The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. members of this House to join with me in welcoming 43 grade 8 students from St. Patrick’s School in Kapuskasing, under the direction of Mr. Frank LeVay, the principal, and members of his staff. They are in the west gallery.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. David.

Mrs. M. Scrivener (St. David): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege concerning a press report carried in one of the Toronto newspapers today. In this morning’s Globe and Mail there was a news report which, among other things, indicated that I had made an earlier reference to the hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) as being “just a farmer.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): They are out to get her.

Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you and members of this House that I would never refer to any member of the farming community in such a slighting manner, and that this report is untrue.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Her colleague calls them rednecks and yahoos.

Mrs. Scrivener: I know very well, and at first hand, the magnificent contribution farmers are making to our society. The fact is that I referred to the hon. member’s potential as a member of a government cabinet, and I suggested at that time that as a Minister of Agriculture he would be “passable.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mrs. Scrivener: Furthermore, the member for Peel South (Mr. Kennedy) was present on that occasion and was a witness to that comment, as were several hundred other persons.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): He will be here a lot longer than she will be.

Mrs. Scrivener: I regret that the reporter who wrote this article did not check this statement with my office and I regret any embarrassment which the member for Huron-Bruce may have experienced. Furthermore, I know very well the essential role played by the farming community. I would like to inform the House that I, myself, was an Ontario dairy farmer for a number of years

Mr. J. F. Bullbrook (Sarnia): One of her best friends is married to a farmer, I suppose.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Oh, spare us.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Scrivener: and I have always had a healthy appreciation and respect for the farming industry as a whole. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I would like to place on the record an item to be found on page 15 of the Canadian Guernsey Breeders’ Journal

Mr. Lewis: She is still milking; she is still milking.

Mrs. Scrivener: for April of this year, concerning Belhaven Worthy Flash Dawn, a Guernsey cow by the famous herdsire, Fritzlyn Jeanette’s Flash, a cow which has been awarded a Gold Star for production. In seven lactations, Flash Dawn has produced 85,180 lb of milk

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): It doesn’t have to be a production number.

Mrs. Scrivener: --and 3,814 lb of fat with BCAs of 153 and 143. She is classified “Very Good.”

Mr. Speaker, this cow was formerly a member of my Belhaven Farm dairy herd and I inform the House of her record since she was one of a number of “Excellent” and “Very Good” cows from that herd, which contributed to the dairy industry in Ontario

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, order.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Order, order.

Mr. Bullbrook: One of the member’s best friends is a cow.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): All I can say is, she has a lot of pull with the Speaker.

Mrs. Scrivener: and she is living proof of my own involvement in farming.

I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that the amount of noise coming from the opposition indicates the extent of their respect for, and interest in, the agricultural industry.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): They are male chauvinists.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Just a bunch of male chauvinists.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Completely out of order.

Mr. R. C. Eaton (Middlesex South): She knows more about agriculture than any member in that NDP caucus.

Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, at the same time that I am on my feet I would like to take this opportunity to introduce students who are in the west gallery from Our Lady of Perpetual Help School. They are here with their teacher, Brother Xavier, and school trustee Father Matthews. Thank you.

Mr. Lewis: They are in the rural part of the member’s riding.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to take this opportunity, and I am sure you and the other members of the House will join with me, to welcome to the Legislature a group of students from Black Bay Road Public School in Thunder Bay. They are in the east gallery, and they are supervised by their teacher, Mr. Camlin.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: Where are they all? Is this cabinet rotation day? What is happening here?

An hon. member: Seven ministers.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They have nothing to rotate.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are waiting for the question.

GRAVEL EXTRACTION PERMIT IN HALDIMAND-NORFOLK REGION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources if he can explain the mix-up in the application of the pits and quarries regulations in the former Townsend township of the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk. How did it come to pass that a gravel pit in that area was opened up just two or three days before the application of the regulations, and is there any way that he can follow the wishes of the people in the community and have that pit brought under regulation?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, did the member make reference to the township of Townsend?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is correct.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would point out that the township of Townsend was designated as coming under the terms of the Pits and Quarries Control Act on May 1, 1975. The Act does not apply to operators of pits and quarries until six months after the designation. No licence application has been received in regard to this property in question. It follows that if no application has been received, then no licence has been issued.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that three days before the regulations applied as of May 1, 1975, a pit that had been opened previously had been put into operation? It was almost as if the entrepreneur concerned had known it had to come into operation a few days before May 1, so that he could remove the aggregate from that pit without regulation for a full six months apparently without anything that the ministry can do about it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this particular incident; but this is one of the problems we have had with regard to the Pits and Quarries Control Act. I can assure the hon. member that we are looking at all aspects of Bill 120 and we will bring in some amendments.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Further supplementary: Is the minister aware that a special permit from the Ministry of the Environment was required and was forthcoming to permit this operation to go forward, and that the entrepreneur, when he is approached by local citizens that he is operating outside the intent of the regulations, indicates he is not too concerned about the application to him?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, that part of the question should be properly directed to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman). It has nothing to do with my ministry.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, then, a further supplementary. Would the minister undertake to investigate the circumstances in this particular pit the former Anderson property in the former township of South Dumfries which was purchased by the former Treasurer as the new townsite, and the government failed to purchase the mineral rights since it paid only $23 million, was it, for the property concerned?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will make that undertaking.

LICENSING OF MASSAGE PARLOURS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier if he is considering bringing before the House legislation which would apply a licensing procedure to the massage parlours, body-rub parlours, in this particular municipality or elsewhere, and if we can have a statement of policy in this regard consonant with his concern for the moral fibre of the community?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, obviously the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t share that concern, but I would say only that this matter is being considered by the government.

Mr. Lewis: He is soft on moral fibre all right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, he is. There is no question about that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: If it is being considered, can the Premier indicate if the legislation could be brought before this House within the next few weeks so that the Metro Licensing Board would have the powers that some of the councillors feel they should have in order to clean up the Yonge St. strip?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, once again, it is being considered.

MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES HEADQUARTERS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Correctional Services if he has announced that his ministry is moving lock, stock and barrel out to the Scarborough area?

If this is happening, is there some indication of the costs for the removal of the ministry to that area?

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Correctional Services): Mr. Speaker, I haven’t announced it but this has been in the mill for several years. The ministry is planning on moving I think the latest date now is sometime this fall to the new facilities in the Scarborough area.

Mr. Lewis: Where?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Would the minister then clarify the announcement the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) made in which she said the ministry was coming out to her area? The Provincial Secretary for Social Development has announced, in the minister’s place, that his ministry is moving out there and I thought perhaps the minister would like to inform the House of his plans and, of course, the cost of the implementation of those plans.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Mr. Speaker, I think my predecessor made that announcement some years ago, as a matter of fact.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is like most of the announcements the minister makes. Nothing ever happens.

A supplementary: Can we ask the minister if it is like those other announcements made two, three, four, five years ago, and if it is just window dressing for the purposes of the electioneering pamphlets of the hon. minister and his colleague?

Hon. Mr. Potter: True, Mr. Speaker, it is like the previous announcements we have made, which have taken place. This announcement was made two years ago. Plans have gone ahead. The facility will be ready to move into, I expect, in September.

An hon. member: How about that?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Another part of it that we are concerned with is the original question: What is the estimate of the cost of this, because the taxpayers are concerned with that as well?

Hon. Mr. Potter: I can get that information, Mr. Speaker, but I wouldn’t have it in my hip pocket.

OHC LAND PURCHASES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Housing if he can clarify his statement yesterday regarding the Ontario Housing deals in Sudbury. Does his own ministry have the accredited appraisers who establish the values referred to in his statement or did he get these accredited appraisals from some independent company as was the case in the South Milton deal?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I guess the Leader of the Opposition missed the fact that I did table the appraisals yesterday and possibly he might look at those.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, but the question is’, did the appraisals come from a source within the minister’s department and can we be assured that they are accredited appraisals in the professional sense?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, they are accredited appraisals.

LENNOX GENERATING STATION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like, if I may, to ask another short question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development: In the absence of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell), is there a statement forthcoming on the startup problem at the Lennox generating plant? Has any responsibility been assigned for the problems experienced in the startup experiments in the last two weeks?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer that. I will take that as notice and draw it to the attention of the Minister of Energy.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

LAKE SIMCOE PROPERTY DISPUTE

Mr. Lewis: First, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Natural Resources, if I may: I want to refer to his continuing commitment about the Beyak land occupation on Lake Simcoe. His original statement that he would revoke the licence of occupation was made on April 23. It was confirmed to me in Hansard of May 15 last, when he said the letter would be going out within the next short period. Since it’s now June and the ministry still hasn’t acted, despite the public commitments of the minister himself, when is this all going to happen?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, that was a public commitment and it will be lived up to. The letter will be going out this week.

Mr. Lewis: The letter will go out this week? Good. Thank you.

HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS AT ELLIOT LAKE

Mr. Lewis: A further question of the Minister of National Resources: Is the minister aware that workers in the Denison mine at Elliot Lake have been called in privately by management and asked what can be done about the fact that the radiation exposure this year in many areas will much exceed the four working level months allowed by law? Is he further aware that there doesn’t seem to be any solution to the company’s problem of reducing the levels of radiation exposure? Has his ministry been involved in that?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have not been involved to this point, but I’ll certainly check into it immediately.

Mr. Lewis: I appreciate that. By way of supplementary, I’m prompted to ask if I can presume that the minister noticed that Denison has just entered into a sale with Japan of 20,000 tons of uranium ore, committing that mine to systematic production for I don’t know how many more years, which is fine, except apparently under continuing hazardous conditions? Do I take it that the minister will look into it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I will.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

SILENT VOICE CANADA

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Community and Social Services if he has yet made up his mind as to how he will respond to the frequent appeals from the group known as Silent Voice Canada, since its deadline for funding is June 15?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Silent Voice Canada?

Mr. Renwick: It’s the one I wrote to the minister about.

Mr. Lewis: It’s the group that deals with several hundred deaf persons in Toronto and has been doing some astonishingly good work; it was funded by LIP, I believe, but that money runs out on June 15 next. I have been inundated by letters, I can’t recall receiving so many in a short lime; I presume the minister has also. What is his intention?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, is that the group that the hon. member’s colleague, the hon. member for Riverdale, wrote to me about?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, that’s the one.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I wrote back to the member for Riverdale and said that we would be pleased to meet with representatives of that group.

Mr. Renwick: I haven’t had a reply to that letter yet.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That letter was sent a few days ago, Mr. Speaker. I’ll be glad to send the hon. member a copy.

Mr. Lewis: So the minister will have a meeting with these people, who are obviously desperate, before June 15?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Definitely, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Is there a reason why the minister categorically turned them down when they came to him for interim funding? They’re so obviously filling an important community area of need.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I certainly don’t recall that they have been in touch with me personally; they could have been in touch with my staff.

Mr. Lewis: His ministry did.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: As the host member knows, there are many very worthwhile programmes that have been funded under LIP, but that does not necessarily mean to say that they come under our programme. In this particular case, as I indicated, we would be pleased to meet with them to see if we can assist them.

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister be making a public announcement on the decision relating to the Bradley-Georgetown corridor after the cabinet meeting tomorrow?

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, I met last Wednesday evening with the chairman of the citizens’ group concerned about that particular project, and I indicated to that gentleman, Mr. William Mann, that it was certainly my hope to give him a definite answer this week.

Mr. Lewis: This week? Thank you. Two other ministers I wanted to question, Health and Labour, aren’t here.

ASBESTOS EMISSIONS FROM BAYBESTOS-MANHATTAN PLANT

Mr. Lewis: I have one last question, of the Minister of the Environment. Has his ministry taken tests on the out-of-plant asbestos emissions at the Raybestos-Manhattan plant in Peterborough? And if so, as the workers believe is true, can the minister provide the results of that testing?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): I think we have been taking samples, and I’ll be glad to get the results. I don’t have the results here with me.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much. No further questions, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Housing: This morning figures revealed that the average house sale in Toronto for the past three months was $57,000. In view of the fact that if we are going to have a crash programme in housing the high cost of money is going to affect the whole picture and we’re all after that and in view of the fact that the ODC has lent hundreds of millions of dollars in forgivable loans to American firms --

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): It must have been in Owen Sound.

Mr. Sargent: in his upcoming meeting with Mr. Danson, will the minister try to come back here with a figure of three per cent or five per cent money available for a crash programme on housing?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s not very realistic.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’d be delighted if, before I meet with Mr. Danson on June 10, the hon. member would explain to Mr. Danson the problems we have in Ontario and make sure that he puts his case forward as explicitly as I have.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Danson knows all about the Minister of Housing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have explained to Mr. Danson that we need mortgage money at a reasonable rate. I think three per cent or five per cent might be a bit low. One has to look at the United States where one can obtain mortgage rates at seven per cent, and possibly eight per cent is the figure we should aim for at this particular time. I can assure the member that I will certainly do everything possible to come back, along with every other provincial minister in Canada, with a reasonable allocation of funds for housing in Ontario.

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary: What is the minister’s policy insofar as subsidizing for a two-year period, say, to get things moving here?

An hon. member: We’re subsidizing now, in northern Ontario,

Mr. Sargent: We’re subsidizing American firms; why can’t we subsidize housing in Ontario?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Because the minister doesn’t care.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think we really have shown that we are very concerned about housing in Ontario, with all due respect to the hon. member. We are subsidizing housing to a considerable degree. We have a budget of $526 million, which is the largest anywhere at any time in Ontario, and anywhere in Canada, and that indicates, as far as Ontario is concerned, that we know there is a real need for housing.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The government’s advertising indicates that it is concerned.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

LAKE NIPIGON FISHERMEN

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Now that regional biologists from his staff and representatives of the Fresh Water Fish Marketing Corp. and agents of that board have agreed that it would be in the best interests of the commercial fishermen at Macdiarmid to be allowed to market their fish independently of the board, is he prepared to make a decision that would allow them to do that?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that a meeting was held in that part of northwestern Ontario dealing with the Lake Nipigon commercial fishery and fishermen as it relates to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corp. I am also aware, not in a formal way, that Mr. Milko, who is with the marketing board, indicated it was his opinion that they should be allowed to withdraw from the marketing board. We have a commitment, before we make any changes to the marketing board area in northwestern Ontario, that consultation will take place among ourselves, the marketing board and the federal Department of Fisheries. We’ll undertake to do this as soon as we have the formal report from the district office.

Mr. Stokes: As a supplementary, it is my understanding that the minister already has the report from the district officers and the decision is in his hands to make. Is he not aware that there is some urgency in the matter, since the commercial fishermen are losing several hundred dollars a day because of the procrastination and they’re not prepared to market their fish with the marketing board when they’re going to lose money to do so?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I checked with my staff as late as an hour ago and we in my office do not have that report from the district office at this time. As soon as we have, I have indicated to the commercial fishermen that I will deal with it expeditiously.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Could the minister explain to the House why the marketing board wasn’t proposing prices that were competitive with the non-regulated prices, for example, available in Winnipeg? Why is it that this approach by the marketing board was such that it would force the fishermen to try to get out of its jurisdiction? Why wasn’t it doing the job for them?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member should look over to the Ottawa area and ask some of his federal counterparts or his colleagues over there just how they operate the marketing board, because it is something within their jurisdiction.

Mr. Reid: The minister is in charge. He is responsible.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If they’re operating it in the red and if they’re not operating it efficiently, then I say he should put it on their table.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Would the minister not appreciate that we cannot accept that as an answer in this House because it is his power that will permit them to come out of the marketing board and it is his responsibility to speak for them in these circumstances? Why can’t he speak for the fishermen, to see that they get a decent price from the marketing board, whether it’s federal, provincial or whatever the jurisdiction? We’re aware of its development. How can he possibly respond with an answer like that when he is the Minister of Natural Resources in this province?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. Leader of the Opposition had been more aware of what was going on in northwestern Ontario in the last several years he would know some of the answers to some of the questions he has already asked.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister doesn’t know any of them.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Four years later, the member comes around.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: For a minister who is paid as he is and who lives in the area, he doesn’t have any answers. He is running the fisheries down he is useless.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have gone through it all.

Mr. Lewis: I wish the members would treat each other with more respect, the way I treat them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

ASSISTANCE TO CHILDREN WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): A question of the Minister of Community and Social Services, Mr. Speaker, with respect to a situation in my constituency concerning David Bruyn a young man with dyslexia and, as a result, a learning disability: Can the minister advise as a result of the recent decision of the Ontario Supreme Court with respect to the age situation for this boy, whether there will be any changes made so that an age limitation will not be put into the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act and as a result persons who are of the age of 16 and below can receive additional assistance from the ministry? This assistance apparently has been unable to be provided in many cases through the various regulations of the local school boards and their responsibilities.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member, I would say we are certainly all in agreement that children with learning disabilities should be given every opportunity. They should have the same opportunities for education as any other child in this province.

With reference to this specific case, we feel in our own ministry that those who are of school age should be the responsibility of the Ministry of Education and those who are beyond school age should be our responsibility. With reference to the assistance under the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act, this is an Act we apply, using the guidelines under the Canada Assistance Plan; at the present time to my knowledge there is no assistance except for employment training.

However, as I said, this matter is now before us and I’m optimistic that between the two ministries involved we will provide assistance to children with learning disabilities.

Mr. Breithaupt: If the minister is able to come to a conclusion, would he be prepared to make a statement or at least to give a sufficient press release so that persons, particularly those involved with the Ontario association, would know quite clearly the government policy and the hopes for the future?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: This matter has been brought to the attention of our social development policy field and it is one that is under very active consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

HOUSING CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Does the Minister of Housing feel it is proper that people moving within the last month into Home Ownership programme houses should have to have particleboard on the front of the buildings rather than plywood; that they should have to have basements which are leaking; tiles in the kitchen and bathroom which are lifting; chipped counters in the kitchen; ceilings and walls that are neither plumb nor square, and leaks in the basements the size a rat could walk through? Does he feel this is an adequate level of building standards for people in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, not in the least.

Mr. Deans: Will the minister then find time within the next week to come to Hamilton and allow me to show him these things in the newest subdivision being developed under the Home Ownership programme?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I made an inspection in Kingston last Friday in regard to a problem which was brought to my attention at a HOME development where we had four builders, one particular builder being the Settlement Corp.

Mr. Deans: Yes, I raised that with the minister some time ago.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member for Wentworth raised it some while ago. Yes, I’ll go to his area and I’ll find out personally about what he is saying, because I do believe what he is saying is right. If an inspection has been made say it’s a 100 inspection or a 95 inspection I want to know what inspection we are talking about.

I found out in Kingston that the people moved into the HOME development homes ahead of time because they had given up their leases and they had nowhere to go. They begged OHC and the builder to let them into the homes and they were quite happy, in many cases, to be there.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): It doesn’t make any difference.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They told me they were delighted to have a home. There were other people and I think this is what the member is referring to who will not accept the fact they moved in ahead of time without the builder having the home completely inspected and without the home being finished. In those cases I think one has to take both sides and analyse who was wrong and who was right. I’ll go to the area.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Why should they have to accept it even if they do have to move in ahead of time?

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Could I ask if the minister will accompany me in order that I can personally show him things that are wrong? Secondly, isn’t there something wrong with the use of particle- board on the outside of houses? It seeps up paint like a sieve.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, again I say to the hon. member, I will be delighted to go with him.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary from the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, in order to avert such incidences happening again in the future and we have had the experience of the Elizabeth Gardens in the city of Windsor would the minister consider an inspector on site during the construction stages of Ontario Housing projects, especially where there is a fairly substantial development?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have already had a meeting with my senior staff in regard to improving our inspection procedures in the future. We will have a very clear analysis of what has happened in the past and what, in my opinion, should happen in the future. I can assure every hon. member, if we can improve on the inspection procedures that we have had in the past, which have not been 100 per cent in my opinion, I will do everything that I can to make sure they are 100 per cent in the future.

I can’t say to the hon. member in this case that I can make a personal inspection. I don’t think I can go everywhere. But I think the member for Wentworth has asked me enough questions that I want to go with him and just find out first-hand what his problems are.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Carleton East.

TEACHER-SCHOOL BOARD BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Education: On the assumption that the minister will be introducing his bill with respect to teacher-school board negotiations later this day, and on the assumption that this House deals with the bill and royal assent is achieved by the end of the month, can the minister say whether or not this legislation will apply to the current negotiations in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Yes, Mr. Speaker, it will. It has a transition section that would phase it in to those negotiations.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary it’s a supplementary on the bill. Is that fair?

Mr. Speaker: Well, the bill will be introduced very shortly. I am not sure how you can have a question on a bill that hasn’t been introduced.

Mr. Lewis: Because it has been discussed broadly.

Mr. Speaker: Try to let the hon. minister use his judgement as to whether he wants to answer.

Mr. Lewis: I want to ask the minister, in light of the introduction of the bill today I have two questions relating to it will he reconsider what is emerging as the most controversial clause of the bill, that which excludes principals and vice-principals from the collective bargaining procedure, since the principals have now voted have now indicated that they wish to be continued as part of the bargaining unit

Mr. Speaker: I really think that might better wait until the bill is before us to be discussed.

Mr. Lewis: I’m not sure that is true. It has been talked about.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Everybody has seen it but the members of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: It will come up for discussion during consideration of the bill. I’m sure the member will bring it up.

Mr. Lewis: Well, there are other questions.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It may have been changed by caucus. Maybe the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Winkler) changed it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question of the Minister of Education. Can the minister tell us

Mr. Speaker: Is this a new question?

Mr. Foulds: This is a new question.

Mr. Speaker: That’s what I thought.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister tell us if he has given any reconsideration, since the terms of the bill were revealed last Thursday and Friday, to that clause which excludes the principals and vice-principals from being part of the bargaining unit?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Lewis: Come on. That’s perfectly fair. What’s wrong with you?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: It’s a perfectly legitimate question.

Mr. Foulds: And can he tell us in the bill he will introduce this afternoon whether a new clause covering that has been included?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I’d be very happy to answer that no, I haven’t. The bill that was reported in the Globe and Mail, the one that was taken from one of the rooms during our meetings on Thursday, contained that provision. That provision is still in here, and I will be happy to debate it with the hon. members on second reading.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Roy: No, mine is not; it’s a new question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This is a supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary: Is the minister willing to consider an amendment to that section during the clause-by-clause debate

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think that should be

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend is trying to debate a bill that is not even before this House, and he hasn’t even heard my reasons for inclusion of that section in the bill.

Mr. Lewis: The minister’s reasons are insupportable, whatever they are.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We haven’t even seen the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I think we should be patient about the bill. It will come before us shortly.

The hon. member for Ottawa East.

BILINGUAL SERVICES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier; it involves an article in the Ottawa Journal last week by a columnist by the name of Pierre Benoit. I think the Premier remembers him. I would like to ask if the Premier might comment on Mr. Benoit’s statement in this column when he states that, despite the Ontario task force on policing’s recommendation that police service in Ottawa-Carleton be provided on a bilingual basis, despite the Premier’s statement in 1971 and despite the commitments by John Robarts in 1970, the city of Ottawa has had to go it virtually alone in terms of costs of improving capacity of its civic administration to provide a service for its French-speaking citizens. I would like to know if the Premier might stifle the concern of Pierre Benoit and some of us in the Ottawa area by saying what he is going to do about the criticism by his former candidate.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would be delighted to read what Mr. Benoit said.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Even though the Premier shows little concern about this problem, would the Premier react to Mr. Benoit’s comment, seeing this is a provincial election year, that he hopes that such a decision will not stand in the way of an early and favourable decision. Would the Premier agree with him that the province should assist the city of Ottawa in its bilingual programme?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I haven’t read the full article. I haven’t discussed it with Mr. Benoit. I would be delighted to read it. I can’t comment beyond that.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Pierre Benoit was the government’s candidate. Doesn’t the Premier remember that?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Is that right? We don’t need the member to tell us.

Mr. Cassidy: The Premier is deserting him.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East

LAKE DRAINING BY FALCONBRIDGE

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Did his staff in conjunction with the Minister of Natural Resources give permission to Falconbridge Nickel to lower a lake called Moose Lake which resulted in so much spillage of the tailings into the Wanapitei Lake?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In anticipation of the question, I would be glad to answer it fully. On May 29, 1975, between 10 o’clock and noon, a dam on the Nickel Rim Mine property was washed out, resulting in the sudden release of an estimated 50 million imperial gallons of water to a creek leading to a small bay on Lake Wanapitei, locally known as McLeod Bay. This mini-flood of water picked up silt and debris along the creek bed and may have eroded some tailings in the actual impondment basin, washed out a 50-ft section of the local road and eroded a portion of the cottage property.

Falconbridge Nickel Mines is accepting full responsibility for any repairs and damage and our staff is conducting an investigation into the whole matter. In the tailings area where it is drained, we want to have this area cleaned up, levelled out and grassed down so it will be much more attractive.

As the member knows, Falconbridge Mines took over Nickel Rim Mines a few years ago. We did order them to drain this area and to clean it up so it could be restored to its proper state. Unfortunately, when they started to drain it, they found that the material of the dam let go on them and there was a major discharge of water.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I am aware of the facts the minister has presented, but is the minister aware that Falconbridge lowered yet another lake, called Moose Lake, the day before so they could do some diamond drilling which brought more water into the second lake which the ministry staff had given permission to drain off, which resulted in the major catastrophe?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I believe a problem occurred when our people told them to drain this out so this land could be reclaimed. They were in the process of lowering it at the time. What happened was that instead of there being a lot of rockflll in the dam, there was a certain amount of local till to the darn, and when it started to go, it let go on them.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could I make it clear to the minister that Falconbridge on May 28 lowered another lake not the man-made lake the minister is speaking about, but another lake? Did they have permission to lower the other lake, Moose Lake, by 4 ft in order to diamond drill, which had nothing to do with what his staff had given them permission to do?

Hon. W. Newman: Our staff didn’t give them permission. We indicated they should do it. I can’t tell the member about lowering the water level at another lake because that wouldn’t come directly into involvement with my ministry, but probably with the Ministry of Natural Resources. I don’t know whether it’s a controlled dammed lake the member is talking about or how they lowered the water level of the other lake or whether it’s a hydro dam or what he’s talking about specifically. Maybe the member would like to be a little clearer.

Mr. P. Taylor: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Your point of order?

Mr. P. Taylor: Would it be appropriate at this point to welcome the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch) back to the House?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt with a supplementary?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member is brilliant. His brilliance overwhelms me.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the area where that dam broke consists of a large number of

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Laughren: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, the minister is having difficulty hearing me.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): The minister’s presence doesn’t overwhelm us.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It overwhelms me.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt with his supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know it goes over the heads of some of the members.

Mr. Foulds: Call the Premier to order. A little order. A little respect.

Mr. Laughren: In view of the fact that the area under discussion where the dam broke consists of a number of abandoned head-frames, abandoned shafts, abandoned water towers, automobile wrecks, and is an environmental mess, would the minister order that the two companies involved, Falcon- bridge and International Nickel, do a general cleanup of that entire area?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, is he talking about the area they have just drained or is he just talking about the whole Sudbury basin?

Mr. Stokes: The Sudbury electors will love the minister for that.

Mr. Lewis: That is a very

Mr. MacDonald: That would be a good quote at election time.

Mr. Foulds: The minister has just made the three NDP seats safe in Sudbury.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could let the minister use his judgement on that. I would say that either would be appropriate but I was really referring to the immediate area.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as far as the derelict motor vehicle programme is concerned, I have made some announcements. We are planning to do some work in that area this year.

Mr. Laughren: No, it is the whole area. How about the abandoned headframes, shafts and towers?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Victoria-Haliburton with a question.

CEDAR BLIGHT

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Natural Resources.

Is the minister aware of the large concern regarding cedar trees in southern Ontario? What will this do to several industries such as the cedar post industry for farmers, and the cedar oil industry? What does this virus or blight on the cedar trees happen to be and what might be done to protect our stands?

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Extension of the Tory blight.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, it has not been brought to my attention that there is a cedar blight. I will certainly look into it and if there is a blight I will prepare a statement for this Legislature because I am sure other members of the House may be interested.

Mr. Reid: He’d better look into it fast.

Mr. Bullbrook: Very good.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker I have a question of the Premier. Can the Premier indicate whether his three-person committee, which is going to look into government spending, will be paid? How often will they meet? Can he give us a date when they will table their report before the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be properly directed to the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) but in that the Treasurer isn’t here, the answer to the first part of the question is that my recollection is no; as to how often they meet, I can’t help the hon. member; with respect to their recommendations or their findings, I will take that into consideration.

Mr. Reid: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: Does the Premier not find that the Chairman of Management Board of cabinet, to say nothing of the Treasurer, has perhaps fallen down in his responsibilities if he feels he has to set up a special committee to look into government expenditures?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would only make this observation that this government, unlike others I could mention but shan’t on this occasion, has done far more with respect to restraint

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Only the government of Ontario.

Mr. Reid: It is a phoney and the Premier knows it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: in government expenditure than most other jurisdictions I can think of.

Mr. Reid: It is a phoney and he knows it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: This committee indicates very clearly that we will continue this process. We are going to involve people from outside government and I think it is a very positive step in the right direction which other governments could emulate to the satisfaction of the taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker: We are just about out of time. We heard the same questions last week so we’ll hear the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Lewis: Come on, we are not out of time. We have 10 minutes left. There was an opening statement.

Mr. Reid: I have another supplementary.

Mr. Roy: I’ve got a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt with a new question.

Mr. Martel: The Premier might give some staff to the committee.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Parkinson’s Law, eh?

HOME RENEWAL PROGRAMME

Mr. Laughren: A question of the Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the Ontario Home Renewal Programme provides funds to municipalities according to their size which means that small communities in northern Ontario do not get a fair share of moneys owing to them and since the size of the community does not necessarily have a relationship to the quality of housing in that community, would the minister revise the basis on which the Ontario Home Renewal Programme funds are allocated so that the amount of money offered by the Ministry of Housing to small northern communities could be related more to the extent of the housing quality problems and not to the population size?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we are giving consideration to changing the rules and regulations that have been implemented through our Ontario Home Renewal Programme. I don’t know whether or not we can change the population allocation in regard to the funding for municipalities, but I will give it consideration; sure.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary question?

Mr. B. Newman: Is the minister considering increasing the ceiling at least by the cost of living increases over the past few years so that $7,500 would no longer be the maximum?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, that is one of our considerations.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

ASSESSMENT NOTICES

Mr. Good: A question of the Minister of Revenue. Is the minister aware of complaints being received by individuals in the notices sent out by the regional assessment offices asking for information relating to rents in rental accommodations? While there may be validity for commercial and industrial rent requirements by the assessment offices, does he not feel that asking for rents of residential accommodation is going a little too far; although it is probably permitted under section 14?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): I haven’t heard anything of that complaint at all, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. member has any details. I would be pleased to get them from him to see if there is any validity to the complaint.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

HIGHWAY 401 WORK

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications concerning Highway 401. Why is earth being scraped away in huge amounts from the base of the pillars in the median beneath several overpasses around miles 90 to 100 and, secondly, why are two overpasses being removed near mile 209?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Doesn’t the minister know what is going on in his ministry?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

PRIVATE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

Mr. Ruston: A question of the Minister of the Environment. Since the minister now has agreements with health units, how is it that when his ministry approves private sewage disposal systems that it is okay to install them, and yet the health unit says they are not allowed? Who really has the final jurisdiction?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the regulations are set out in part 7 of the Environmental Protection Act regarding installation of septic systems in the Province of Ontario. There is a certain amount of discretion under section 59 of the Act for the MOHs.

We have now signed agreements in the district of Muskoka. We look after it as the Ministry of the Environment, and have for some time. I believe we have signed agreements with all the health units in the Province of Ontario, with the exception of two. The medical officer of health and the health unit have the authority to decide what particular type of septic tank will go into a particular area. The only place that we become involved with is the Aquarobic type of system. With that sort of system, on request of the board of health, we will go into a particular area to deal with a particular problem.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

GOVERNMENT DEFICITS

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Premier would care to comment on the study report in the New York Times last Sunday which said that any jurisdiction that has a deficit two years in a row is showing danger signs, and a deficit of five per cent is considered a warning signal, in view of the fact that the deficit in Ontario is somewhat over 20 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would only make this observation I don’t want to do battle with the New York Times. Was that an editorial or a news comment?

If it was an editorial, of course, I would be prepared to take a look at it. But knowing the political philosophy of the party the mentor for High Park represents there is no way we should be influenced in any economic or cultural way by the United States. If it happened to be news report, of course, I would he delighted to have the basis for that news report. I would only say they should look to their own problems. They don’t need to worry about us we look after our own.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, my question follows up the question to the Premier from the member for Rainy River involving his watchdog group. Would the Premier be prepared to have this group look at, for instance, his expenditures for his advertising programmes here in the province; or for his policy secretariats, or for ministers without portfolio? Will these people look at these expenditures?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, they will have complete latitude and they may even take a look to see how much of the taxpayers’ money allocated for research for the official opposition has been utilized in a constructive and positive way.

Mr. Roy: Well spent, well spent.

An hon. Member: Oh, we got to the member

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Since the Premier is concerned about that, can he say when the committee that he appointed in April, 1971 just before the last election concerning itself with expenditures in education, is going to give its final report? After all, that’s a number of years now. He is apparently concerned with cutting costs only before elections. Why not afterwards?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this government is concerned about costs at all times, unlike the Liberal Party.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

SPEECH BY MINISTER OF CULTURE AND RECREATION

Mr. Lewis: I think my colleagues in caucus have exhausted their questions, and there has been a question that I wanted to ask the minister of sports and raffles for some time, because it has intrigued me.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member left out culture.

Mr. Lewis: On April 18, 1975, the minister made a speech to the annual dinner of the Ridley Graduate Boat Club, Niagara-on-the-Lake, and on page two, there was a fairly complicated portion, which I would like to read verbatim and then ask him a question about. He is speaking of the club and what it does and he says:

I think it is all summed up in the name of your programme, “Ten Seconds to Gold,” 10 seconds to ultimate excellence one, two, three, four, five, six, seven eight, nine, 10.

I want to ask him, if I may

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s a great speech. That’s clear enough.

Mr. Stokes: And that’s without taking his shoes off.

Mr. Lewis: I want to ask him, if I may, when did he learn to count, does he count often in public, and how much does he pay his speechwriters?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce, a final question.

Order, please, the member for Grey-Bruce.

BELL RATE INCREASES

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: There is a good chance that there will be hearings in Ottawa

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Don’t hide. We know why the member is behind those glasses.

Mr. Sargent: Pardon?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We know who he is. Hello there.

Mr. Sargent: There is a good chance that there will have to be hearings on the Bell increases in Ottawa next week. In view of the fact that about 80 per cent of the money they raise is in Ontario, would he act on behalf of the citizens of Ontario on these Bell increases which affect every home, every business here? Would he send representations down there to fight these increases?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t been approached by anybody but the hon. member to do that, and I would certainly take a look at it to see if it’s possible.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills. The hon. Minister of Education.

SCHOOL BOARDS AND TEACHERSCOLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the Negotiation of Collective Agreements between School Boards and Teachers.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I made a very complete statement on this matter in the House on Friday. Copies of that statement are on the members’ desks, so I don’t intend to make any further statement at this time, except to say that it has been a long time coming but it is worth waiting for.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, could I ask whether the Minister of Education has additional copies of the bill he introduced? Are there any available?

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves first reading of bill intituled, the Regional Municipalities Amendment Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, this bill affects a variety of powers and functions within the regions of Haldimand-Norfolk

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There’s a great deal of noise in the chamber, it’s difficult to hear.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I’ll start over, Mr. Speaker. This bill affects a variety of power and functions within the regions of Haldimand-Norfolk, Niagara, Ottawa-Carleton, Peel, Sudbury, Waterloo and York. Some items contained in this bill could fairly be described as minor housekeeping measures but a few are somewhat more significant than that. One in particular is a measure which could be described as a milestone in our continuing progress toward stronger, more effective local government.

This last measure provides for the abolition of the board of health in the regional municipality of Waterloo and for the transfer of the board’s powers into the hands of the regional council. I am sure all members will appreciate the significance of this measure when I point out that this will be the first instance anywhere in Ontario when a board of health has been disbanded in order to have its power and authority lodged with the locally elected representatives.

This measure is, of course, in keeping with the government policy whereby special purpose bodies of many different kinds have been or will be eliminated so that the people’s own locally-elected representatives can exercise a greater degree of power and authority, notably, the power to control spending and set priorities for the benefit of all residents in their communities. This measure marks the first such step in the field of public health and it applies at this time only in the region of Waterloo.

Other measures in this bill, though less significant than the one I have just described, should perhaps be noted briefly for the record. They include measures and powers in Ottawa-Carleton region to acquire land for use as parks; to establish and operate a solid waste conversion plant; and to arrange special rates for municipal contributions to urban transport costs.

As a result of other measures in this Act, York region will be empowered to license, regulate and govern lodging houses.

The electoral system in the town of Capreol in the Sudbury region will be altered from the ward system to a system of general voting.

In addition, this Act contains provisions for minor changes which will tidy up municipal boundaries in Niagara and Peel regions. All of these items are measures which have been requested by the municipalities themselves and all of them, Mr. Speaker, are in keeping with the government’s continuing policy of strengthening local government.

CONSUMER REPORTING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Reid moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, this amendment will do two things: It will not allow the exchange of information to people who reside outside the Province of Ontario. It will also require the prescribing of the form of security that consumer reporting agencies take with their files on personal information.

Mr. Bullbrook: Before the orders of the day, I would like to rise on a point of order, if I may. It’s a point of clarification that I ask of you so that I might be acquainted, with other members of the House, as to how the question period operates. Recognizing that you must exercise discretion, I would like to have some idea on what basis the discretion is exercised.

A question was put to you, Mr. Speaker, today in connection with a very serious matter, I have no doubt, relating to the draining of a lake at Sudbury. Four supplementary questions were permitted by you to the initial question.

My colleague from Rainy River then raised with you the question of an appointment of a commission which is only designated to do one thing, that is, erode the power of this legislative assembly and usurp the function of government. My colleague attempted to ask a supplementary question to that question and he was cut off.

I say to you most respectfully, sir, there is some disjointed imbalance of priorities and important matters in this question period. I recognize, and bow to the fact, that yours is a difficult task but surely, sir, you can see the importance of that committee which is being appointed by the Premier? To disallow a supplementary question, I say most respectfully to you, is beyond my understanding.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member will understand it’s very difficult to control the number of supplementaries and keep the questions flowing, give everybody a chance who wishes to ask a question. I think he understands that. I don’t think I’ll say more at the present time.

Mr. Renwick: Particularly with a ministerial statement on privilege before the opening of the House that went on much too long.

Mr. Bullbrook: I just want to carry this forward sir; please let me. You realize what you permitted the member for St. David to do to occupy at least 10 minutes of this on a matter of personal privilege and acquaint us with the fact that she was, one day, enamoured of a cow. I can’t see, frankly, where we’re going and it’s up to you, sir, and I say this most respectfully, to give some balance to our obligations.

Mr. Speaker: I think 10 minutes was a bit of an exaggeration. One minute would be closer.

Mr. Bullbrook: It was eight then.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

LIQUOR CONTROL ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves second reading of Bill 44, the Liquor Control Act, 1975.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Perth.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): I think the minister probably has a statement.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an introductory statement because of the fact we have introduced Bill 44 for second reading.

As the House knows, Bill 44 and Bill 45 are so inter-related it’s almost impossible to separate debate on the two bills. I would like to make a statement at this time which really relates to both bills and to invite members to comment on both, even though we will be having another debate on Bill 45 when it is introduced for second reading. There is very great difficulty distinguishing between the two for debate purposes. I want to point out the reasons for the two bills, once again, although I did make a lengthy statement on first reading.

The purpose, primarily, is to improve the efficiency, uniformity and accountability of liquor administration in the province. There are three objectives which should be kept in mind as the debate proceeds.

We do not intend the bills to make it easier for the public to consume alcoholic beverages. Liquor will be neither cheaper nor more freely available because of the two bills. Liberalization is not a primary intention. There are two major changes which involve relaxation of control, and these relate to consumption by minors in the home and the conveyance of liquor from place to place.

Consumption by a minor, at any time or place, is currently an offence under the Liquor Control Act. In the new legislation, parents may supply alcoholic beverages, such as a glass of wine, to their children in a residence. This change recognizes parental authority and responsibility in the home. It also recognizes the fact that the previous legislation was, to all intents and purposes, unenforceable.

The Liquor Control Act currently permits unopened bottles to be taken from the point of purchase to the residence of the purchaser. Open bottles may be transported from one residence occupied by the owner of the bottle to another residence to be occupied by him; that is from his own home to a hotel. The new bill will permit transportation of an unopened bottle to any destination. An open bottle may also be taken to any destination provided it’s packed in baggage or otherwise not readily available to any person in the vehicle transporting it.

The main purpose of the legislation, aside from the two items I’ve mentioned which deal with consumption, is to make it easier, clearer, simpler for both licensees and the liquor boards themselves to operate. We expect the law will be clearer, on passage of these bills, and more consistent with the basic principles proposed by McRuer. The current Acts have been enforced for some 28 years and it is very difficult to try to bring up to date, in one fell swoop, the accumulated difficulties which have arisen under these bills.

We understand there are problems which are occurring almost daily in the administration of the present Act. I make no pretence of the fact that the new Acts are going to solve those problems overnight. We will continue to have them.

We have been fortunate in this province, Mr. Speaker, that liquor administration has not been burdened with the patronage and criminality which have plagued other jurisdictions. Our system is envied by other provinces and by many states to the south of us, and they have expressed this to me personally. They admire the generally high standard of our licensed premises and the honest, orderly, efficient nature of liquor distribution of this province.

We are proposing two major changes in the Acts. First, the Liquor Licence Board and again I’m dealing with Bill 45 when I mention Liquor Licence Board will be expanded from three members to seven. This is an effort to speed up the hearings procedures to allow for panels, and to permit the decentralization of its processes and to provide faster service across the province.

Secondly, we are making a clear distinction between the function of sale and distribution of liquor, which is being done under Bill 44 by the Liquor Control Board, and the regulatory function of the Liquor Licence Board. This is in accordance with the McRuer recommendations. Under the existing legislation the Liquor Control Board licenses brewers, distillers and wineries. Under Bill 45 these functions will be transferred to the Liquor Licence Board. Bill 44 contains no control functions.

We are also proposing two changes to increase uniformity. The standards of eligibility are being spelled out for the first time in the Liquor Licence Act; that is the classes of premises are being enacted in legislation and will be proposed in the regulations to follow. The current Act only specifies who may not he granted a licence. What we are trying to do is to codify those people who are entitled to licences. In the new bill there are no special terms and conditions to be attached to a new licence, other than those which are contained in the code.

There was some confusion at the time of first reading when I mentioned that the Acts were silent on certain issues. I want to make it quite clear at this time that where the Acts are silent there is no power vested in the boards to act. In other words, it is declaratory law. The boards may operate within the terms of the Act, but may not read into the Act anything which the Act does not deal with.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Does that mean they are out of the censorship business?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Right.

Mr. Shulman: Thank goodness.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: To augment accountability there are three main legislative changes. The revenues of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario will be paid into the consolidated revenue fund, so that appropriations and expenses will be reviewed by the Legislature rather than being paid for out of income. For the first time, the Liquor Licence Board will be subject to examination at estimates times.

A liquor licence appeal tribunal is proposed. This has been well publicized and has been very well received by the public, the media and the licensees. The tribunal is to hear appeals from decisions or proposals of the Liquor Licence Board; that is if the Liquor Licence Board refuses to issue a licence, suspends a licence, proposes not to renew a licence or cancels a licence, any of those decisions would be subject to appeal to the new body. An appeal procedure is also outlined in the new Act which guarantees an independent hearing for any licence holder or applicant who is refused a licence or permit.

There have been pressures brought to bear on the government since the introduction of the bill and prior to it to take a more liberal attitude toward availability of beverage alcohol. It has been a very interesting experience for me to consider the various requests, the conflicting requests, which come before me. In conjunction with my colleagues in government, I have rejected a more liberal approach as inconsistent with the other more important social objectives of the government.

Mr. Speaker, we find public health and safety more important than longer drinking hours, beer in supermarkets or consumption in public parks. Much as we may like to forget it from time to time, there is a direct relationship between freer drinking and the social problems of alcohol abuse. There’s an ample body of research which clearly shows you can’t have one without the other.

It would be inconsistent to concern ourselves with an increase in violent crime while at the same time permitting more access to alcohol. Many studies have pointed out the link between violence, crime and consumption of alcohol. How could we honestly try to improve highway safety while also relaxing control on one of the most important contributors to highway deaths?

Of course, there are citizens who claim that their right to freer drinking laws should be guaranteed because of their own personal responsibility for themselves. But since the law treats everyone equally, it’s just not possible to provide to those who are responsible, even if we could define them, something which is not available to everyone.

I want to make no bones about it in this debate: accessibility breeds its own abuse. The ranks of the irresponsible expand as alcohol becomes more freely available, and the consequences are borne by all citizens of the province in the form of higher insurance rates, health care costs and those measurable costs of crime. I suppose it would be easier to let everyone do his own thing, but I don’t believe that the people of the province are ready to pay the price involved.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the House that since the introduction of the bills, and prior to that, we have consulted widely with associations, individuals those who are directly affected or indirectly affected by the legislation, or those who are simply interested in the broader question of alcohol consumption. We will continue to consult with these bodies and as I announced at the time of first reading, we will shortly be establishing an advisory committee; I hope before the end of this week to be able to announce the chairman of the committee to the members of the House.

We have received many hundreds of briefs, and we continue to receive them on a daily basis. These are being examined, first by me and then by my legal staff, to determine whether or not we can accept some of the suggestions that are being put to us. There are a great variety of suggestions, and each of the documents is being reviewed very carefully.

I can say that we will likely be suggesting amendments based on the suggestions received, not only from these outside organizations but from members of the House, during this time. We will be moving certain amendments at the committee stage of the bill. I’d be pleased to listen to the views of the members who engage in this debate and to consider any amendments which they may have to suggest, so that we can take them into consideration for amendments during the committee stage.

Again, I would like to point out to all members of the House that I feel they should be free to discuss the principles both in Bill 44 and Bill 45, hopefully avoiding duplication when second reading of Bill 45 is called. I would propose that after Bill 44 and Bill 45 have been debated, if time permits, that we might go into committee immediately, at least for the discussion of Bill 44. I would like to notify the members that I would hope to proceed in that order, with the permission of the hon. members.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I am looking forward to the debate with great interest.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The public examination and research that went into these two bills was extensive. Certainly it has led to a certain degree of disappointment on my part in seeing what the machinery of public participation has brought forward. The minister has reaffirmed his commitment not to become liberal in legislation governing the sale of alcoholic beverages. He has opted for very little significant change at all.

I really regret supporting the bill, because I feel that it is substantially inadequate, after the research and public consultation that went on for 18 months in this connection. I believe it was the present member for Lincoln (Mr. Welch) who started the process of review, and I well recall that there was some feeling that the anomalies, the problems in government control of alcoholic consumption perhaps would be dealt with in a more imaginative way than this bill involves.

Essentially, the bill opts for the status quo; probably the biggest change is that it will now be necessary for licensed premises to sell milk as well as beer, and maybe tea and coffee as well as hard liquor; which of course, is a good idea, but it really is ridiculous that that sort of thing is subject to legislation and is simply not a matter of good sense.

Dealing with the LCBO bill first, I think we should recall the historical antecedents wherein our predecessors in this chamber established a monopoly of the liquor business. They said only the government can participate in it; anybody else who is working in commerce illegally, we’ve come to call them bootleggers. We have developed a system whereby we have our own stores; and as I travel through the province and I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, I go into just about as many towns as anyone, even yourself, sir it has been my experience that in most of the towns of this province, the Liquor Control Board has the finest building in town. It sometimes shocks me, when I go into a community where they are working very hard for a new arena, where there are other buildings of a public nature that have been put up, supported largely by the efforts of the local community, that the most impressive building, faced with fieldstone, with the most modern lighting, on the most impressive piece of real estate, with a big parking lot with “in” and “out” signs that’s the liquor store.

We in this Legislature have conveyed to the government the power to hire the employees, and over the years this has been a substantial base for Conservative patronage. It is one of the few surviving, to be frank, along with Ontario Housing and perhaps one or two other areas, where it is still worthwhile to be a friend of the government. It is sort of small potatoes patronage, but it still exists. In other words, we have our own stores, we hire our employees; we buy the raw material cheap, water it down and sell it dear, and then tax it at 10 per cent.

The minister says he is not sure the province is prepared to pay the price of liberalized policies. Well the direct price there is about $330 million, based on the mark-up on a bottle of liquor; which is worth about $1 and which they tell me now goes for an avenge of $6.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Is it that high now?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s what they say. The concern in the hypocrisy about some of this is based, really, on the findings of the Addiction Research Foundation, which have been put before us by the minister’s predecessors and others. They indicate that the social costs, in readily and directly determined dollars, must be in excess of $700 million. And that is for the welfare, the hospitals, the patrols on the highways, the courts, the payments to divided families and so on at least $700 million.

Anyone who feels that the $330 million is gravy for the public revenue, is of course completely wrong. We know that the public cost, the social cost, is far in excess of the $700 million the Addiction Research Foundation, on the basis of their directed research, has indicated publicly as the figure.

The ARF has also made very strong submissions not only to the members of the Legislature through their reports but to international conventions and other gatherings dealing with this matter. There has been some criticism directed to the ARF over recent years, even by members of this House largely irresponsible in my feeling. However, the ARF is accepted internationally as an authority of world repute, and we should realize that here.

I am not prepared to say the millions of dollars we have spent for the ARF and its predecessor over the years have all been well directed. Personally, I felt the government direction on drug abuse led to a good deal of wastage of money simply to produce some superficial recommendations and reports, which perhaps were not as valuable as the basic work the foundation has done over these many years.

I was interested though, in the fact that some of the recommendations are reflected in the minister’s view and also the views of his predecessors. For example, they show a direct correlation between the amount of absolute alcohol consumed and the social costs, that is the disease and the other directly related problems from the consumption of liquor.

And their answer is a very significant one. They say the government of the day here, and in every other country and jurisdiction which controls the consumption of liquor, has got to do everything they can, now and in the long run, to reduce that consumption and one of their suggestions is to increase the price tremendously.

Well, I don’t think that’s acceptable. We must realize that the products of fermentation have been used by communities, civilized and otherwise, from the beginning of time, and probably will be in the foreseeable future.

We had an experiment in this province with an attempt to stamp out the demon rum. As a family with Methodist antecedents, I am very proud of what the Methodist church did in those days. We now see the results of their efforts to be something less than entirely successful. But I should tell you, sir, as a good indication, in the community in which I live the population in those days was about 600 and there were three distilleries it was common for the famers of the day, when they would hook up the buggy to take the children to school, to come home with a honey pail full of raw liquor right out of the end of the still to last them through the work of the farm that day. Now, I’m not of an age when I can remember that sort of thing --

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Not a bad idea.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: but these family traditions are sometimes referred to jovially even now. There is no doubt about it, in those times, in the middle of the 19th century, if we had had any kind of statistical indication of the incidence of alcoholism, it must have been extremely high indeed.

Fortunately, it was countered by another addiction, and that was to hard work, body work; there was a commitment by every member of the family to physical labour in the support of the family on the farm and in the community.

But with the advent of Methodism, and certainly with the commitment of the circuit riders in those days and the identification of the demon rum as they called it, and as it certainly is and was, township by township accepted the alternative, under a type of local option, to vote to outlaw the use of alcoholic beverage in that community.

We have found this has always been a substantial political issue. I was interested to read that the biography of Newton Rowell, one of my illustrious predecessors in the leadership of the Liberal Party of this province, emphasized the fact that in his political career the slogan, “Ban the bar,” was one which he used most effectively. It’s also interesting to note that it didn’t win him many votes. It was the Conservative alternative, which didn’t have much to say about that they did not take a definitive position on that in every respect but which seemed to gather up the votes, because they were always known as the wet party.

So the minister now is talking about the basis of a philosophy of the Conservative Party, and he likes to say that he is not liberal, but in fact over the years their party has led in the development and establishment of the sale of alcoholic beverage, and this is one of the things that concerns me.

The other thing that concerns me is one of the basic anomalies in the attitude expressed by the government, that in the whole concept of local option, which has a basis in the history of the province, they have very piously maintained strong and continuing support for the concept, and yet with a series of amendments, they have undermined the decisions that under the law can be made by the community to outlaw the sale of alcoholic beverages on a municipal basis. If an area is designated as a resort area, then of course it doesn’t matter how they vote; the sale is permitted. I can remember the controversy over that lodge up the member for Grey-Bruce’s way.

Mr. Sargent: Talisman.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, the community was dry but somehow Talisman was able to sell the booze. That’s the private club concept, where in a dry community anybody who has the wherewithal, the intention or the ability to belong to a private club, is of course not controlled by the law. Of course, the addition is that even in dry townships, with a wink and a nod on the part of the enforcement officers, as you know, it is very customary for very large public gatherings to be held at which the liquor is sold. I don’t have the objection to that procedure that the minister might expect. I simply say that the whole approach to local option, as it is applied by this government, is fraught with hypocrisy, is misleading and I don’t think the minister has any particular reason to feel pride in its maintenance.

The liquor control bill, the first one that has been introduced by the minister, has very few changes; if anything, it removes ancillary responsibilities of the LCBO and makes them strictly a marketing organization. They have been effective in this regard; they have turned a profit that is a direct profit, in the superficial way but I want to make it clear that we must be aware there is anything but a profit in the operation of the LCBO.

The minister has indicated his concern over the use of alcoholic beverages in every way. He and his colleagues have announced certain procedures by which this use is supposed to be controlled. He has authorized, along with his colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), a programme that is

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Brant allow the member for Wentworth and the member for Algoma to make an announcement before the schools leave?

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the privilege of introducing 29 students from St. Joseph’s Separate School in Blind River with their chaperones; the person in charge is Donald McCoy. I would like the members to welcome them.

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think this is the first time I have introduced a school. There are 50-odd children here from Glen Brae Public School in Hamilton with Mrs. Manson and Mr. Birth. I have a particular interest in a number of the girls in particular, since I have coached baseball for the last three years and have coached, I think, probably 10 or 12 of the girls sitting in the gallery.

Mr. Speaker: Thanks very much.

Mr. Sargent: I hope the member does better in baseball than he does in hockey.

Mr. Deans: I coached three months, too.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister and his colleagues have made a fairly recent commitment based on their concern associated with the problems of the use of alcoholic beverages. It’s part, I suppose, of the bolt that struck the Premier (Mr. Davis) on the way to Queen’s Park which made him realize that the moral fabric of the community is in tatters. We hear him comment on that repeatedly.

The ministry is committed to an advertising programme which, as I have heard it and seen it very rarely, strikes me as being quite effective. The thing that does concern me is that the government is not prepared to use its undoubted powers to take some leadership in restricting the advertising, directly, of alcoholic beverages.

As a representative from the constituency of Brant I have the honour to represent some of the richest tobacco-producing municipalities in Ontario. I know the concern which was felt and expressed by farmers there when the governments here in Canada, and particularly in the United States, decided in the one case to ban the advertising of cigarettes in certain media; and to have not an obligatory ban but an understanding that the same restrictions would apply in this jurisdiction.

I personally feel it was a supportable concept, since experts have been able to indicate there is at least an association between the use of cigarettes and bodily health. I’ll tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker. I am convinced the use of alcohol is far more injurious; it has far more social expense than the use of tobacco; and anyone who would look at it objectively, I would suggest, would have to agree with that.

For that reason, I feel very strongly there has to be some leadership taken in the reduction and the removal of the advertising of alcoholic beverages. It’s not enough to balance it with the government programme saying we can be our own liquor control board or whatever that theme is. I know the habits formed in the use of alcohol are largely established on what young people observe in the family and what they pick up as a result of pressures from their peer group, but obviously the pressures of advertising must be significant otherwise the companies would not be spending the millions of dollars associated with it, which they do spend.

I have heard the justification of the companies, that all they are doing is advertising to people who already drink, to persuade them to use one brand over another. I say that is just poppycock. The ads are designed to have an influence over young people; not to take their first drink, obviously, but to establish their drinking habits.

There is no doubt in my mind that the beer commercials on television are some of the best designed and probably the most attractive, in one sense, of any of the commercials we see. That beautiful blue balloon seems to epitomize the buoyancy which is conveyed in the ads; the use of a certain brand of beer which is always found with cold water running over it is associated with the good life, the young life, the life associated with all of the attractive things the public relations experts can legally put in their very expensive and glossy promotion.

If the minister thinks his responsibility is at an end by simply spending another $600,000 or $700,000 of taxpayers’ money telling everybody they can be their own liquor control board, I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree. It is not possible for us to control the airwaves. The Premier is going to find that out when Judy LaMarsh tells him there is undue violence in television and when he tries to do something about it, because there is nothing we can do about that. But we can take the lead, even if only through the statements of policy of the government, which I feel sure in the next decade must be followed by other jurisdictions, to the effect that the social pressure and the advertising pressure must be reduced.

There are people who don’t like politicians to say that. Essentially, the criticism coming from the advertising companies is based on the fact that they are not expanding the use of alcohol. I’m not convinced of that. I do not believe it. I do not accept it.

I urge upon the minister, and anybody else who is interested, Mr. Speaker, that we should accept the principle of a reduction in this advertising pressure and its final elimination. We can’t do it only as a provincial jurisdiction, but certainly we can provide some leadership. Leslie Frost established the Alcohol Addiction Research Foundation, presently the Addiction Research Foundation. We took the lead there and the foundation, as I said, has a world-wide reputation. I think we should be prepared to follow that up by doing certain things that are far more effective than the bills before us.

I am concerned, since the minister indicated he would welcome a debate on both bills, that in the Liquor Licence Board legislation we really are buying an inadequate bill. He has accompanied the bill with some sort of a code which is fraught with uncertainty.

When I asked him, on the introduction of the bill, what the responsibility of the board would be having to do with the censoring of entertainment in licensed facilities, his answer was equivocal. When I asked him further about the responsibilities of the Liquor Licence Board in conjunction with the inspection of premises for fire safety, his answer was equivocal. There are two instances, recently, which would lead to both those questions being asked; one where the present chairman of the Liquor Licence Board used his authority as a threat to remove a specific entertainment from a licensed premises by saying to the owners their licence might very well be jeopardized if they did not respond by getting rid of this entertainment, which the chairman of the board felt was inappropriate. I questioned the matter in the House at the time and the chairman was good enough to send me certain reports that were available to him, indicating the level of the entertainment which obviously was not so hot, which is one way it should be described.

I’ll tell you this, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) is nodding at me, I do not agree with the position taken by the chairman of the board. I do not agree with the position I would predict the member for Scarborough Centre would take, and no doubt will take later in the afternoon, because the chairman of the liquor board is not and must not be empowered as a censor of public morality. If the minister wants him to be, if along with the Premier he has this kind of concern for the moral fibre of the community the Premier says everybody is to blame then let him put it in the bill and let us debate it, because we will be opposed to it there and we will vote against it.

But he hasn’t put it in the bill. He has simply said: “You, as the chairman and the commission, have the power to license certain premises.” I’ll tell you this, that it is not in those powers that the threat to remove the licence should be, can be or would he used as some sort of a censorship procedure.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s exactly what I said.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All right, then the minister should make it very clear that as a Legislature we are not going to be put in the equivocal position where the chairman of that board is going to continue to act as he has. I don’t want to blame him individually. I blame the government for not giving him the kind of direction he deserved in a job such as his. The situation pertaining to censorship is obviously one for the Criminal Code; and anything other than that, I believe, is beyond our powers and beyond our responsibility unless it comes forward as a specific section of the bill. I hope it is made perfectly clear that the chairman of the Liquor Licence Board does not have those powers and that it is made clear that he must not act as if he did.

On the matter of fire inspection, the question was asked because of the very serious tragedy in my own community, Paris, Ont., where there were a number of deaths in a hotel containing a licensed premises. There is no doubt in my mind that if there had been an effective fire inspection those deaths would not have occurred. In the inquest associated with those deaths there was the strangest tangle of confusion over the responsibility for fire inspection that anyone had ever heard. I personally found it an embarrassment, as a member of this House, to feel it was because of the authority we had vested in specific members of the government that this tangle had been allowed to go forward. I felt that I shared the responsibility with the minister, since we had not ferreted it out and brought it to public attention before this catastrophe occurred.

But the problem was that the powers of the Liquor Licence Board somehow had cast a spell, almost, over everybody else who should have had some responsibility, because of the Star Chamber powers the liquor board had taken unto itself in the past, particularly under the present chairman. I blame the minister and his predecessors for inadequate leadership in this connection. I feel the ancillary documents which go with this bill do not clearly set out the government programme; and the minister’s answers at the time do not set it out effectively either.

There are many areas that really should be dealt with here. I have already mentioned the local option situation. I feel the government’s position is fraught with hypocrisy, very much like the member for High Park, who beats his chest and says that High Park should never have to have a licensed premises there. As the representative there for the time being until well, I don’t know, I don’t want to get into the problems the NDP is having with its candidates but at least for the next few weeks it’s all right for him to

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Nor the ones the Liberal leader is having with his candidates.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We are singularly free of problems for the first time in our history.

Mr. Cassidy: They are singularly free of candidates as well.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Ah yes, we’ve got nothing but winners.

So, Mr. Speaker, I return to the point that I feel both the NDP and the Conservatives carry this heavy load of hypocrisy associated with local option. I happen to live in a township which voted local option and as a resident there I am aware of the exceptions in the Act which really mean that it is a farce. Anyone who looks at the provisions of the amendments over the past few years realizes the hypocrisy of the Conservative position.

We believe there is also deep hypocrisy in the government statements on advertising. They are afraid to do those things that are within their jurisdiction and in their area of obvious leadership, and instead simply spend more of the public money on one of these advertising programmes to which they are so prone in election years.

The bill, in essence, changes very little, other than, as I mentioned, it requires licensed premises to sell tea, coffee, milk and soft drinks, which I think is a very good idea.

There are a few other changes, but essentially the ministry has opted for the status quo. I personally feel the legislation should have been liberalized, having to do with the customs that have been brought to this country and which have been shown to be acceptable customs by many of the ethnic groups which have established their families in communities here. The traditions of taking a picnic and a bottle of wine to the park are well known and I don’t see why they should continue to be illegal.

The procedures and traditions in the Oktoberfest beer fest that’s a word that you don’t allow them to use, because beer is supposed to be a sinful word in your mind, apparently but in the Oktoberfest traditions in Kitchener and other communities, your regulations, in my view, are preposterous. Nobody likes to see anyone drunk, but to have an official report say that the special licence was withdrawn because someone was sick in the parking lot is an indication of how ridiculous these procedures are. I make no apology for saying I wish the bill had undertaken some specific liberalization, and at the same time that it express the policy of the government to the effect that we are going to remove the pressures on young people and others through advertising, which in my view is adding unnecessarily to the consumption of alcoholic beverages, which in turn adds to the social costs we all deplore.

We are going to support both bills. We feel the LCBO bill, in its narrowing down to the business base, is reasonable. The LLBO bill is a copout on the part of the government. It has gone through the procedures of meeting and consulting with everybody, but in this new-found concern for the moral fibre of the community the government opts for the cynical and hypocritical approach which it continues to take.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Perth.

Mr. Edighoffer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take a few minutes to make a few comments on Bill 44, and as the minister said, he would accept comments on both 44 and 45.

First, I would have to say, Mr. Speaker, looking over Bill 45, it appears a few sections of the previous Liquor Control Act were picked up and put into Bill 45 to allow the Liquor Control Board to be responsible for the marketing of liquor by manufacturers and the operation of government stores. My leader said there is some concern about the big, expensive-looking buildings in some areas. I know I have been in some areas where it looks as if it is the most predominant building in that particular area.

The new Liquor Control Act reduces the functions of the board to marketing. I realize it is a large operation. I believe the minister stated in his remarks when he introduced the bill there are some 530 stores throughout Ontario, which of course is a fairly large operation. I would hope the board would not eventually consider that its task the minister referred to this today in his opening remarks and he would not consider the board’s task to be to increase sales as much as possible, since that’s its own responsibility.

However, one section, and know it has been a section in the Act for a number of years I believe it is section 5, subsection 4 says the board shall submit reports setting out the net profit forecast to the provincial Treasurer at his request. I hope the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) doesn’t say on too many occasions, “Come on, boys. Let’s sell more booze and get more money.”

I would have to say a word or two, Mr. Speaker, about advertising. Looking at the Liquor Control Act, section 3, subsection f, I believe, I really can’t read there whether or not the Liquor Control Board is still going to carry on with its present directives on advertising. That section says: “To control and supervise the marketing methods and procedures of manufacturers.” I wonder if that still won’t include advertising to the extent they won’t have any responsibility whatsoever for advertising.

In maybe a lighter vein, I also wondered about section 3 m: “The purposes of the board are and it has “power to require manufacturers of liquor to furnish such samples of their products to the board as the board may require.” I hope this doesn’t mean the board will spend most of its time having a party on behalf of the manufacturers of the product.

As far as Bill 44 goes, I see nothing wrong, if the government wants to continue the sale, to be responsible for the sale and be the sole distributor of liquor in Ontario.

I might go on, now, to Bill 45, the Liquor Licence Act. It appears to me to be, after reading it over or glancing at it several times, I suppose you could call it an updated Act, transferring some of the responsibilities from the present Liquor Control Act to the new Liquor Licence Act. I was interested and pleased to see there are provisions for hearings and reviews and appeals in the licensing procedure.

Generally, Mr. Speaker, there are a few changes. The minister, of course, made a fair number of comments in introducing second reading today, but they’re very minor changes.

On a previous occasion I had the opportunity to take part in a debate put on by alcohol and drug concerns on the possibility of banning advertising in Ontario. I happened to be one of the speakers on the affirmative side. I don’t really want to say the audience was loaded, but the affirmative side won overwhelmingly. There was a representative on the negative side from the Canadian Advertising Association, and of course one from Labatt’s as well. I think they were probably a little disappointed they didn’t win the debate, but that’s the way the audience voted.

Mr. Speaker, I have looked over considerable material, particularly material from the Department of National Health and Welfare. They have quoted figures stating, I believe, that a little over 80 per cent of the people in Canada now consume alcohol, and less than 20 per cent do not consume alcohol. It appears that by the year 2000 that same figure will probably be still in effect, with approximately an 80-20 split for those who drink and those who do not drink.

It is quite alarming to me to see the advertising that is taking place here in Ontario. I know it’s easy to make the excuse that, of course, much flows from other provinces and other countries; but I think this province should take some steps to make certain we don’t all really feel that by using certain products we will remain young and strong and be able to swim and boat and all this sort of thing.

I really had hoped there might have been something in this Act, rather than leaving it at the discretion of the board, in regulations, to do what they wish with advertising.

I have, again, just to reiterate very briefly the comments made by my leader on local option. I’m still concerned that the Act allows the Board to license premises in resort areas. I feel that basically any place should be allowed to have licensed premises, as long as the local people may be allowed to have input before the board’s decision has been made.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that’s all I will say at the moment on these two bills. I’m quite sure we’ll have time for discussion. I realize the minister has had, as he said, a considerable amount of input from the public. This may be just briefs; it may be discussions. I would also like to know again, if this will be going to the committee of the House or standing committee.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, I have some comments to make on the bills, and I will accept the minister’s invitation and make my comments on both bills at the present time as a matter of convenience.

We intend to support both of the bills and we wish that each of the bills be placed in committee, as the minister has indicated. I would hope that perhaps we could reach that stage today and, if possible, complete these bills table the technicalities about them are fresh in our minds in the course of this debate. They cover an immense amount of ground and they are immensely technical, and I’m certain we will not be able to either ask or receive all of the answers which perhaps bills of this importance require.

Let me make three or four points which I consider to be major ones. The first one is that the minister was quite clear in his laconic statement when he introduced the bills for second reading, that we were continuing the Liquor Control Board without disturbing its functioning and that we were re-establishing the Liquor Licence Board. Today in his remarks, which are the first public remarks I’ve heard about it but which reflect what is in the bill, the Liquor Licence Board is now going to be accountable to the assembly in the sense that there will be an item in the minister’s estimates requiring us to authorize, annually, after the current fiscal year has expired, the estimates which are required for the expenditures of the Liquor Licence Board. Formerly, as I understood it, the expenditures of the Liquor Licence Board were paid for out of the revenues of the Liquor Control Board and were chargeable in the accounts of the Liquor Control Board, and therefore the two boards were closely matched.

Therefore, my question is, why is it that the minister decided that only the Liquor Licence Board should be responsible to the Legislature in the sense of appearing in the estimates, and therefore perforce and of necessity giving the assembly an opportunity to debate the estimates; whereas the Liquor Control Board, if anything it has been further removed from the assembly, and therefore we will have no control over the Liquor Control Board or its activities except by the benevolence of the minister, should he choose to set aside a particular period of time for debate. Of course, anyone who has followed the problems we have had from time to time in the past in getting a debate on either the Liquor Control Board or the Liquor Licence Board will understand my concern about the debate, but more important the Liquor Control Board will not be accountable to the assembly.

I think that so far as the Liquor Control Board is concerned, with the exception of the comment which I’ve just made, we would agree with what has been done with the Liquor Control Board; we would agree with the delimitation and specification of its functions, which have now been set out in this bill and I’m delighted to see that it was possible to compress that particular bill within the narrow ambit of about five pages.

My concern, however, is that the list of the purposes and powers of the board is very lengthy, but of course the major one is to buy, import, have in its possession for sale and sell liquor. The question of the purchases by this board has immense consequences, because it determines what will be sold in the stores; and it determines, in addition, the prices at which the various classes and brands of liquor will be sold in the Province of Ontario.

I suppose the major criticism of the Liquor Control Board, as it presently exists, has been the hidden nature of its purchasing and price-fixing policies. I suppose there have been one or two people who have had the time, the interest and the initiative to make a study of what those purchasing policies and what those price-fixing methods are of the Liquor Control Board. I’m not knowledgeable about them and I’ve never seen any adequate public statement about how they go about selecting which liquors appear in the liquor stores or which wines appear in the liquor store, or which foreign beers appear in the liquor store, or which other bottles which come in.

Anyone who like myself has occasion to frequent the liquor stores knows that over a period of time there has just been an immense proliferation of brands of all kinds. When the price of the traditional Bordeaux and Burgundy wines went up, and the other traditional wines went up, suddenly there was a flood of lower-priced wines with names which were not familiar to any of us, names which in many cases, I’m quite sure, were new in the vicinities from which those wines came.

There has been no adequate statement of the gradation of wines. There is no classification system that I know of, other than the sugar content one, which will determine for me what it means if one buys a bottle of wine. Everybody likes to pretend, of course, that he’s a connoisseur. To be a connoisseur today and get a bottle of wine from France or from other countries at $1.90 or $2.20 requires a genius which I certainly haven’t mastered and which I’m quite certain no one else in the province has mastered.

Whatever the policies of the Liquor Control Board are or may be, surely there must be some method by which they can say, other than the price determinant, that this is the reason they can put this particular bottle of wine or this particular brand of liquor or this particular foreign brand of beer into the liquor stores and can charge the prices which the public pays for it, including whatever their mark-up may be and including whatever additional amount is included in the price by way of tax.

There are a number of items which were formerly under the Liquor Control Act as it presently exists and which will now be under the new Liquor Licence Board Act, so I’m not going to elaborate on other functions which the Liquor Control Board has performed up until the present time.

I don’t think it’s a question of suggesting for one single moment there’s malfeasance in the board or that they are playing favourites with the manufacturers and distillers and producers from abroad and other places from which they buy many of their brands; or in connection with who the persons are who hold sole distributorship agencies for, say the Province of Ontario. You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that many brands of liquors which come in from abroad have a sole distributorship agency marking on the bottle. I’m not certain what role those brokers or intermediaries play in the purchase practises of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

It seems to me that all of those marketing practices are things which should be rationalized and made public. I’m not suggesting for one single moment that all of their negotiations for any particular brand at a particular time need be made public, but I think there has to be an immense understanding within the public of Ontario of what the pricing policies are, what the purchasing policies are and what the roles of intermediaries may be in the course of the methods by which they do buy brands; from all across the world now, as far as I can see in most of the stores. We have no way of knowing that, and as far as I could ever tell from reading the annual report of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, there was no way anybody could understand that.

I think there is not only immense need for the accountability of the Liquor Control Board to the assembly in the sense which I first alluded to it, but also an absolute essential necessity that there be an accountability in the sense of financial understanding by the public of what this particular monopoly does and how it establishes its prices and how it justifies those prices.

The strange thing is that it’s an old claim. Whenever there’s a monopoly somebody should justify the pricing policies, somebody should justify their purchasing policies and somebody should justify whether or not those who are brokers and agents for that board are getting an undue compensation for the role which they may play. I am sure the minister would understand very clearly that that is so. Any monopoly, particularly a public monopoly such as this, requires that kind of accountability and that kind of financial disclosure and explanation to the public for what it does.

I’m sure my colleagues may have other comments to make on the Liquor Control Act, Bill 44, but I would like to turn now to the major bill, which of course impinges on all of us. Other than with respect to the types of liquor we can buy and with respect to the price we can pay for it, all the non-economic aspects of it really fall to be regulated under the Liquor Licence Board Act.

I reiterate the comment I made in criticism of Bill 44 to compliment the minister on that aspect of Bill 45, which now provides for it being accountable to the assembly in the sense that any moneys to be expended by the Liquor Licence Board will now have to be voted under the votes of the ministry annually, after the end of this year.

The rationale of what the government is doing escapes me. I had understood, and my knowledge of, although not my acquaintance with, alcohol goes back quite a long way. I can recall in 1927, in the public school I was in, everybody chose sides; one was either a member of the wets or a member of the drys. Those were the two gangs in the school and they persisted for a considerable period of time. My guess of 1927 is about right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: May we ask what side the member was on?

Mr. Renwick: That was the Ferguson government, if I remember correctly.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): What side was he on?

Mr. Renwick: I was on the dry side at that time. That’s the only change I have ever made.

My acquaintanceship goes back a long way because I first drank beer legally, I suppose, at the Park Plaza Hotel when I was at the University of Toronto. Of course, I had my major acquaintanceship with other kinds of liquor during the course of being in the service, and that is why I am a confirmed Scotch drinker and not a person who consumes very much rye. But apart from my own personal drinking habits

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is the connection there? I don’t understand the connection there.

Mr. Renwick: which I would be glad to discuss and share my immense knowledge of the connoisseur aspects of that with any of the members, particularly the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Winkler) with whom I haven’t had a drink for a long time.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I have certain qualifications myself.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, we would compare our notes about them.

Let me say this; the Attorney General (Mr. Clement), the predecessor of this minister, very kindly sent over to me, at my request, all of the addresses he has given since he became the Attorney General of Ontario. The theme, indeed the language of them, from the time he became Attorney General until most recently, is the same in many respects. The titles of them are really quite fascinating “Law as Compromised”; “Traditional Values”; “Television Violence”; Violence as Entertainment”; one without any particular designation on the front

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is that the near beer speech.

Mr. Renwick: and another one called “Against Violence”.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Shades of John Mitchell.

Mr. Renwick: I would like to quote from the Against Violence one. The Attorney General, the minister’s predecessor in this office and the person under whom, as I understand it, the major part of the review of these two bills took place, had these comments to make when he spoke to the Rotary Club of Port Colborne on April 1 at 8 p.m., exactly 24 hours after he and I had dined together. I was very curious about the connection which he made between the two events.

In the 10 years from 1962 to 1971, the Canadian increase in crime was 107 per cent. During the same period, the number of violent offences jumped 180 per cent. Taking population growth into account, violent crimes still rose 128 per cent compared to 56.1 per cent for all offences.

I know, Mr. Speaker, you are having difficulty making the connection between this speech and these bills. I did, too; but if you would allow me to continue for a moment, maybe we could fry to find out what the connection is. Because the relationship is in the very words this minister used a few minutes ago in dealing with this bill when he made his short opening remarks on the second reading of the bill.

Some of this increase is due to better police detection, but the figures are still disquieting. I think the time has come to consider what can be done to reduce what appears to be a trend toward greater violence. The time is now, while the actual incidents of violent crime is still relatively low. And in fact this very issue is fast becoming one of high priority to the provincial government.

Mr. Cassidy: Years after the rapid increase in violent crime, he suddenly discovers that it happens.

Mr. Renwick: He continues:

I would like to review with you this evening three factors that could help control the incidence of violent crime. The first is to question the need for wholesale liberalization of Ontario’s drinking laws, as many of our critics are suggesting.

Well, that is extremism in the extreme. Because of course whenever one reads all of these speeches, one finds that the Attorney General with the responsibility he then had for the review of the liquor laws of the Province of Ontario whenever he uses those words, “as many of our critics are suggesting,” he usually means members of the Liberal Party or members of the New Democratic Party.

I have never, in the time I have sat in the House and listened to questions being directed at the minister responsible for these two boards, asking him for heaven’s sakes to rationalize ridiculous and conflicting procedures. Never in my life have I heard anyone on this side of the House, let alone in the New Democratic Party, ask for a wholesale liberalization of Ontario’s drinking laws, That has never been the claim at all. Let me read on:

By liberalization, I mean substantially relaxing current restrictions on use, accessibility or government pricing policies. Liquor has become progressively less expensive as a percentage of income and much easier to obtain in this province during recent years.

Changes were necessary and justifiable in response to the maturity of most social drinkers, and no doubt there will be further rationalization of existing policies and regulations.

But there are two iron laws at work which must be recognized. First, it has been demonstrated world-wide that greater accessibility of alcohol and an increase in problem thinking are directly related. It cannot be wished away. The fact is alcohol breeds its own abuse.

And strangely enough the minister used those words just a few minutes ago in the second reading of this bill. I don’t know whether these are equivalent to Newton’s laws or not; but he continues:

The second law is that the more problem thinking there is, the more crime, especially violent crime. The most comprehensive study on this relationship was done in Ohio more than 20 years ago. Among those arrested during or immediately following a crime, between 48 and 92 per cent had been drinking, depending upon the offence. The more violent the crime, the more likely the influence of alcohol. These results have been repeated in studies around the world.

In an least 50 per cent of all homicides, the offender or the victim or both are under the influence of alcohol. The proportion of heavy thinkers and alcoholics in prisons is much higher than in the general population, even after leaving aside those arrested for drunkenness and other alcohol abuse offences.

In 1968, an Ontario study showed that over 49 per cent of all those committed to provincial training centres, reformatories and industrial farms were intemperate drinkers.

Permitting more public drinking in parks, or longer drinking hours, or sharply lower prices will only make this problem worse. It would be nice to say that everyone should do as they wish and suffer his own consequences, but the fact is we all end up paying in one way or another. When applied to alcohol, greater freedom has a social price.

Well, he goes on; but the relation is consistent throughout his speeches. He repeated almost verbatim the identical rationale on April 28, which was about two weeks after the minister introduced the bill, when he made another address to the Chatham-Kent Progressive Conservative Association’s annual meeting. He bad some, I thought rather distasteful remarks about the leaders of both this party and of the Liberal Party: “What Nixon and Lewis fail to recognize is the importance of personal values.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, did he say that?

Mr. Renwick: Yes. Now, all of that connection, regardless of the attitudinal surveys that the Tory party has done to try to find some way in which it can blanket the forthcoming election under some grandiose slogan, does a disservice to an understanding of what this legislation is all about.

We pay a social price for alcohol in the Province of Ontario, and everyone knows we cannot solve the social problem by prohibition. Despite the emphasis in the Attorney General’s speech, this minister’s predecessor and the only reason I am referring to him is because he happened to be the one under whom this review was conducted and although the then Attorney General and the present Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations have been making speeches about “rapine and pillage,” about the working man not having a corner on the market for greed and that type of thing, never has there been any statement made about the concern of the government of Ontario with respect to this liquor control review and the liquor licensing review dealing with the problems of alcoholism never, not on one single occasion.

These figures are available to anybody who wants to make them up. There is nothing mysterious about them.

The estimated Liquor Control Board of Ontario profit for the year 1975-1976 is $355 million. The total anticipated budgetary revenue is $8,977,000,000. The percentage of the Liquor Control Board profit estimated as a percentage of total budgetary revenue is 3.9 per cent.

The 1974-1975 interim Liquor Control Board of Ontario profits $310 million; total budgetary revenue $8,135,000,000; percentage 3.8 per cent.

The 1973-1974 actual profit $280 million; total budgetary revenue $6,843,000,000; percentage 4.1 per cent.

The 1972-1973 actual profit $254 million; total budgetary revenue $6,046,000,000; percentage 4.2 per cent.

When we contrast the government expenditures under alcohol and drug abuse services of the Ministry of Health, we find the following:

In the year 1975-1976, estimated expenditure for alcohol and drug abuse services $11,527,700; percentage of Liquor Control Board of Ontario profit 3.2 per cent.

In 1974-1975 estimated expenditure for alcohol and drug abuse services $10,163,500; percentage of Liquor Control Board of Ontario profit 3.3 per cent.

In 1973-1974 actual expenditure for alcohol and drug abuse services $8,778,964; percentage of Liquor Control Board of Ontario profit 3.1 per cent.

In 1972-1973 actual expenditure was $7,822,583 devoted to the health problem of alcohol in this province, being 3.1 per cent of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario profit.

I think those figures speak almost for themselves. It’s almost as if somebody sat down and said, “Well, to the extent we obtain revenues from the Liquor Control Board for the government of the Province of Ontario, we will apply the same percentage to the revenues of the board in order to determine the amount of money that we will use to overcome the devastation which alcohol has caused as a health problem.”

There is no question that if alcoholism in Ontario is not the first major disease, it certainly is the second or third. We in this Legislature, in 1971, made the addition to the Liquor Control Board Act, now being taken into the Liquor Licence Board Act, to provide for the detoxification centres. I went back through the regulations to try to find out just how many there were now. There were three established in 1972; there were fewer established in 1973; there were three established in 1974; and there have been three established in 1975.

Four of them at the present time are in Metropolitan Toronto: the Toronto Western Hospital, the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation Clinical Institute at Toronto, the Toronto East General and Orthopaedic Hospital and the detoxification centre at St. Michael’s Hospital. The other nine are: one at the Lake of the Woods District Hospital, Kenora, the detoxification centre of Hamilton Civic Hospital in Hamilton, the detoxification centre of St. Joseph’s Hospital, London, the detoxification centre of St. Joseph’s Hospital, Sudbury, the detoxification centre of the Ottawa General Hospital, Ottawa, the detoxification centre of the Windsor Western Hospital at Windsor, the detoxification centre of St. Joseph’s General Hospital, Thunder Bay, one is at the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital at Kitchener and one is at Hotel Dieu Hospital at St. Catharines.

I haven’t been able to obtain unless I happen to have it here, and I’ll just see if, by any chance, that happens to be the case. No, it’s not I haven’t been able to obtain it and therefore I will ask the minister the question: How many beds are there? I hope when he replies he will give us the number of beds which are included in those 13 detoxification centres, and any other information which he can give as to what the estimated need by the present Liquor Control Board is for beds in detoxification centres in the Province of Ontario.

I’m not going to refer again to the particular case of the man in my riding who had the 400-odd convictions between 1970 and 1974 for drunkenness and vagrancy and died in a police cell at 55 Division, in the drunk tank, because there weren’t any other beds. It’s not the fault of the police. They don’t have any places in the city of Toronto to which to take people who are alcoholics in that sense.

I don’t know; I don’t make the point too well. I’ve gone on much too long and perhaps I’ve detracted from the point I wanted to make.

I’m simply saying that if the government is going to use the monopoly of the liquor trade in the Province of Ontario for the purposes of raising the revenues which it does raise, as well as for whatever social purpose it may think it’s accomplishing in reducing the rate of increase in violent crime in the Province of Ontario, could I, at some point, hear the Minister of Health or any other minister of the government, outline exactly to us the devastation which is occurring among those who are alcoholics or near alcoholics, the devastation, even if not in human terms, in industrial terms. A conference was held at Niagara Falls, Ont., under the auspices of the Ontario Federation of Labour, where they tried to bring together representatives from management and from the union movement to discuss this problem, which I think is a major social concern and a major problem for government.

Let me suggest to the minister that he urge his colleagues, and himself in particular, to get off the violence kick and deal with alcoholism as an illness, and provide the Ministry of Health with the funds which are needed in order to continue the extremely valuable research work, and now the very practical application, after all these years, of the results of that research work, for the purpose of a concerted attack upon alcoholism in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, those were the principal comments that I wanted to make on the Liquor Licence Act. We of course, welcome the revised procedures, subject to the discussions which we have in committee with respect to the granting and issuance of licences and that kind of procedure, which is to adapt for liquor licence purposes the due process procedures of the McRuer report. I was fascinated, because I had asked the minister to give me a sheet on what he thought were the major changes in the bill. He did give me a sheet and then he called me to comment about one or two which had been changed since that time. Again, we can get to most of these in committee.

I am concerned about the question of transferability of licences. In the notes which the minister gave me, apparently one version of the bill was to provide that licences would not be transferable, and the minister has told me that it is still intended to eliminate the transfer tax. I’m not clear and I wasn’t clear when I read the bill, though perhaps in committee it will become more clear.

I’m not certain whether or not there is ever going to be a public hearing if there is a transfer of ownership of a licence. It would appear to me, subject to correction, that under the Liquor Licence Act the only public hearing with respect to the grant of a licence at a particular location will be when the initial grant takes place. If subsequently there is a transfer of that licence I’m not talking about a transfer as between a deceased person and his estate or that kind of transfer, but about a transfer of ownership so far as I understand it, there is not going to be any public hearing.

It doesn’t appear to me there is going to be any opportunity after an extended period of time, assuming a licence is still in existence, to have a further public hearing about whether or not there is need for that number of outlets or whether the particular outlet still meets the needs of the particular community which it serves. I recognize that one always has to compromise on what is the proper period of time, but if the board is going to renew a licence every two years, surely at the end of 10 years there should be a requirement on the Liquor Licence Board, to make public again that this is the fifth biennial renewal of this licence and that there should be another public hearing in the vicinity of those premises to determine whether or not it is to continue to take place or not.

Secondly, if a transfer does take place, is there going to be any public hearing in order that the people in the area will know who the people are who are going to operate it and what changes, if any, are contemplated for that particular outlet? As for the third part of this licensing problem, I couldn’t tell, if one switched from one type of licence to another type of licence or got an additional licence, whether on each grant of each licence for any premises the board is to have a public hearing.

Those were some of the matters, Mr. Speaker, that I wanted to go into on the second reading of the bill. I think we can deal with the more detailed and particular matters when the bill goes into committee.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): I’m not going to deal extensively, Mr. Speaker, with both at the same time. As an initial matter, even before we hit committee, perhaps the minister could give me an overall view of how the fifth great volume of the McRuer recommendations have been implemented. In the sections involved with the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, there were 21 different and diverse recommendations, and in the ones having to do with the Liquor Licence Board, there were 22.

Recommendation 63 is the recommendation that sets up all this legislation. It says:

Consideration should be given to completely revising the Liquor Control Act so as to create a board with powers to merchandise liquor in Ontario on behalf of the government and at the same time transfer the regulatory powers and licensing now exercised by the board to a board which will regulate, control and licence the liquor trade in all its aspects.

That’s what, I take it, precisely has been done. As far as I can see, perusing the legislation, I don’t think there is any holdout or holdover or any backing up on that particular recommendation but there are a number which concern me.

Some have to do with appeal provisions; some have to do with interdiction, the business of interdicting people from the consumption of liquor; and the types of awards and the way in which this is done, at which some umbrage was taken by McRuer at an earlier time.

I am not convinced it is substantially amended in the course of the legislation here. It would be a matter of some importance to get a picture of the extent to which the government has really embodied the various nostrums of McRuer, which are substantially and overwhelmingly intelligent as they usually are and searching with respect to the revisions.

The liquor situation in Ontario goes on apace and becomes something of a scandal. I really wish, in a way, the minister would seek to prevail on his fellow minister, the Minister of Health, that further experimentation, speeded experimentation around some kind of drugs, go forward as a possible future supplement or as a way of getting away from liquor entirely.

People have to find some kind of anodynes to cure the pains of contemporary life, which I suppose they do, apart from the negligible effects of tranquilizers, I hope they discover the happy pill it is mentioned in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.” This is a pill we take whenever we feel any gloom, any funk coming on us; whenever we get jaundiced, we just take a little bite of the pill and up our spirits rise again and we are our old ebullient selves.

As a matter of fact, we never stop being that. How we are supposed to get to a state of either tranquility or of joy in those particular circumstances, since we have nothing to compare it with, the pill always being at our fingertips, so to speak. I am not quite sure but I often think that the untested qualities of marijuana and peyote drugs of that kind, certainly should be researched.

We know the devastating and detrimental effects of alcohol consumption, not only with respect to the viscera, the groin and the liver, but with respect to the temperament along with it. There’s that sudden burst of good fellow feeling when one puts one’s arms around everybody’s shoulder, but a few minutes later the low dudgeon hits. Then there is the aggression, the hostility, the turning away, the lifting of a hand, the whole fighting episode occurs and all that flows from that in terms of mayhem, murder and various forms of assault; and the police enter the situation.

In a way, in the legislation the minister seeks to move beyond that in terms of the powers of arrest and what a police officer may or may not do. He has left it highly optional to the officer as to whether he takes the individual to one place or another. I thought the minister should put some kind of emphasis upon taking him to the detoxification centre rather than elsewhere, so that the courts of the province would not be loaded with drunks first thing in the morning, exhaling a kind of rancorous breath, stinking out the courtroom for the rest of the day. Then those more sanitary offences no less heinous; far more heinous in most instances which have to be tried during the rest of the afternoon and morning could at least go on in an atmosphere and I use the word in two senses which is conducive to justice instead of being intoxicated secondarily and indirectly. This is a commonplace thing and the cost to the public purse in order to process those cases is absolutely astounding. The fines elicited, of course, are negligible. They couldn’t help but be. And they would never get paid; there would be nothing but drunks in the Don jail. There is enough of them already. The minister involved with that finds he hasn’t got enough accommodation for the people already there. The premises have to be expanded and to some extent move into my riding to find some place to place the overflow of that particular institution.

Well, I am pleased to see the legislation. I inveighed a week or so ago when the super minister was in his chair as to the forthcoming of at least some portion of this vast tome. This is the initiation of the process. As I say, perusing the bulk of the legislation, it does embody the chief and salient points. There are marginal difficulties, I suspect, in the legislation; therefore it is a good thing that it will go into committee.

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

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before going to some general comments on the bill, I want to make some specific comments about the Liquor Control Board, Mr. Speaker.

The Liquor Control Board is sexist and it discriminates violently against women. I think this is an appropriate time to raise the matter, because there has been no apparent progress over the last year. I think the minister will be pleased

Mr. Speaker: Is this in the Act?

Mr. Cassidy: Pardon?

Mr. Speaker: Anything to do with this in the Act?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, definitely, Mr. Speaker. The operations of the Liquor Control Board are governed under the Act, Bill 44, which includes all of the powers of the LCBO. This refers to one of the powers of the LCBO, which is to employ people in order to handle the work that has to be done there, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lawlor: And besides, it says “she” in several places here.

Mr. Cassidy: It does? Well, it certainly doesn’t say “she” in all of the collective contracts that are involved there. I raise this with the minister because there were some statements of good intentions a year ago. It is my belief, which I hope the minister would agree with, that the government’s policy toward providing equal opportunities for women, let alone providing equal pay for work of equal value, should be measured in practice by how it performs. And an agency like the Liquor Control Board of Ontario is as good an agency as any to measure that particular progress.

Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of letters and some correspondence with various agencies of the government in relation to the LCBO and its discrimination against women. I would just like to bring to the minister’s attention what has happened over the last year or two.

In April, 1974, Brig. Kitching, chairman of the LCBO, wrote me to say there were in the LCBO 184 full-time women, 3,222 full-time men, 284 part-time women, and 1,246 part-time men. The 500 managers and 500 assistant managers in the board at that time were all men. In the stores there were two full-time women, plus another 15 who were working at the duty-free airport stores.

I have had another letter, Mr. Speaker, from Mr. Harris, who is the deputy chief commissioner. He replied in March of this year to a letter of mine in which I said:

What has happened over the past year? You stated all sorts of pious intentions and you stated specifically there was no discrimination against women. In that case, let’s see what the results will be.

The figures he has given me are not quite comparable, because he has included the Liquor Licence Board as well as the Liquor Control Board, and he hasn’t given me the figures for managers and assistant managers. But they indicate there are now 195 full-time women working on the two boards, or an increase of 11 from the figure of a year ago; 3,361 full-time men, or an increase of 139 men from a year ago. This indicates there has been no affirmative effort to bring women into the boards to carry out jobs for which they might be qualified.

When it comes to part-timers, you find that there has been an increase of 65 part-time women and of 125 part-time men. In other words, there has been a more than proportionate increase in part-time women, compared to their numbers with the board and compared with the numbers of part-time men.

The next thing that is interesting is this: I asked a year ago about how much men and women were paid if they worked for the LCBO, because pay is a fairly good indication of status; and if women were being fairly treated, I suppose one would expect that at least six per cent of the highly priced jobs would go to women since they were six per cent of the overall work force.

A year ago one woman and 257 men earned $15,000 or more per annum. This year, in March, the situation has improved to the extent that still one woman and 319 men earn $15,000 or more per annum. A tremendous improvement that is an increase of some 60 or 70 men earning $15,000 per year or more and no change in women at any kind of senior level within the LCBO. Women and men earning between $10,000 and $15,000 per annum: A year ago there were two women who earned more than $10,000 and less than $15,000 and 1,253 men. That has now increased to 33 women from two, or an increase of 31 women who have reached the $10,000-a-year barrier. As far as men are concerned, it has increased to 2,264 men earning $10,000 to $15,000, an increase of 1,011 male employees of the LCBO. So we have 31 women going up to the position of earning more than the princely sum of $10,000 a year, and 1,011 men.

A year ago, when the chairman wrote, he said: “It should be brought to your attention that applications from women for full-time employment in the stores is minimal.” That was what was said at the time, and the answer of course is that no effort has ever been made to bring to the attention of women the fact that there were jobs available within the LCBO for which they might apply.

I asked about the responsibilities of the main grade within the liquor stores liquor store clerk grade II. They do the following jobs: They provide counter service to customers; they unload, check in and store stock; they assemble licensees’ orders and mail orders for delivery; they restock bins and dust displayed merchandise; they clean store and warehouse premises and adjacent sidewalks and parking lots; and they perform all other store duties as assigned, including some cashier duties.

The most onerous job is the lifting of cases on occasion when they are being unloaded from the truck in those stores where there is no lifting or pallet equipment, as there is in the larger stores. As the minister knows, there has been a long-standing practice in the LCBO stores that older male employees are protected from those heavy lifting jobs or they use equipment; he knows the kind of thing that happens. Nevertheless, the work, including the lifting that is involved, is well within the capacity of, say, any women who currently hold down jobs in a grocery store, where a comparable kind of lifting may be involved.

The former minister and I were joking about this to some extent; he said that the babies in his area didn’t come out that big, but the lifting of a case of liquor is no different, in fact it’s probably easier, than the lifting of a nine-month-old child who may easily weigh up to 20 or 22 lb; and not only that, wriggles and does other odd things to boot. You don’t get a liquor case fighting back the way you get a baby fighting back. Many young women are obviously capable of doing that; otherwise, we wouldn’t be here. I would have thought that that would be possible in the store as well. But not with the sexist administration that exists in the LCBO.

I would suggest that the figures I have put on the record so far indicate there has been absolutely no success in the LCBO in any kind of affirmative action in order to ensure that women have equal opportunity, let alone pay of equal value.

I have a letter from Mrs. McLellan, who, is the executive co-ordinator of the women Crown employees’ office; it was written in February, 1975 this is some of the work that goes on behind the scenes and seldom surfaces within the Legislature. This was in response to my request about what was being done about the LCBO. There has been a series of meetings with Mr. Harris, who had written to me, and Mr. Lang, beginning with the raising of the question before the Ontario Status of Women Council in June, 1974.

The women Crown employees’ office has spoken to women in cashier positions in self-service stores, and has made a number of recommendations for corrective action, which are being considered by the LCBO. But obviously they are not being implemented. I would suggest to the minister that during this debate he explain why there have not been specific directives to the LCBO, as is the power of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I suggest you get off your butts as far as looking after women and ensure that they have equal opportunity within the LCBO.

In September, the Crown employees’ office was informed, and I quote, “that two women have been appointed to previously ‘male’ positions by the LCBO, one as a warehouse manager and the other as a regular store clerk.” Isn’t that a revolutionary change?

The staff of the Crown employees’ office had liaised with the personnel branch of the LCBO concerning their statistical data comparing the male and female employees that will be required for the annual report for the fiscal year ending in March, 1975. There is no problem with the statistics. As a matter of fact, I would commend the LCBO on the statistics which came through originally accurately, quickly, and very revealingly. The problem is, they don’t act on the basis of the statistics their people are capable of generating.

I point out the economic discrimination let alone the discrimination in terms of type of jobs. There may be women who like to meet people I am sure there are by serving them behind the counter of a liquor store, in the same way women or men like to do other jobs. There may be people who are looking for a job that pays some kind of reasonable return, and which is less unpleasant than some kinds of work. Many people work. They want to enjoy the work even though it may not be the best thing in the world. They shouldn’t be forced to do jobs they dislike utterly. They shouldn’t be exploited while doing the jobs they have to do.

The standard grade in the liquor stores is a liquor clerk 2. According to the contract, which expires in July of this year, the pay for that grade is $9,433 per annum, or $181 per week. A manager grade 2 and there are about 500 of them, all male, within the system earns $13,000 per annum, or $250 per week. A warehouseman, grade 3, which is about the standard grade, earns $9,823 per annum, or $188 per week. Those are the main grades of male jobs within the LCBO.

Then you turn around and I haven’t the breakdown in terms of the actual categories and grades that women have in the clerical side but the level for a clerk is $9,000, or $173 per week. I suspect those jobs are mainly filled by men. The pay for a steno grade 2 is $7,608, or $144 per week. That is $37 per week less than a liquor clerk grade 2. For a typist, grade 2, the pay is $7,315, or about $140 per week, which is $41 less than a grade 2 liquor clerk, and about $90 less than a manager, grade 2.

The steno 2 would probably be a secretary to middle-rank officials within the LCBO and the Liquor Licence Board. What are the qualifications to get into that job? You have to have a reasonably good education probably grade 11 or grade 12. It takes three or four years, or possibly more, to get to that particular grade. You have to have typing skills, which have to be learned, and, quite possibly, shorthand as well. Also, by God, you have to be accurate because the work is judged. Every time she sends a letter, the competence of that particular stenographer is under scrutiny.

I would ask the minister whether the qualifications for a job as liquor clerk grade 2, exceed, equal, or are less than those necessary to continue to hold a job as a steno, or in order to get a job. I would suggest, in fact, the tests given for the liquor clerks are much less demanding than the tests given to qualify for a stenographer. You need more skills to get, and keep, a stenographic job, even though the pay is about $2,000 a year less.

I would point out to the minister as well, the majority of women who work for the board are not, in fact, stenos or secretaries working in an office environment, but in fact, are part-time cashiers. There is a very interesting kind of discrimination involved, not just in pay, but also in conditions of work.

Under the contract, the pay for part-time store cashiers, who are specifically referred to several times as women, ranges from $2.75 an hour at the beginning, to $3.32 an hour after 36 months. If somebody were to hold down that part-time job for 40 hours a week for an entire year at $3.32 an hour, she would earn about $6,500 per annum, or approximately $3,000 less than a liquor clerk grade 2, despite the fact a number of liquor clerks grade 2 are doing the cashiers’ work. They substitute for the cashiers when the cashiers are changing shifts, for example.

A policy has been established within the LCBO self-service stores to hire women, pay them a third less than the men who are doing comparable work within the stores, and make them only part-time. They are told, as I am informed by a person who did, in fact, hold down a job as a part-time cashier for a fair amount of time in Toronto, that they are not permitted to work more than 27½ hours a week. Their day is cut short by about an hour. They are only permitted to work four days a week, rather than five, in order to be classed as part-time, rather than full-time.

That means their maximum earnings are reduced from $120 or so a week, to $85 a week, or $4,250 per annum. That is somewhere around the poverty line. That $4,250 compares with $9,433 paid to a liquor store clerk grade 2, despite the fact they are doing comparable work. I cannot confirm this, but my informant tells me males who are hired on a temporary basis receive wages of over $3 per hour as a minimum when they are working part-time, compared to the $2.75-$2.80 most of the women who are taken on as part-time cashiers receive for the same kind of work.

Those are the points I wanted to raise regarding discrimination against women. The minister has got to stop it. He’s got to stop it, now. The LCBO has got to start advertising these jobs. They must indicate that possibly once or twice a year applications will be accepted from men and women for jobs in the liquor store, and then put it on a merit system. If the minister can’t find any basis for merit, then let him put it on a lottery system not on the present patronage system where a letter from the local Conservative potentate or member is the key to a job, and where for show, once or twice across the province per year, someone who happens to have a letter from a Liberal or NDP member may also be given a job.

I get people coming into my riding office asking me for a letter. What do I do? I write them a letter. I say, “Look, it’s a rotten, dirty system the Conservatives have set up. It’s a patronage system. If you think a letter will help, I’ll give you a letter.” I don’t like doing that. I don’t want to be involved. When we take on the government, we’ll change that.

I’m suggesting this government change now and take the patronage out. Let’s ensure there is at least equal opportunity between men and women. I would suggest it go further. I would suggest to the minister this is surely a place where equal pay for equal work value should be brought in. I would suggest the work of the stenographers and the typists who work for the board is surely of equal value to the work of the liquor store clerks; just as I would suggest that the work of the cashiers who work for the liquor board is of equal value.

To show you, Mr. Speaker, the kind of sexist policies which the board has, it states specifically under uniforms and attire, article 17 of the collective agreement: “The board shall supply to each employee in the store system, an issue of five long-sleeved shirts, five short-sleeved shirts and five ties, renewable every two years, and of a design approved by the board.

The clear implication of that, of course, is that it is for men. It says, specifically, “Female employees at the duty free stores [and there is no other reference to females within the collective agreement, Mr. Speaker] shall be provided with two uniforms per year of a design approved by the board.” That is the agreement which is currently in force between the liquor board and its employees.

There is no category that I’ve been able to find in the collective agreement, of full-time cashier, but there’s a supplemental agreement that came in a bit later that refers to part-time cashiers. It actually gave them vacation pay and a certain scale of wages ranging, as I said, from $2.75 to $3.32 an hour but well below the pay of people doing comparable work.

The only possible difference in capacity between men and women to do these jobs is the lifting which may be involved. I suggest the lifting is minimal and it is in the capacity of many women. It should be up to those women themselves to judge whether or not they are capable of performing the lifting which may be required for the particular job. If the board does not wish to discriminate and it should not discriminate it should look very carefully into seeing whether the question of lifting is not being used as a means of discrimination against women.

If only two per cent or three per cent of the job time is devoted to lifting and I suggest that is the case one minor element in the total job is being used as a means of discriminating against women. If women are capable of doing the lifting and I suggest they are the board is obviously discriminating in not permitting women to take jobs as store clerks and employees.

I had a couple of other points I wanted to raise about the bill in general. I say to the minister, and this is for the record, for the employees as well, there is now an affirmative action plan, there are guidelines for Crown agencies which have been issued by Mrs. McLellan’s office. I would suggest that the LCBO is seriously lagging, to put it mildly, in implementing that particular process. The reason I know it’s seriously lagging is the fact there’s been no concrete progress at all in ensuring equal opportunity in the number of new hirings which have taken place by the LCBO over the past couple of years.

I would like to raise two or three points. One of them is, I’m sorry the member for High Park can’t be here this afternoon because I think nobody knows better than he the kind of fossilized attitudes of the LCBO in terms of its marketing policy. I’m not talking about a conservative or a liberal attitude toward liquor in general. I’m saying that once a decision has been reached which it obviously has been that we will continue to sell alcohol in this province through a government monopoly, one has to ask oneself, what kind of treatment does the consumer deserve?

Is it not possible that the kind of Victorian trappings of Ontario’s liquor stores could not be slightly relieved? I don’t suggest neon signs and enormous posters within each liquor store but I do suggest there are certain management principles about how you sell goods; how you display goods; how you remainder goods if they’re not going particularly well and that kind of thing, which ought to be used by the liquor board.

I have spent a lot of time in this province and not very much time in other jurisdictions. For anybody raised, therefore, as innocently as I, it’s a revelation to go either to Britain or into a liquor store in the United States and find out that there is a certain amount of creativity involved in marketing.

I think that kind of thing can be borrowed without necessarily trying to increase people’s consumption but we might at least make the purchase of what they are going to consume, a bit of a pleasure. The minister might occasionally give the consumer the feeling he wants them to be there rather than that he is desperately unhappy they are there at all. He might remove some of the stigma that used to surround liquor at the time one had to have a permit and a little passbook. The office boys from Bay St. used to go to jail regularly because they were buying $5,000 worth of booze a year on a $2,000 salary.

I don’t want to go into it further than that. One of the problems with this ministry and with the administration of liquor in the province, I suggest, is that in the concern about overconsumption of alcohol many of the steps taken both by the Liquor Board and the LCBO have made the consumption of alcohol an unpleasant thing. Therefore, it encourages drinking to excess for the purposes of intoxication rather than drinking in moderate quantities for the purposes of social intercourse.

The minister has said some pious things about not wanting to encourage consumption but one notes, for example, that he is not willing and does not intend, on behalf of the government, to raise the drinking age to 21 or 25 or maybe to the age of 44. He is not going to do that. The government is not going to take any concrete action to roll back to a situation which may have prevailed before.

If he is going to try to encourage a moderate approach to alcohol, I would suggest the kinds of Victorian overtones to alcohol in this province should be replaced by a kind of ambiance that says, “Used sensibly this stuff is okay. Used to excess, it isn’t okay. Take it easy; take it pleasantly and don’t take too much.” That kind of thing, of course, too often fails as far as the minister is concerned.

I want to suggest that a lot of that matter of attitude really revolves around the management of the LCBO on the one hand and the regulations of the LLBO on the other. Whether one can carry a drink in a pub from one table to another when one sees a friend is a matter which is up to the LLBO. That kind of matter really bothers a lot of people that kind of thing is not permitted. The playing of darts in pubs is something that would probably do a great deal to reduce the rate of consumption of alcohol and yet, as I understand it, that is not permitted unless one sits down every time one wants to quaff part of one’s drink.

The whole hassle over drinking in the back garden we can drink in our back gardens provided we are under canvas, according to these rules, but not if it’s in the back garden and we are in the open air. That is actually covered by legislation. The attempts which have taken so long to have civilized moderate drinking outdoors in sidewalk cafes and that kind of thing reflects the backward attitudes of the LLBO and the LCBO.

I’d like to suggest finally that the minister has decided to keep the system of special-occasion permits. I am not prepared to say they should go; I have a number of questions from experience about the way in which they are administered. There have been problems, for example, with the student pubs and the attempts to make university administrations responsible when they are trying to give responsibility to the students who are carrying on that particular activity.

The other thing about the special-occasion permits is the incessant need to come down to Toronto. This is a ministry and a government that centralizes everything in Toronto. It is a fairly simple and straightforward administrative problem. The people who conduct the inspections and do the checkups are out there in the various regions of the province. It seems to me the issuance of special-occasion permits is something which could easily be decentralized to, say, Windsor, London, Hamilton, Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa, Sudbury and Thunder Bay, or a similar set of locations.

If there was a crisis and the mail hadn’t got through the kind of things the minister knows happens quite regularly, despite the great efforts by the licensing people to be co-operative on special permits it would be possible to get on a bus or in a car and go, for an hour or so at the most, and sort it out rather than have to rely often on the local MPP to sort it out with the people down on Queen’s Quay because everything is centralized in Toronto.

I have personally been involved in getting licences from Queen’s Quay. The people were very co-operative with me, granted, but there’s no way an MPP should have to be involved. It wouldn’t happen if these special-occasion permits weren’t issued under regulations, and guidelines, set centrally. The administration should be done in the various parts of the province.

Those are the comments I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker. I hope the minister responds seriously, and positively to the questions I have raised about sex discrimination within the LCBO. This is an opportunity to do so. I think it’s a serious matter. I think it’s an area where government should start to show some leadership, rather than constantly leading from behind.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, since the Leader of the Opposition strayed from the principle of Bill 44 into the principle of liquor as a whole, I think I am going to do the same, because I don’t really think, in philosophical or in practical terms, one can really separate the thinking, and the policy, that goes into the drafting of these two particular pieces of legislation.

I think, first of all, it should be recognized there is a profound public concern, at this particular time in our society, about alcohol. Alcohol is a concern in three areas in particular. Number one is alcohol with young people. I personally think putting much of the blame upon young people for alcohol abuse is, frankly, a bit of a bum rap. I think alcohol abuse goes right through our society. I think those of my age, and older, are consuming more. They are drinking more. They are drinking more potent amounts. They regard alcohol as an essential form of their entertainment and their leisure time. I can understand why the Minister of Health in this province is concerned. I can also understand why a government, faced with this proposition, has to recognize some simple and fundamental facts.

Mr. Speaker, if you were to take alcohol away tomorrow legally, I suggest to you, on the basis of a couple of noble experiments, and ours came after the American one was deemed to be a failure, there would be just as much drinking and indeed perhaps there might even be more. It would be of a poorer quality. I think that reflects the popular idea in our society that alcohol is not really a privilege, it is almost an absolute right. I know we can disagree with this philosophically. I know deep down within all of us we recognize the ability to dispense or to consume alcohol is indeed a privilege.

However, when a government has to face on the one side the health problem and the social problem that have been articulated by several speakers this afternoon, and on the other hand, the accepted governmental responsibility in every jurisdiction of the world that the dispensing of alcohol, whether at retail or in bulk must be controlled, it’s incumbent upon the government to come down with legislation that reflects and respects popular attitudes, but also does not shy away from the fact alcohol has to be controlled in any orderly society.

I think in terms of the liquor policies of this government that has been achieved in these two Acts. On the one hand, Mr. Speaker, you hear the plaintive plea this afternoon that people believe in liberalizing the sale of alcohol. I think that is a very noble concern; I suppose the fewer restrictions there are in a free society the better for all. Surely we cannot say on the one hand, “I want to liberalize and I personally believe in liberalizing alcohol policy in Ontario, but on the other hand I think people are consuming too much so therefore I want to take away the advertising.” That is a high-wire juggling act worthy of somebody trying to go over Niagara Falls; it just doesn’t work.

I would like to draw some attention to the impact of liquor advertising in this province. First of all, I recall, because I was in the periodical industry in the late 1950s and the early 1960s, that for practical purposes liquor advertising and beer advertising were banned in this province. I know there were the institutional ads. Some of the breweries used to take out full-page ads in the newspapers suggesting you might want to buy a used car and giving the things to check for. They did conservation messages; they did wildlife messages; they printed in great detail the numbers of the hockey players or football players and so on and so forth. It was considered institutional advertising and it was permitted.

At that particular time the government of this province and it was a Conservative government had to face up to a very elementary fact of economic life in Canada. We were losing printing jobs to the Province of Quebec. In fact, we had lost them because of the ban on alcohol advertising. As a matter of fact, at that time the most lucrative and the thickest publication in the entire Dominion of Canada was a thing called Weekend Magazine. It is much thinner today. The reason it was so thick in those days is because as long as it was printed in the Province of Quebec it could be distributed in newspapers in every community in Ontario and not face prosecution.

I am not terribly concerned about the revenue which accrued to the publishers of Weekend but I am concerned about the number of printing jobs, the number of rotogravure jobs, the number of engravers’ jobs and quite frankly, a great number of the jobs ancillary to periodical publications.

If we are really to consider a total ban on alcohol advertising in this province, are we prepared to let our periodicals suffer? Many of them cannot move to the Province of Quebec. Certainly our daily newspapers cannot move to the Province of Quebec for printing purposes. Are we really prepared to do that at a time of economic recession when the newspaper industry in this province faces severe cost increases in pulp and paper? It is suffering I shouldn’t say suffering it must accept, because of inflation, rather substantial labour costs, far more substantial I suppose than it ever anticipated, and at the same time we would remove a source of revenue from it.

We will be removing a source of revenue knowing full well that the federal government brought down the decree which took cigarette and tobacco advertising off radio and TV which was within its jurisdiction but among the very people the federal government wanted to reach, the heavy smoker and the younger people starting out, statistics now show smoking really hasn’t rolled back very much, if indeed, at all. I recognize there are differing statistics in this but nonetheless

Mr. Edighoffer: They can hand out all they want.

Mr. Drea: I am sorry, I missed that point.

Mr. Edighoffer: Okay.

Mr. Drea: I am coming to the member in a moment. Maybe he would like to repeat it?

In terms of radio, television and print advertising this province has taken a rather substantial look at the quality of the advertising. If we are going to ban advertising what are we going to do in a self-serve liquor store? We have heard a very eloquent plea from the member for Ottawa Centre on why isn’t the product displayed more attractively so we can feel good when we are buying it instead of feeling repressed or Victorian.

In all seriousness, if one would go into a self-serve liquor store or indeed any number of conventional or the over-the-counter store one will see a great body of wine against the wall. There are very attractive bottles, and there is very attractive labelling, all packaged in the style of the 1970s so that this package really is the primary ad, not just the media ad. Mr. Speaker, are you prepared and is this Legislature prepared, if we are really going to consider the abolition of advertising not just in print; doing what we can do at the federal level on radio and TV are we going to take the labels off the bottle, the four- or five-coloured labels that make it very attractive? Are we going to tell the wineries they can only sell in the standard 25-oz white bottle? Oh come, come, come.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the availability of print advertising and radio and television advertising per se really isn’t that much of an inducement to alcohol consumption. What I suggest, though and I agree with this is that the type of ad can very well have some detrimental impact upon society, and it is in the type and the quality and the message, or the innuendo or the hint or the stimulus, or whatever you want to call it, this is where this province has been working.

As a matter of fact, we have been working in rather an unsung fashion, because, if I read correctly, not so long ago the Province of Quebec was getting great credit for rolling back its advertising regulations, because it didn’t want alcohol ads to feature and to link alcohol with a high quality of life or a fashionable sophisticated lifestyle. As a matter of fact, Quebec, despite the media’s great congratulations that it was doing something, was barely coming up to the present Ontario standard. As a matter of fact, we have been very concerned about this for some time.

For those who like to watch beer commercials in an aesthetic way I don’t drink beer so I suppose that I have always had just a passing interest in what they advertise they will notice the Carlsberg ad, and that is a quality-of-product ad. We see Mme. Benoit and that gentleman from Denmark whatever his name is discussing the quality of the yeast.

Mr. Renwick: Carl Holman?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that is an ad that stresses the quality of the product. It points out that virtually the same yeast that is used in the production of beer is used in the production of Mme. Benoit’s bread. And as a matter of fact, far from pouring beer for each other, the gentleman who is selling the beer winds up eating the bread. I consider that to be a rather interesting ad. It doesn’t stress quality of life. It stresses the quality of production. And surely anybody who manufactures or produces something is entitled to stress his quality control and the reason why one should buy it.

I come back again to the question that if we were to ban advertising and the one area where we can ban it is print; we could take away the legislation that we have now this Legislature would be handing over at least 5,000 printing jobs to the Province of Quebec. At a particular time of economic concern, let alone at any time, I am not prepared to be part of a government that would approve the wholesale transfer of people whose livelihood would mean they would have to move 320 miles and into a different milieu if, indeed, their employer would even take them. Would Toronto remain the centre of the communications industry in Canada, particularly the periodical industry?

I say this with all respect to the federal government in its attempts to stimulate the industry: Show me one Canadian magazine that is now publishing in Ontario that could survive without liquor ads. None of them and they have documented this before the federal government because of unfair advertising competition from American magazines, are making much money, if indeed any, today. Take away those pages of paid alcohol advertising and we are telling them to go to the city of Montreal where they can publish the magazines to send back into Ontario, and once again it is not just at the production level that we will lose jobs; we will lose in the executive end of the communications industry, something that has made Toronto the communications capital of this country and, because of that, has accrued a great many economic advantages to this particular province.

Mr. Renwick: Is the member arguing for or against the liberalization of accessibility of alcohol? I would like to know whether he is going to vote with the minister or against him?

Mr. Drea: The member knows where I am going to vote. Why does he have to do these things? Why does he do these things? Does it amuse him, or what?

Mr. Renwick: I heard the member answer an argument that wasn’t made in the assembly.

Mr. Drea: Oh, yes it was. If the member was here once he would have heard it.

Mr. Renwick: I’ve been here all afternoon.

Mr. Drea: Well, then he wasn’t listening.

Mr. Speaker, liquor is just not a government responsibility and a sole government responsibility. I think the rather interesting thing about these two pieces of legislation is that for the first time we are really bringing the public concerns, the public attitudes, the public biases, if you want, one way or the other, into the actual implementation and regulation of the liquor code that will guide this province in the next few years.

I think the time has long since passed when the sale of liquor and the regulations concerning the retail of liquor must be government controlled to keep the public on the outside and to run it as a true monopoly; those days are over. I’m very glad in these two pieces of legislation that increasingly the community will be brought in, because the community does have legitimate concerns; the community at this particular time does have some very valid concerns and some very valid observations. I welcome the fact that the community is now going to join forces with government in this particular aspect of the liquor question.

The question has been raised today, Mr. Speaker, why does the Liquor Board have such attractive stores in many areas? In all fairness, I find that rather difficult to reconcile with a government that is accused of a Victorian attitude toward alcohol consumption, that is accused of repression to the point of making drinking sinful, that supposedly provides another stimulus to consumption.

I think, and I say in all sincerity, that the Liquor Control Board of Ontario would be failing in its public mandate if it were to sell alcohol out of second-rate stores on the back streets of communities. First of all, as part of a government, it has a responsibility to try to upgrade the community in the particular function in which it serves. One of the ways that you stimulate and upgrade a community is by the quality of your buildings.

It would seem to me to be very foolhardy and very inconsistent to suggest that a licensed premises where people are consuming alcohol has to meet certain standards, but anything goes as far as the retail store is concerned. I think we’d be very derelict in our duty in older parts of smaller communities, or indeed in the larger communities, if we accepted the standard that was in the neighbourhood and we didn’t try to uplift and upgrade it. Surely there is more to stimulating redevelopment and local improvement in a smaller community than can be provided by the banks of the crossroads.

Mr. Speaker, in the Liquor Control Board stores in this province, whether or not they are self-serve and I live in a riding where there are self-serve stores; I find them most attractive I find a great difference from 10 years ago. A great deal of imagination has gone into their construction. I find the service remarkably efficient.

I love remarks such as, “Go to a liquor store in the United States and you can see some inspiration and imagination.” Go to a liquor store in the United States and carry your gun when you go, because the first thing you meet is a fellow there with a gun; he’s protecting the place. The second thing you find are wall-to-wall signs. The third thing you find out is that when you ask, “What’s that brand?” the guy says, “Never mind. It’s cheap take it or leave it.”

If that’s the kind of standard the hon. members opposite want in Ontario, surely that’s not worthy of a government body which I think has admirably fulfilled its responsibility over the years. It is a liquor control board; it may be a sales outlet, but those sales are under controlled circumstances. I think we are very fortunate in this province that over the years we have had a Liquor Control Board that has balanced very well its responsibilities on the one hand to control and on the other hand to make it a very valid, a very legal and a very honourable consumer purchaser. That is a very difficult line to follow.

I suggest to those members who may like to travel that they try the liquor stores in the other nine provinces. I suggest to them that they also try some of those all-night ones in the States that are held up to us as pieces of imagination and vitality in business selling.

As a matter of fact, if you go into some of them late at night, it comes as a great shock to you that you can dicker over the counter for how much you’re going to pay for the bottle. There doesn’t seem to be any established price. At some of them, too, they will give you a sample of what you are buying to make sure that the vodka or the tequila is up to your standard. The labels are something. Some of those labels look as if they were stuck on the day before. However, that is enough about quality control.

It seems to me in terms of advertising that the very accusations that have been made against this government are not true. The very essence of the advertising campaign by the Minister of Health is very good and I don’t think he has to make any apologies for it. The very essence of it is to take it easy. As a matter of fact, I suspected for a moment that the member for Ottawa Centre may have had something to do with the copy-writing of those ads because what he was suggesting as the ad in essence really is the ad. It suggests taking it easy. I think we found that the distilleries last Christmastime started putting in the message that this wasn’t soda pop, have a good time, but take it easy as the consumer had some responsibilities.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to stand up and beat one’s chest and say there are too many restrictions, that things should be liberalized and that everybody who goes to the park should have a couple of bottles of bingo or something else in his picnic basket as it would make for a better day. If, on the one hand, we are truly concerned about consumption and about the impetus for sale and more consumption, then I suggest the last thing we should do is to turn the city parks into a wall-to-wall, green grass drinking establishment where you can bring in as much as you want in your picnic basket and have just a delightful Sunday.

I somehow find it very difficult to rationalize attacks upon a political party that is supposed to be dry, when at other times I hear we are supposed to be wet, I find it very difficult to rationalize that kind of approach. If there is a problem with liquor, and there is a problem with young people, surely the last thing we want to do is to turn the city parks, as I said, into a wall-to-wall grass pub.

That’s why I fail to understand the attitude of the official opposition party and its leader. I wish he would have stayed around, since he asked me to speak in reply to some of his observations, and I dutifully stayed this afternoon, However, I’m sure that someone will convey the message to him. I find all this very difficult to comprehend. If a political party really believes one of these bills is good, then by all means let it vote for it. It has no other choice. But in June, 1975, for a political party to say another bill is a copout but it will vote for it anyway, I suggest therein lies the fundamental inconsistency of the official opposition. If they really believe it’s a copout and their leader has said so, then I would think he is honour-bound.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I said hypocrisy, pure hypocrisy.

Mr. Drea: No, he said it was a copout.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is both.

Mr. Drea: Okay, that’s fine. Well, then he is honour-bound to vote against it. Obviously for a party with no policy, it is very difficult to vote against anything.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member is being permissive.

Mr. Drea: No, I’m not being permissive at all. I’m not the man who wants to let everybody walk into the city park with his bottle of whatever it is in his picnic basket because that will enliven the day. It will certainly enliven the day.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Let the member go ahead with his moral-fibre talk.

Mr. Drea: No, I’m not. I don’t have to talk about moral fibre to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I hope not, because he ain’t got none.

Mr. Drea: Never mind. I’ll save some of it for Bill 44, but I’m very glad he came back here.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I couldn’t miss the opportunity.

Mr. Drea: Not after having invited me.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member’s voice came booming through to where I was.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Is the member for Scarborough Centre going to repeat his statement for him?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He heard it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Go over that one more time, Frank, please.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): For old times’ sake.

Mr. Drea: I think when the Leader of the Opposition talks to me in the House, I would appreciate it if he would call me by my proper name.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All right. Go over it one more time, hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. Drea: That is the first improvement I have noticed in the official opposition all afternoon and I am grateful for it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Let the member hang around. He is going to see a lot of changes.

Mr. Drea: I won’t see them from a party that is so bankrupt on a liquor policy that it has to say it will support a copout. That’s exactly what the Leader of the Opposition said today.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is why he won’t be here to see them.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: Oh, I will be here.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is supposed to be making a speech.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You are on your way out.

Mr. Drea: Am I? When you find a candidate, let me know.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member speak through the Chair, please?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, it seems to me that to say one aspect of the liquor policy is fine and we will vote for it is commendable, but to say we are going to vote for the second part even though it is a copout and hypocrisy Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there is the fundamental contradiction. You cannot have a liquor policy that is divided. You have to have a liquor policy and liquor legislation that is responsive to public needs and public attitudes and to public concerns.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is right. Next year we will bring in our own.

Mr. Drea: In these two bills, Mr. Speaker, I think we have achieved the balance which I suggested earlier was so necessary. They provide the controls that are so vital and so much a concern to the community, and without impeding the legitimate consumption of alcohol.

But to confuse these two Acts and to throw in little red herrings such as banning advertising, knowing it will cost at least 5,000 jobs in Ontario and he given to another province, and things such as turning the parks into saloons on Sunday, are the little things that seem to me a very fundamental contradiction in terms of the responsibility of a government toward a commodity whether you want to call it a drug or a product that today is provoking probably more legitimate and unemotional concern than at any other time in this century.

I realize that twice on binges of emotion we got ourselves into prohibition and some other things that didn’t work, but today it is a very different and a very legitimate concern. Mr. Speaker, I think this government in these two bills and with the policy as a whole, has really reflected that concern.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak? The hon. member for Stormont.

Mr. Samis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to make a few general statements on this bill. First of all, I congratulate the minister for at least making another attempt to update the laws of Ontario in this matter. I also congratulate him for his unending generosity that he displayed in Cornwall on the weekend. Naturally, we always welcome a member of the cabinet in our riding. We are amazed that we had five within 48 hours. We thought we were inundated with Tories. Nevertheless, when the goodies come, we accept them all.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): They are out to get the member.

Mr. Samis: Obviously, obviously.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We came down to say goodbye.

Mr. Samis: But I do thank the minister for being so generous in going one step beyond his colleague, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett), who I think made the statement on Thursday night that the member for Stormont would serve the shortest term in the history of the Ontario Legislature. I am glad to see they corrected him in nominating my colleague, the member for Carleton East (Mr. P. Taylor), as the latest recruit for their accolades.

Over all, I think that not being a native of the Province of Ontario and not having grown up in the Province of Ontario, having been familiar with another jurisdiction where I think the attitude toward the whole question of liquor laws was considerably different from this province, having visited this province on numerous occasions in my younger days, I was always amazed at the Victorian sinful attitude this province seemed to take toward the whole question of drinking.

It seems to me if you wanted to purchase beer, for example, you would sign a confession saying who you were, you apologized for your sins, and you would formally give the government notice of the fact that you were a declared sinner. I was frequently amazed at the dreadful health conditions of some of the public drinking spots in the Province of Ontario in the early 1960s. They were obviously deplorable.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He was under age then.

Mr. Samis: Oh, there were a lot of things going on in those days. The rigid segregation according to sex had the aura of, I think, John Calvin marked all over it. But I do congratulate the minister for trying to update some things. Some have been updated by previous ministers, obviously.

Let me say that I share his concern with the whole question of alcoholism and the increase in drinking. When we talk about the increase in drinking, let’s not just put everything in the bag of alcoholism in that context. Obviously, there has been a widespread increase in drinking, but not purely with the end result of alcoholism. I think we should also face the fact that this increase has been caused by a variety of factors and it’s not a political issue in that context.

I think the minister has to recognize that mass advertising has had a tremendous influence on people’s attitude toward drinking. If you compare, with say 10 years ago, the amount of advertising on television, radio, in magazines and newspapers to today, there is obviously a tremendous incentive to drink compared to 10 or 15 years ago, especially for our young people. I have noticed in Maclean’s and Time magazine, for example, use of sophistication, subliminal advertising, all the latest techniques, to create the constant urge to drink, whether it is liquor, alcohol, wine or beer. It’s’ mass exposure to a young person.

I think this is the whole concept of our culture these days. Drinking is done in the open. You see it in films, on TV programmes. We openly talk about it. We openly show it. It’s a common fact of life that 10 or 15 years ago we tried to shove under the rug. We tolerated it, but didn’t accept as an open part of our social mores.

The thing that concerns me is the increasing pressure among our young people to drink. Coming from an industrial city and having taught in a high school for seven years, it depresses me to see the drinking age in social mores is not 18, but 14, and sometimes less. You see, and hear, about students in grades 7 and 8 drinking, and regarding that as a badge of social conformity or social acceptance. I would agree with the minister, we have problems. It is something we should be seriously concerned about.

Another obvious factor is the decline in the prohibitionist, or the moralistic, attitude toward drinking. The leader of the Liberal Party talked about his younger days. Obviously he goes further back than I do.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Right.

Mr. Samis: He brought in the whole moral question about drinking and moralistic attitudes about drinking.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member should get to the beer in the grocery stores.

Mr. Samis: The member should hold on, we’ll get there, he needn’t worry.

Obviously that is changed now. Churches today have changed their attitudes considerably. The United Church, I noticed, still takes a moral stand on some of these issues. Other churches have pretty well shoved it under the rug.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Our church is concerned with grapes and lettuce now.

Mr. Samis: Is it now? I want the member to know that in the city of Cornwall it seems to be a very common feature in a Catholic church to have two things going on in the basement bingos and bars. For someone to take a moralistic stand when there are bars operating in the basements of most of the Catholic churches, there has obviously been a tremendous change in attitude in that respect.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member is running against the Catholic church, is he?

Mr. Samis: Oh, never, never. I’d like to say I support the principle that the sale of liquor and spirits should be controlled by the government. I don’t see us going for the American system, which I think has led to a proliferation of outlets and problems of alcoholism and violence late at night when you have long hours.

But, getting to an old perennial favourite of mine, I would suggest the government examine the whole principle about who should be selling the beer in the Province of Ontario. Need we have government control over the sale of beer? I would challenge the minister to prove the Province of Quebec is any worse off with the system it has adopted.

The rationale for that system was to protect small independent grocers against chain stores, the giant supermarkets. It was an attempt to service the working man so he didn’t have to drive a long distance to some bureaucratically operated store, impersonal as it was. He can purchase beer at a neighborhood outlet where he buys his regular goods. It helps the small independent businessman. It serves the working man not the student or the alcoholic but the working man, and delivery service is provided.

In a city like Cornwall, where we have almost 50,000 people, we only have two outlets. Neither is self-service. We also have an influx of tourists in the summertime, whether it is from the United States or from the Province of Quebec. The regulation that there can only be government stores, and only one or two for a community of our size, just doesn’t make sense. Since many of our people come from the Province of Quebec, they find it very antiquated. Being a resident of Cornwall, I find it rather difficult to defend such a system.

I’d also like to suggest the whole concept of service, referred to by the member for Ottawa Centre, be seriously examined. I am glad to see the government has evolved a policy toward self-service as much as possible. I don’t think the intention is to increase consumption. Nobody wants to contribute to alcoholism. Let’s modernize the whole merchandising technique of this particular industry, and let’s face it, it is an industry. If the government is going to control it, then the least it can do is provide service on a basis that people are familiar with in other aspects of society.

While I would favour the suggested private outlets for the sale of beer, let me also suggest that there be stricter enforcement of other segments of our liquor regulations. One I would bring out is the whole question of the minimum age. I applaud lowering the minimum age to 18 but I would suggest that in certain areas of this province the minimum age is not being adequately enforced. In certain hotels and in certain drinking establishments on certain nights of the week one can see 14-, 15- or 16-year-olds drinking away, seemingly with no fear of being arrested, no fear of being raided and no fear of being charged. Obviously, we’ve got to start enforcing the minimum age law even though the people dispensing it have an obvious monetary gain to make out of the whole situation of tolerance of violation.

I would also suggest that the penalties for impaired and drunken drivers be stiffened. I realize that is not a purely provincial jurisdiction but I think that, obviously, we have to get more of these drunken drivers off the road and make them pay a heavier penalty. If they’re going to drink to the extent of getting drunk we should stiffen the fines and the suspensions.

I also think we should provide facilities within most outlets for people to take some kind of test if they’re concerned about driving in their present condition. This should be done at all bars or all outlets. Outlets should be compelled to provide some form of testing device for people before they leave.

I don’t think I would go as far as the leader of the Liberal Party in terms of trying to ban advertising and radio and television and things of that sort but I would suggest that we reassess the whole basis of our advertising programme. Is it absolutely necessary to show beer in the context that we do? Most of our beer commercials these days are very cleverly designed to appeal to very selected interest groups, usually men under 30. Should we not have some regulations as to the type of advertising that companies are allowed to use? I have noticed that the Province of Quebec is tightening up considerably starting in January, 1976. I would suggest we reassess our whole system of regulations regarding advertising.

As the member for Riverdale also suggested, obviously we have to increase our allotments for detoxification centres and alcoholic education. I think one key thing we have to deal with in the whole question of drinking in Ontario is people’s attitudes towards drinking. We’re not just talking about the end results of the wino, the alcoholic or something like that. We have to have an education programme to deal with the attitude and not the prohibitionist approach of “Don’t drink.”

Obviously that won’t work in our modern society but at least we can educate people, as the member for Ottawa Centre suggested, that in moderation, this can be an enjoyable thing. In excess, it can cause all sorts of problems. Let’s not shove the thing under the rug. Let’s deal with it openly, especially with young people at the high school level. I think we should put far more money into our advertising campaign than $650,000 if we’re worried about excesses.

I welcome the whole attempt to make the Liquor Licence Board democratic, more open to the general public so they can have an input. When licences are up for review or for acceptance the public will know where they can see these hearings being held and can give their opinions. I’m glad to see the removal of the censorship process from the jurisdiction of the Liquor Licence Board. Obviously, that was an outdated thing.

The final thing I would like to say is I would hope we keep politics the whole question of trying to exploit a serious question in purely electoral terms out of it. Let’s leave the sloganeering, the pandering, out of it. Let’s deal with it in the context of what’s best for the people of Ontario; what’s wrong with our liquor laws; what needs to be changed; what needs to be improved in the Liquor Licence Board and the Liquor Control Board.

Let’s not try to tie it in with the violence kick or the criminality question because 90 to 95 per cent of the people of Ontario have absolutely nothing to do with that. They’re good, honest, working people who may enjoy a drink now and then and who want decent, rational, intelligent, moderate liquor laws. I would ask the minister to carry this bill through in that context and leave out the sloganeering. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to take part in the debate? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, it’s been a most pleasant afternoon because I’ve been hearing all the things I’ve heard since I took over the ministry and all the things my predecessor heard during his review of the legislation. We end up, unfortunately, with the same decision that what we had was, by and large, the best anywhere. That’s why we have come up with what the Leader of the Opposition calls lack of action. You can study and you can study and you can study but if you don’t find anything better

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is a milestone to nowhere.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: if you don’t find anything better to put in its place and that, I think, was the situation. Because I came into it, not at the end of the review, but during the process.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s quite an admission.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We found we had as good a system as there was anywhere in the world. It needed only a few changes, and should not be tampered with. I hope the Leader of the Opposition recognizes that this can happen.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We figured he was; now we know he is.

Mr. Samis: Valhalla is here.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We were told we should get information, other than the ARF, on the cost of alcoholism. Of course, we did get information from a variety of sources, including our friends in the police forces. There is also the organization mentioned by the member for Perth, in which he engaged in a debate at one of their meetings. There are all kinds of organizations that have measured these. Of course, the Ministry of Health is not unknown to measure the costs of alcohol consumption and alcohol abuse.

It seems to have escaped some of the members what we are trying to do. When one starts to criticize, one can criticize any specific aspect of the legislation out of context. But what the members seem to forget, and what we are trying to do, is to achieve the balance that is necessary between the moderate, enjoyable use of the product of fermentation as the Leader of the Opposition said and its abuse. There is a very small percentage who abuse it. There is no question.

Three per cent of the drinkers in this province are alcoholics. Ten per cent are probably suffering from overindulgence and have drinking problems. That three per cent is the most dramatic evidence there is, but it isn’t the most important one and I think the member for Stormont may have touched on it. There is the long-range, insidious effect of continuous consumption, even at a moderate level. The Minister of Health in his advertising campaign is trying to hit at exactly that. Have one less, instead of one more. That is the secret of moderation in drinking, because alcoholism has been identified by some people as the most serious problem we have. It isn’t really. It is overindulgence and abuse.

This party was called the wet party, as I recall, by the Leader of the Opposition at least historically it has been wet and we were said to have brought in all of the moves that have led to the problems of today. As I listened to the hon. member’s speech, I thought he was calling for us to be wetter. He wanted liberalization I assume he was being non-partisan, using a small “1.” He wanted us to liberalize the drinking laws more than we have done. I have maintained, and so has my predecessor, that we are just not about to do that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He calls liberalization restrictions on advertising. Why doesn’t he do something?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Okay, let’s talk about advertising. I thought the member for Scarborough Centre had set the record straight; but I think we have to say it again. We are in the forefront of advertising restrictions on liquor and beer absolutely. Quebec is so far behind us that they are looking to us for leadership. In fact the LCBO has not only recognized its responsibility to provide leadership, but has provided the leadership. Our directives are far more restrictive than those in the Province of Quebec, which the media for some reason or other have acclaimed as earthshaking in their movement.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, the media are against the minister again. They are against the Premier, they are against the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) now they are against this minster.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, I am not saying the media. I am saying the media have publicized the directives; we have done them quietly in consultation with the industry.

The member for High Park brought to my attention an article in the Star yesterday which ridiculed one of the directives which said that a little outdoor cafe could not use umbrellas advertising Pernod. This just doesn’t happen to be permitted by the directives. It may not be the most sensible directive in the world, but the directives are being complied with; and those in the industry recognize them as voluntary directives which they helped to negotiate and they are abiding by them.

Again, I dealt with censorship in my opening statement. I want to say it again because I think it is very important that this be cleared once and for all. The legislation sets out the circumstances under which a licence may be suspended. One of the circumstances under which a licence may be suspended is contravention of the regulations. The regulation-making power does not contain any reference to censorship or entertainment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It didn’t in the past.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There was at one time in the Act a power vested in the board to approve the kinds of entertainment. That, of course, has been tested in the courts. It is still being tested in the courts. It is there now. All I can say is, there is no authority to enact a regulation on entertainment. Therefore, there is no right to suspend a licence because of the nature of the entertainment. I suppose no matter how many times I say it, I will have to continue to say it in order to deal with that complaint.

The matter of fire protection is another one. In the process of dealing with the bill, it was suggested to us that all licensed premises should meet the fire marshal’s standards. I must say that, as minister, I looked at it and I said, “All premises should meet the fire marshal’s standards. Why single out licensed premises? Why have the board enforcing fire regulations when they should be done by competent people trained either under the jurisdiction of the fire marshal or the local fire prevention bureau?” Again, there is no regulation-making authority with regard to fire.

Now, we have to come to grips with the problem that the risk of fire where alcohol is being sold and being used may be somewhat greater than where it is not

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That must be good alcohol they have down his way.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: simply because alcohol is a mind-changing drug and, therefore, the control over fire prevention may not be quite as great. But I do not believe and, as the minister responsible I do not accept, that it is our responsibility to enforce the fire prevention regulations of this province. I think that responsibility belongs with the fire marshal, and I hope that in the process of evolving toward a complete fire marshal system, we will be out of the business completely. So the new legislation, again, does not provide for the board to be involved in fire protection.

As for the so-called civilized drinking habits abroad and I said this at first reading I go back to the 1940s for the benefit of the member for Stormont. I was one of those who saw the great institution, the British pub, and said, “This is wonderful.” But all we had to compare it to at that time was the tavern of the 1940s. Anybody who has visited England recently and looked at the pubs in comparison to our own establishments, I think, will find that they suffer by comparison. Ours are better. I say, without equivocation whatsoever, that if I had to go into a public drinking place and I had my choice between those in Ontario and those in England, I would choose those in Ontario. They are of a higher standard and they are far more attractive.

Mr. Samis: In what sense?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We reject that.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister may even be a nationalist, for God’s sake.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The member for Ottawa Centre is completely unreal.

Mr. C. Nixon (Dovercourt): You can say that again.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He raised the question of playing darts. Playing darts is not illegal. Drinking in your backyard is not illegal

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, it is.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is not and it has not been for quite some time

Mr. Cassidy: Under the Act it is. The Act says, “only under canvas.”

Hon. Mr. Handleman: These are the kinds of myths that are perpetuated by members of the New Democratic Party, and I just want to get that one out of the way completely.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): They perpetuate a lot of myths. What surprises the minister about one more?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I really shouldn’t be deterred from the order of speaking. I want to talk about the special-occasion permits because the Leader of the Opposition did mention them. This, I must admit, was one of the most difficult problems to deal with in the drafting of this legislation. I mentioned in the statement at first reading that there are about 170,000 of these issued in a year. By far the greatest majority of these are handled by the Liquor Licence Board without any problems and without creating any difficulties for the organizations involved.

A very small percentage come to members’ attention, and it is a very small percentage, but we recognize that perhaps because of the number of special-occasion permits, the method by which they are issued does require a great deal of review. In the interest of bringing in the legislation, we did not, in fact, deal with that specific problem.

As I said at the time of first reading, we will be decentralizing the actual processing of special-occasion permits, but I must say that the number of special-occasion permits does concern me and I will be putting that to the advisory board on liquor as one of its first tasks to review and to give me some advice as to how it can be dealt with. There is a problem in limiting and setting very strict conditions. We will be listening to representatives of the ethnic communities, because they do have different attitudes toward drinking, and we hope to benefit from their advice.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Part of the hypocrisy. The government is not prepared to make general legislation.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Oh, we will be making it. but they will have to go into the regulations.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It legislates winking and nodding.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The Leader of the Opposition talked about the finest buildings in the community. It used to be the schools, now it is apparently the liquor stores.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The member for Ottawa Centre told us what terrible dungeons they are. I find it very difficult to reconcile these things.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Maybe they are in the NDP ridings; I don’t know.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, no. I think we have done a good job of spotting liquor stores throughout the province.

Mr. Cassidy: Very elaborate monuments.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We are evolving toward a self-service type of store, and it may very well be that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre has not been in one of our newer stores. I don’t frequent them myself, I must admit; but those that I have seen I have officially opened a few

Mr. R. F, Nixon: The minister’s driver gets the booze.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: they are very bright, they are clean, they are well located, and they are full of taxpayers in the communities in which they are located. They contribute toward the building of those arenas along with the great Wintario programme. We will certainly respond to requests for new liquor stores where we see the market requires them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Booze and raffles, the great underpinnings of the Conservative moral fibre.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The member for Perth talked about the possibility of political interference in the marketing function of the LCBO. I think I want to say that their marketing function will be in accordance with government policy, but overall alcohol policy. The Treasurer will not direct the LCBO in its marketing methods or in the products which it carries. It will not have control over advertising because the member raised this. That will be going to the Liquor Licence Board under Bill 45. He mentioned the samples somewhat facetiously. It is necessary for them to have samples for testing purposes, otherwise we have no way of testing the quality of the products to make the decisions.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It isn’t a personal responsibility of the minister?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, it is not the responsibility of the minister. I understand the incumbent minister is not allowed to receive samples under any circumstances. I have to wait for that. With regard to the attractiveness of beer advertising, I am inclined to agree with the Leader of the Opposition that aesthetically it is the most attractive advertising there is.

An hon. member: Oh, come on.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Aesthetically they are very attractive and they may very well have an effect on some people.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I even feel the effect on me.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I admit that and I say at the same time that I haven’t had a beer in at least five years and I probably won’t have one for another five.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister stopped smoking too.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I stopped smoking.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He has cut his weight down and is jogging. Will it help his problem?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, but I am not a teetotaler. It’s the strangest thing

Mr. Ferrier: It’s the hard stuff.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: and it may not be known to the Leader of the Opposition but we do ban advertising in certain media. When I talk about liquor, spirits are not advertised on television, and he should know that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t the minister do it with beer? He could.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We can ban advertising of any kind. The test should be whether the ban is effective. That should be the test The test with cigarettes has been that it is not effective.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: So it works with booze but not with beer?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There are probably now more non-smokers than there were before the limited ban on cigarette advertising, but there is also a great increase in the consumption of tobacco. What we are saying is that those who smoke are smoking more and fewer people are smoking. I’m not too sure that’s the kind of moderation that we look for in alcohol.

Mr. H. Worton: (Wellington South): What this government is doing is enough to drive anyone to drink.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The member for Perth also asked me which committee this would be going to. I think we can go to committee of the whole House after we have dealt with Bill 45.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the minister not prepared to put it to public scrutiny?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It will be going to public scrutiny. Ye have set out all the draft regulations. They have been out there for a month. I can tell the member we’ve got hundreds of responses.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Most people agree with the minister no change of significance.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: None of them agree with each other.

The member for Riverdale did bring up a number of things. I think we should make it quite clear that the LCBO will be only a sales organization. He asked for its sale practices to be more open and more public. I think there is a problem there. I want to put it this way; I will ask the advisory committee to review the accountability of the Liquor Control Board to the Legislature.

I want to make it clear that the Liquor Licence Board will be exercising regulatory functions. Under Bill 45, when we go into clause by clause members will note that the regulations under the Liquor Licence Act will be passed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. There is a distinction here.

The Liquor Control Board is not in that situation. In other words, it is strictly a marketing organization and is not accountable to the minister, which is something that is being read into the bill. The minister reports for them. I want to make that clear with regard to the present status of both boards because the current Acts do not require the two boards to do other than report to the minister. In other words, in estimates the minister does not answer for the board. They are both going to be audited by the Provincial Auditor. I think there is sufficient control there to satisfy the requirements of the Legislature to have a full picture of the operations of these two boards.

As to the question of selection of listings, I quite agree. Before I was able to acquaint myself with the process I felt there might be the possibility of undue pressures being brought to bear but I have seen the process now. I have seen it in operation. I have met with the importers, the agents of imported wines and spirits. They have said they are quite satisfied, although they complain when they don’t get a product listed. They may have it listed in another province, but not in Ontario.

I think the board has to find a very fine balance in providing a variety of products to the people of Ontario at a broad range of prices and in a broad range of qualities, also bearing in mind that there is limited shelf space, as there is in any store; they only have so much space to display the product and to store it. In having gone from some 1,500 to 2,000 listings over the past four years without expanding the wall space, I think the board has done an excellent job of meeting its responsibilities to the public in Ontario.

There was a lot of mention of my predecessor, the Attorney General, and his speeches show that we think alike on many things. Sometimes we use the same language

Mr. Ferrier: Maybe they even have the same speechwriters.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It may very well be that we do; don’t know who’s writing his speeches. I can’t afford the fees that Mr. Lalonde is purported to have paid, and I don’t think the Attorney General can either.

Mr. Parrott: He doesn’t need it; he is good by himself.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It’s possible we are using the same low-priced speechwriter.

Mr. Cassidy: The taxpayers pay for his speechwriters.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s right. Yes, but the taxpayers can’t afford Mr. Lalonde’s level of fees either.

Mr. Cassidy: They’re paying for the Minister of Industry and Tourism’s speeches and that’s bad enough.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There was some talk about eliminating alcoholism through our policies.

Mr. Renwick: This minister talks about pillage and rape, and the other talks about crime and violence.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Alcoholism will not be eliminated by regulatory actions, Mr. Speaker, and we have to face that. I think the member for Stormont put his finger on it it has to be done through a combination of health measures and education measures. Alcoholism will be with us, I think, as long as there is alcohol available, and our job really is to reduce its incidence. It’s a health and education problem and not a regulatory problem for the two boards.

The member for Riverdale asked about the detox centres. These, I think, are one of the developments in this province of which we’re proudest. Although there are never enough and I quite agree with the member, we could have more, and we are continuing to do more rarely does a cabinet meeting go by without my recommending another one. I just wanted to put on to the record the fact that at the present time we now have 245 beds, and they’re distributed as follows: Metro Toronto 78, London 20, Hamilton 20, Kenora 35, Windsor 20, Sudbury 16, Ottawa 20, Thunder Bay 20, and St. Catharines which will be opening this month 16.

The police, of course, would like many more and so would we. Again, it’s a question of economics. I should point out that half of the beds are kept for the use of police, who will normally bring in the chronic offenders.

Mr. Renwick: Which means there are 39 chronic offenders in Toronto, is that right?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, we’re saying that half of the beds are kept for them and they won’t be there every night of the week.

Mr. Renwick: Some of them will be.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We’re agreeing that there should be more. I think there was something in the member’s statement about the discretionary power of the police, and I think the police should have this discretionary power.

Mr. Cassidy: Does he mean the right side or the left side of the bed?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Members may have noted this week in one of the newspapers, the story about most persons who subject themselves to alcohol abuse suffering from malnutrition because they aren’t taken up by the police and put somewhere where they may get a couple of square meals. We’re leaving it to the policemen’s judgement. I think the police have shown excellent judgement in the past in the exercise of this type of discretion, and we don’t want to take it away from them and say what they must do with people whom they find in an intoxicated position.

The monopoly that the member for Riverdale mentioned is not for the purpose of raising revenue and surely he recognizes that that is not its primary purpose because it does not pay for the cost of abuse, and we agree with him entirely on that. We agree with the ARF on that. The purpose of the monopoly is for controlling the social and crime costs which are involved in the distribution and consumption of alcohol. At the same time, if the member for High Park were here I think he would agree with me that a government monopoly in this area is necessary to keep out organized crime. My parliamentary assistant touched on that very lightly in his comments about the system in the United States.

Mr. Renwick: I don’t think there’s any question about that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If the member for Riverdale will bear with me, he asked about the provisions on transfers of licence on hearings. I would like to deal with that in committee if I may, and also whether or not there is merit in the thought that perhaps there should be a regular review of long-standing licences after a period of time, but what that time can be is something else. Again, we can discuss that in committee, and also whether or not a transfer of licence will require public hearing. I see, Mr. Speaker, it is 6 o’clock. If I may, I would like to adjourn the debate.

Mr. Speaker: I understand you have further remarks to make?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Oh, yes.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.