get up, the more confused I am, and I would be fascinated to see how you vote tonight.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Come on, Harry, explain it.

Mr. Good: I have a hard time understanding your approach to alcoholism.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I just want to --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please, order. The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I just want to inform the members of the House that this matter was touched upon in debate on second reading. I cannot accept the amendment; we cannot support it. All the reasons that have been given need not be repeated. There is one other I would like to mention to the hon. member for Stormont because he seems to have some concern for small business.

A few months ago when I first came into this portfolio I did consult with the representatives of small business and asked them what they felt the government should be doing about small business. The answer I got back was: “Please do not impose any more regulations on us. Give us something for collecting the sales tax.”

The amendment that the hon. member has put forward would certainly impose a great deal of regulatory power on small business which they don’t want, and I am sure one of the hon. members sitting back there would agree with me. They don’t want any more government red tape. This would certainly inflict it upon them, and we have given them their other request, so I say we might just as well please them by not accepting this amendment. Therefore, I ask the hon. members to vote against it.

Mr. Samis: I would like to make a final statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Go ahead.

Mr. Samis: I realize that the amendment would cause some problems. Obviously, any change causes problems. But I would point out again that the system works effectively in the Province of Quebec; it works in New York State, where they have extended it even beyond the small corner grocery store; it works effectively, I believe, in the State of Michigan, the State of California, and a host of other states in the United States.

The question of quality was brought up. It seems to me the basic place where you would test the quality of the product is at the brewery, not at the retail outlet. I can’t see why we can’t have some form of price competition. After all, the basis of free enterprise is competition, unless the opposite side is against the principle of competition.

These stores would be closed on Sundays, as they are in the Province of Quebec. Children would be allowed to work in these stores, because I assume that we are discarding the mentality that this is something dirty, something objectionable, something they are not supposed to be exposed to except behind closed doors or tinted glass.

We are talking about a grocery store that sells a multitude of products of which this would be one -- not the only one. You can’t compare this to a hotel because there would obviously be no consumption allowed in the retail outlet, unlike a hotel. And even when you go to a family hotel, when you see children running around in the confines of the hotel, I dare say they are hardly corrupted or polluted by being exposed to the fact that beer is sold within the confines of where their family lives and works. I would also suggest that if there is any added paper work, the businessmen would gladly accept it for the chance to compete with the monopolies; the chance to survive and experience some degree of economic security for the future, which the bill has provided effectively in the Province of Quebec.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cassidy: You have just sealed the fate of the vote.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Samis’s amendment will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, with that could we now have a requiem mass said for the political fate of Father Rudy Villeneuve, whose chances in the election have just ended completely?

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost and the subsection carried.

Any further comments on any other subsection or any other section?

Mr. Samis: Subsection (f), Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Stormont.

Mr. Samis: Since my amendment has been defeated, could the minister inform us what the cost would be for a new brewer in Ontario to be able to sell his product alongside the existing breweries in the Brewers’ Retail outlets?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, Brewers’ Retail is of course a private organization, and all of the breweries in Ontario are shareholders in it. Any new brewery coming into the field, as I understand it, would be given an opportunity to participate in Brewers’ Retail and, as a result, would be permitted to sell products through that outlet.

Mr. Samis: The reason I raise the point is that in Cornwall three years ago we had the opportunity to have a new brewery established which would have created jobs when unemployment was verging on 20 per cent. It was proposed by Ben Ginter from Prince George, BC, but there were two problems. One was that he wanted sufficient grants to justify his setting it up, but he claimed his greatest obstacle was that the breweries set such a high rate for him to be able to sell his product in the Brewers’ Retail outlets that it was virtually impossible for him to get a foothold in the Ontario market. Therefore, he gave up trying to get established in this province.

I was wondering if the minister can give some guarantee -- if there are people like him who want to get into the business, is what I suggest feasible? Or is it really a closed shop and a monopoly that makes it so prohibitive that these people can’t get in there at all?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I just finished mentioning that Brewers’ Warehousing is a corporation; new breweries are given an opportunity to participate through shareholdings, and they pay a share of the expenses in accordance with their share of the market. It’s just as simple for them to be in it as it is for Carling-O’Keefe, Molson’s or any of the other breweries.

I don’t know about the particular situation that the hon. member mentions, but there is a new brewery in Ontario -- and I’m sure the hon. member is aware of it -- a company called Henninger, which is marketing specialty beer; they have just been admitted into shareholding in Brewers’ Warehousing and they will be distributing their product through that organization. I see no problem for any others.

Mr. Samis: Can I ask two questions? Is that an independent brewery, first of all, as opposed to an affiliate of an existing brewery? Secondly, can you tell me the cost involved for them to get into the market?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is an independent brewery; it is not affiliated with any of the existing breweries. The cost to get involved is the cost of the shares in Brewers’ Retail. If my hon. friend’s friend from British Columbia wasn’t willing to buy shares in Brewers Retail, and to pay a portion of the expenses of the marketing organization, then I don’t think he was justified in expecting to market his product through that organization. Obviously there is a cost involved, and any organization in the private enterprise sector has to pay that cost to get into the market.

Mr. Samis: Would the minister not admit that things could be rigged to make those costs so prohibitive that a small brewery could effectively be shut out from the market?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The brewery that I just mentioned, Mr. Chairman, is a very small one. It has one product, a highly special product; it just has not yet established a mass market. Obviously they have been able to afford the share in order to share in the privileges that are involved in having your products marketed through Brewers’ Warehousing. Certainly there can be rigging, I say to the member, and I would suggest that if there is any evidence of that, we in this country do have combines legislation that can be used.

Mr. Samis: It’s weak legislation.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: On subsection (i), I ran into a most extraordinary situation. I seem to run into these at periodic intervals. There is a civilized custom in other countries in Europe of laying down of wine. I don’t suppose you have ever heard of that. What it involves is the purchasing of young wine to be put away for one’s declining years when it will have reached its golden fruition when one cannot partake of other pleasures and so must sit at home and think of the past. Unfortunately -- I think it is unfortunate -- some Canadians have begun to indulge in this European decadence, which is fine as long as you live to drink the wine.

Last year I ran into an extraordinary situation where a doctor who was practising here in Toronto laid down a beautiful selection of wines which he purchased over a period of 12 years. Alas, he did not get to drink a single bottle. Nature intervened and he went to a better place. The wine was all left behind. It was beautiful wine, 1961 Chateau Lafite, 1959 Margaux -- a collection of wine that would make even your mouth water.

In any case, the widow, who is a teetotaler of many years standing, looked at his fantastic collection of wine, which was now worth $10,000 or $15,000, which her husband had very providentially bought for something under $2,000. She decided, inasmuch as she didn’t drink it and it was of very little value to him now in his present stage, she should dispose of the wine.

The first place you go to, of course, is the Liquor Control Board. They very kindly offered to take it back off her hands but their rules are that they could pay her only what was paid for it in the first place. I believe some $1,200 was the figure. Its market value was well in excess of $10,000. The lady thought this was not quite right. Besides this, some of the wines had been purchased in other jurisdictions and they couldn’t take those back at all. So she thought she should sell it elsewhere.

I approached the board and asked for a ruling. The ruling I received was that it could not be sold. It could be poured on to his grave. This was allowed as a sort of final gesture. What do they call it in India? There is a word in India. Is there no one here who can help me? In India you throw yourself on the funeral pyre. I think it is called --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Suttee.

Mr. Shulman: Suttee, that’s it, thank you.

Anyway, the Liquor Control Board suggested that sort of a similar action might be called for. Since she couldn’t drink it, since they couldn’t take it back and since she couldn’t sell it, suttee was called for. Fortunately, a number of, I guess, members of disorganized crime came into this and helped her to drink the wine. I am sure there was some illegality involved in this. This situation will come up again undoubtedly because there are foolish people who think they are going to live forever and lay wines down and then unfortunately nature intervenes.

What is to happen to that wine? Could you put a little amendment in saying that that can be sold? There is a custom in England and the United States where once or twice a year they have auctions of rare wines. The world has not come to an end because of that. This way people who have come on misfortune can dispose of their collections of fine wines.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, under the legislation we can provide for the disposition of inherited wine estates by regulation and by special sales. I think the hon. member would appreciate that probably his own cellar would result in fairly heavy death duties, but that would be part of the game. I think we can arrange it under the regulations.

Mr. Shulman: You can?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: By regulation, yes. There is nothing in the Act at the present time that gives or gave the board power to do what the hon. member suggests. But regulations under the new Act could give that power.

Mr. Shulman: Will you put such a regulation in?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I will certainly consider it in view of the facts you have brought forward.

Mr. Shulman: One other question on the same subject, what about wine auctions? It has happened in recent years. There are a number of people who have gone into buying wine with no intention of ever drinking it. It has become a very popular, if unprofitable, form of investment in recent years. Is there any reason why we couldn’t have wine auctions in this country?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe we could have public wine auctions in the manner that the hon. member suggests where people came in and bid on it.

There was a situation in Ottawa just recently where a somewhat similar situation occurred where a man had made a wine collection and advertised it for sale at 10 per cent below liquor store prices. Of course, the LCBO would not allow that kind of competition. He is going to have a big party to get rid of it.

We could possibly, under the draft regulations, make provision for wine auctions. The conditions for such auctions, I think, would have to be relatively stringent but provisions can be made under the regulations. This is why we sent the draft code and I am surprised we haven’t had a response from the member. Of course, he said he didn’t receive it.

Mr. Shulman: I want to carry this a little further because I want to tell you another ridiculous situation which has occurred.

Three years ago, a very public-spirited Toronto citizen -- I don’t want to embarrass him so I won’t name him -- gave a bottle of 1812 Napoleon brandy to the Royal Ontario Museum, the idea being they would use this, not to celebrate; they were going to have an auction and the proceeds of the auction would be used for the museum. They discovered to their great dismay that this is quite illegal, so there is that one bottle of 1812 brandy sitting at the museum, causing great wonderment and questioning as to its quality.

I am afraid if we don’t do something very quickly the members of the board of trustees may be overwhelmed by the responsibility to determine the effect of time on 1812 brandy. Could there not be an amendment brought in to allow auctions, perhaps, for charity? It might be the way to handle this type of thing because it is sort of ridiculous.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I would suggest that the 1812 brandy would not suffer very much by waiting a few weeks longer and would probably carry a better price if we can provide for it in the regulations.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for High Park have any further comment on (i)? The member for Wellington South.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question in regard to wine stores.

A number of years ago, prior to the last war, we had a privately owned wine store which sold out to London Wines. London Wines finally closed it out and since that time I have had a number of people who have inquired as to why they could not get permission to open up a wine store. I understand, in talking to the officials of the Liquor Control Board, that there is a limit put on and I think the limit was 17. Who sets that limit? Is that an agreement reached with the wine manufacturers or is it a policy of the Liquor Control Board?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t quite follow the question, Mr. Chairman. If the member is asking about privately operated wine stores, there is no provision for them whatsoever. There is provision for wine stores operated by wine manufacturers or wineries and they can sell their own products. I wasn’t aware there was any limit on the number of stores each winery could operate. They simply have to apply. There is a special tax they must pay even to sell their own products.

Mr. Shulman: They cannot open new stores.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I am told there are 51 wine stores in Ontario which are owned by the Ontario wineries. They have opened new stores in new shopping centres.

Mr. Shulman: Then they have to close one somewhere else. They are not allowed new stores. When a new store opens in Etobicoke, they announce, “We are closing our shop in Sudbury and moving it to Etobicoke.” There’s a slight relocation of customers.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I can certainly check into that. There may very well be a limit and it is probably imposed by the Liquor Control Board, but I would have to question the reasons for it. It is probably historical.

Mr. Worton: What would be wrong with a person who operates a cheese store -- naturally wine and cheese go together -- what would be wrong with an independent person starting up a wine and cheese store in a plaza rather than the manufacturers of wine?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I think all the arguments put forward with regard to the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores would apply just as much to the sale of wine in a cheese store or a delicatessen or any other store.

Mr. Shulman: I can cast some light here, Mr. Chairman. The situation is that each winery may have one store for every charter it has and this goes back to 1802. Its order to open a new store, you have to get a charter from somewhere. It is impossible to get new charters so it means you have to buy someone else out or you have to close another store somewhere else. A new company can’t come in and open up a wine store, for example; a new winery can’t open up. It is just not possible. It is one of those anachronisms in Ontario law.

Can I ask, on a slightly related subject, I am curious about these wine-tasting parties held by the Liquor Board. I have been invited to two of them. Each time, to my great dismay, the wines should not have been tasted. They would have been better left bottled. When do you taste the good stuff?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well, Mr. Chairman, I never taste the good stuff. I didn’t know that they had wine-tasting parties.

Mr. Shulman: Oh come come!

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I am learning something here. I do know that they have wine tasters who are employed by the board to provide part of the screening process for new listings. If they have wine-tasting parties, I will have to inquire about them.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for High Park can’t stay away.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: And I will notify the hon. member when the good stuff allegedly is being tasted.

Mr. Shulman: I am curious about the opening of the rare wine store, which you and I had the pleasure of attending along with one or two, I think it was, illustrious members of this assembly -- I must say they chose the people to come very well. But anyway --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Who sent you an invitation? That’s what I want to know.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I did.

Mr. Shulman: It came anonymously.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Never ever wrote me.

Mr. Shulman: Well, he was quite wise. Anyway, I thought: “My goodness, this is going to be the opportunity of my lifetime -- I am going to a rare wine store opening.” The invitation said: “Tasting after the official opening.” I will tell you quite frankly that I never drank or ate for two days before -- I was waiting for this great experience. I went down there and first they showed us through -- immaculate, wonderful wines that were there. My mouth was watering as I waited for this great moment of truth. Finally my host, the minister, said: “All right. it is time. We will all go upstairs for the tasting.”

We went upstairs and there was this terrible moment of disillusionment. They had been very clever. They had wrapped towels around the bottles so you couldn’t tell what their names were. They poured some out and I thought there had been a mistake, that I had picked up the dregs from an old bottle of something.

Joe Peller, who was standing beside me. said: “That’s mine; what do you think of it?” I told him I thought it was a mistake and I said: “Let’s try the next one.” It was a Bright’s effort and then there was one by Cartier.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It was a good wine.

Mr. Shulman: They were somewhat pasteurized efforts, I would say, and I am sure harmless to the health, but not for an opening of a rare wine shop. The minister came up to me -- I see him laughing now with some difficulty -- he came to me and said: “We are going to have a party; what do you think I should buy?” I suggested he forget the whole thing and use Pepsi-Cola.

But in any case, if you are having a fine wine store, why can’t we try out some fine wine? Or listen, we are all going to be through, leaving here shortly. Couldn’t we have one great final party of say a choice of ‘61 Lafites, and things of that nature?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, first of all I have to remind the hon. member that it was a rare wine store, and not necessary a fine wine store.

Mr. Shulman: They were rare.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: And all those wines, those good Ontario wines, we know are relatively rare -- we have agreed on that.

Mr. Samis: You defined it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: So the samples of rare wine were being supplied by the Ontario Wineries, I think to promote these very, very good wines to a lot of people who never experienced them before.

I think I simply want to comment on the ingratitude of the member. While I was having my hands televised cutting the ribbon, he was out giving the CBC a two-minute critical analysis of this terrible store that we were opening. I have made a note never to invite him to another one.

Mr. Shulman: I must correct this. I was saying it was a wonderful store; the only thing I objected to were the prices on the samples being served.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 3 carry?

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments, criticisms or amendments prior to section 8?

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive, agreed to.

On section 8:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister has an amendment to section 8.

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves that section 8 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause, subsection (g): governing the purchase of liquor under a permit issued under the Liquor Licence Board and requiring the payment of fees on such purchases and prescribing the amounts thereof.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments on the amendment? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify the purpose of the regulation, it is to permit the board to sell to all those people 170,000 special occasion permits, so that they can continue to have their parties; otherwise there would be no authority for the board to sell to anyone under those conditions.

Mr. Shulman: On this amendment --

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: The special occasion permits I find a matter of some minor interest, because there are a few of them sold. But do you have a fixed rule? Are people allowed to make money on special occasions, or are they not? Because I find that very difficult.

Some people got into difficulty because they sold drinks on those occasions and made money, and others seem to be able to do it quite freely, without any difficulty. Whit is the policy, or is there a policy?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I think special occasion permits might more properly be dealt with under Bill 45, where they are covered in great detail. But I do want to say to the hon. member that the new legislation does not prohibit the making of a profit on the sale of liquor at a special occasion. There are certain restrictions on the types of organizations who can profit by the sale of liquor at a special occasion, but there is no prohibition against profits per se.

Mr. Shulman: If you have a special occasion permit under the new Act, and some stranger wanders in and buys a drink, are you in some serious jeopardy?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It would depend on the type of special occasion permit that you’ve been issued, Mr. Chairman. There are certain prohibitions against advertising, and there are club licences for associate members, and now guests are permitted to go into clubs.

Again, I think we can get into a full debate on Bill 45.

Mr. Worton: Mr. Chairman, I’ve heard rumours to the effect that you’re talking about limiting these permits, cutting them down. Is this a fact?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I certainly feel that 170,000 is a little much. We haven’t been able to devise a fair system.

As I mentioned earlier today, one of the first tasks of the special advisory committee on overall policy will be to examine the procedures for issuing special occasion permits to determine whether or not there are workable methods for limiting them -- I think 170,000 is far too many -- and also to ensure that they are not abused by people who are simply taking out a daily special occasion permit and going into the business of having an unlicensed bar.

Mr. Worton: The one thing that can be said, Mr. Chairman, is that there’s never been any difficulty arising from any of these permits that I’ve seen issued in the constituency that I represent. They’re generally pretty well controlled, and I don’t think that, if people become the worse for it and some friend takes them home, there’s any kickback or anything like that. But the one thing that does concern me is when I have groups -- I had one the other day, a junior farmer organization -- which are very limited in the type of advertising they can do for their functions. They can’t advertise refreshments, and it’s very difficult even to say that “everyone is welcome” on the thing when they put it out. How far are you going to go with this?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Our draft code, which has been distributed to members, indicates that we don’t feel that advertising of special occasion permits should be any wider than advertising by those people who have licensed premises.

The Royal York Hotel cannot put up a sign outside saying, “Booze Inside.” They can’t send out invitations to everybody saying, “Come and have some liquor at our hotel.” And we don’t think any privilege of that nature should be extended to people in special occasion permits.

I think our concern, though, is, and I said this before, that by far the majority of the special occasion permits in this province are being handled responsibly and very efficiently by the board. There are a few that give us difficulty, and we know of some very serious abuses. Our problem is to curb the abuse without, at the same time, infringing on the rights of legitimate organizations to have special occasion permits where there really are special occasions.

This is our problem. We find there are people who are taking out special occasion permits every night of the week, and in fact are running a bar in competition with the small businessman who’s paying taxes and has to comply with all the requirements of the Liquor Licence Board in order to maintain his establishment. We have not set any limits simply because I couldn’t, nor could the people who were advising me, find any way of doing it without infringing on the rights of legitimate special occasion permits.

I certainly hope the advisory committee will be able to come up with some method of doing so.

Mr. Worton: By the same token, by not letting them know that refreshments are available, very often young people, people who are under age, could attend and get involved with other who are drinking. You talk about the Royal York. They do advertise that they’re licensed premises, so there is that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, that’s the type of restriction we envisage in special occasion permits. That is, “Special occasion permit issued by the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario.” That will tell people what’s on, without advertising.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): I was driving back from a speaking engagement I had tonight, reading some correspondence as I went along, and I came across a very irate letter from a resident of Ontario whom you had sorely offended, who had sought a special occasion permit on behalf of the Kinniwabi Cat Club. The Liquor Control Board -- is that who makes these decisions?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Liquor Licence Board.

Mr. Lewis: The Liquor Licence Board had interpreted the title of the organization rather more generously than was necessary, despite the fact that along with their submission there was a clear identification of a cat show and of prizes being given for household pets and for others. Nonetheless, the board nurtured a fantasy which clearly precluded the issuance of a licence.

I want to tell you (a) that you lost a vote and many, many cat lovers, and (b) that the board should be less imaginative in the interpretations that it gives to the requests for licences. By the way, this isn’t frivolous. It is, in fact, true, and I shall send you the correspondence, simply to delight you in your declining years.

Mr. Worton: Were those two-legged cats?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, since I lack complete imagination, I am sure I wouldn’t have made that mistake, and probably have asked the chairman to issue the licence. But I will look forward to receiving the correspondence.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Actually, what I am about to raise is germane to this particular section. The practices of the Liquor Control Board at times make it rather difficult for the small, non-profit organization -- whether it be involved with cats or some other venture -- which is selling some booze at some kind of a function, in order to make a bit of dough. It makes it rather difficult for them, and I think the minister knows that. This is one of the matters which I am sure will come up before the advisory committee which the minister intends to set up.

To give a particular example, as I understand the situation right now there is a corkage fee, or a kind of extra tax on the liquor which is taken from the board under a special occasion permit. I believe it amounts to $1 or so a bottle on top of the normal price. That is a policy, that is fair enough --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That is in lieu of sales tax.

Mr. Cassidy: It is a kind of a cut. No, it is not a kind of a sales tax. That’s not true, because you already get your sales tax on the booze originally. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, if a retailer takes goods normally from a wholesaler and pays tax on them and sends the goods back because they didn’t sell, the retailer gets a refund of the tax. However, as I understand it, it is still the board’s policy on these special occasion permit sales that you don’t get the dough back.

That just doesn’t make an awful lot of sense. That means that people have to count the bottles meticulously, or else it leads to the illegal storing of liquor in the special bottles until the next function at which that booze may possibly be used. It leads to the holding of hands and the playing of games with the liquor representative who, for obvious reasons, is trying to make things easy for his customers who may be buying a few dozen bottles of liquor for their functions. It just leads to all kinds of abuse.

Normally, what happens is that the unused bottles are taken back, and I just ask the minister, why can’t the dollars that are paid on the unused bottles be refunded in the normal way and in the same way as happens in any other retailing enterprise?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, of course, there is a confusion here about the sales tax and the corkage fee. In the normal licensed premises, the restaurant or hotel buys its liquor and they charge their customers sales tax on each drink. In the case of a special occasion permit, we have relieved them of the necessity of having to collect sales tax on every individual drink which they sell at a special occasion. In lieu of the tax it is $1 per bottle. Assuming that you get 20 drinks out of a bottle, or whatever it may be, the dollar is a bargain, since they do not have to charge their customers the sales tax on each drink, which would normally be 10 per cent, or 10 cents a drink.

So all I can say is that the corkage is in lieu of sales tax on drinks, not sales tax on the bottles, and if they return unopened bottles to the Liquor Control Board -- which, in fact, they are required to do, because they are not allowed to carry them over -- they get a full refund of the purchase price.

Mr. Cassidy: You say they get a refund on the purchase price, but do they get the dollar back as well?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, I believe so.

Mr. Shulman: No.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, they do. They get it all back.

Mr. Cassidy: They get it all back now? You have sorted that one out. Okay.

Mr. Chairman: Shall hon. Mr. Handleman’s amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 9 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 44, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 44, The Liquor Control Act.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I announce the business for Thursday, I must say I am confronted with somewhat of a dilemma because the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) has a long-standing commitment with some Indian bands in northern Ontario and he must attend. I would therefore call the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for Thursday only, in standing committee.

As far as the House is concerned, we will proceed with consideration of the other bills that were before us and not called today; that is Bills 78, 83, 84, 85, 88, to be followed by further consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 10:30 o’clock, p.m.