The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

LIQUOR LICENCE ACT (CONCLUDED)

On section 40:

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): On section 40, subsection (j), just in passing, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to draw the minister’s attention to several things here that I think are extremely important.

The report which came out last fall, “Drinking and Driving in the Province of Ontario,” with which the minister is familiar, I’m sure, was a pretty comprehensive survey of this problem of the drinking driver and the effect advertising has on the problem. We were discussing just at 6 o’clock the problem of the advertising and its effect on the youthful driver and the youthful person.

There are some figures here that I just want to put on the record. Young people, in particular, are susceptible to this kind of thing. I will quote from the report:

“In terms of absolute numbers of drinking drivers involved in collisions, it can be said the absolute numbers of drinking drivers have increased annually since 1970, with increases being greater for drivers below the age of 35. For drivers aged 25 years or older, proportions have remained relatively constant during that period, but for the 16-to-19 and the 20-to-24 age groups there has been a sharp increase in the proportion of drinking drivers in all collisions since 1970. The increase is more evident in the 16-to-19 age group. These increases may be associated with the lowering of the legal drinking age from 21 to 18, which occurred in mid-1971.”

We also have before us the results of the survey taken in London, Ont., in connection with 18- and 19-year-olds. Alcohol-related collisions for this age group, we are told, increased 339 per cent; and the number killed more than doubled just the year following the lowering of the drinking age. Alcohol-related collisions for this group, 19 and up, increased by 346 per cent, and the rate has climbed steadily since that time.

There’s no question, Mr. Chairman, that the advertising that is going on has a profound effect on this age group and it’s geared to them directly.

The Saskatchewan report, which corresponds to this one in Ontario, recommends, among other things, that no commercial advertising of beverage alcohol be permitted within the Province of Saskatchewan. They also say this, which is extremely interesting:

“World-wide experience indicates that increased general consumption has been shown to be accompanied by increased alcoholism. As overall consumption increases, both the number who drink more heavily and the number who drink excessively, increased proportionately.”

Then, again, they go on to point out that the only way we’re going to cut down on alcoholism, cut down on the whole problem of drinking, driving and accidents caused by alcohol is by lowering the total consumption of alcohol. The whole drive of the advertising campaign that the member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes) raised this afternoon is, of course, to increase the consumption of alcohol.

I know that the argument is made, and the minister mentioned it, that the design of these ads is to promote the sale of a particular brand. But there’s no question that it’s geared not only to promote the sale of that brand, but to make the whole process respectable, to link happiness and joy and prosperity and good times with the consumption of alcohol, and thereby increase that consumption. As we see the curve going up, I think this province should be as concerned as many others are about that increased consumption -- not only increased consumption, but the increase of hard liquor as compared with beer and wine.

All I’m saying to you, Mr. Minister, is this, that somehow or other we have to face this problem of advertising. Already the Ministry of Health has embarked on a programme to make people aware that excessive drinking is not the best thing. I use that word “excessive” deliberately because this is part of a campaign. They say that moderation is not bad but excess is terrible. The problem is that the resources that we are allocating to that kind of advertising are infinitesimal in comparison with the resources that the industry is spending on the promotion and the extension of the habit of consuming alcoholic beverages.

I think we must come eventually to this recommendation of the Saskatchewan commission -- and it is reflected too in the Ontario one -- that advertising should be prohibited. I know that’s a real problem for the minister and a real problem for government. At the same time, I think we must change the regulations so that the kind of picture that’s presented in the TV ads particularly today, as well as the newspaper ads, can be modified and somehow or other those ads present the true picture of the danger of alcoholism.

While I suppose we can’t expect the brewers and the distillers to think in those terms and to present the danger, perhaps this government has to cut back on the appeal of these ads and do something dramatic and practical in this whole field.

I bring these matters to the attention of the minister. I know he is familiar with them. I think they should be on record again tonight. I hope the minister, in the whole consideration of advertising and the regulations of advertising, will take these matters very seriously to heart.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): To make a response to the hon. member’s remarks, first of all, it may be surprising that the increase in consumption which he mentioned has been accompanied by a sharp drop in advertising volume. There really doesn’t seem to be any correlation between the amount of advertising and the amount of liquor consumed. Furthermore, hard liquor sales have not increased. The big increase has been in wine, particularly in the area of pop wine, fortified wine, with an increase of about 20 per cent per year over the past two or three years. Some of the distillers, and I am sure the member is familiar with them, have really promoted moderation in drinking, not completely out of altruistic motives but they recognize the repercussions that can come from increased alcoholism and alcohol abuse. They themselves in their own interest have embarked on programmes of advertising moderation.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): The distilleries have, but not the breweries.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well, I say the distillers have. Under our directives we are cutting back. We are trying to mould it. It is a slow process because there have been certain things allowed. It will take some time for that investment to be amortized but we are embarking on new advertising directives. Under the regulation that we are now talking about, it will be directly within the power of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make these regulations. At the present time we have been operating under board directives which have the force of law but perhaps are not as flexible as Lieutenant Governor in Council regulations might be.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Do you have the figures on distillery advertising?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Oar figures show that the total volume of alcohol beverage advertising is down 40 per cent from the previous year under the old directives. The new directives have cut the volume down because they have required the volume to be reduced. It is not anything voluntary on the part of the distillers.

Mr. Young: The advertising is much more sophisticated though.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Advertisers, as I mentioned prior to the dinner break, are quite ingenious and are very creative and artistic. I don’t know how we can stand in the way of that artistry without going the total ban route that you have suggested. Despite the recommendation, Saskatchewan has not banned advertising of liquors.

Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, just again to quote the report and put the figures on record, I am not sure that I understood the minister correctly, but let me give him these figures from the report. In 1967, Ontario consumed 125 million gallons of alcoholic beverages. For 1973, this had risen to 167 million. The relative amount of hard liquor and wine used is rising faster than beer. This is what the report says:

“Beer consumption rose from 112 million gallons in 1967 to 146 million in 1973, an increase of about 30 per cent, but during the same period consumption of spirits rose from 8½ million gallons to 12½ million, up almost 50 per cent, and wine rise from four million gallons to 8.6 million, an increase of over 100 per cent.”

That, of course, is what the minister has said, that wine had gone up. It’s remarkable: Beer retains its place, of course, as the most popular alcoholic beverage in Ontario, but I think what we tend to forget is that a bottle or can of beer has the same alcoholic content as a shot of hard liquor, and about half the alcoholics in the province are beer drinkers; they are beer alcoholics. So the consumption of beer, of course, leads to alcoholism the same as the consumption of hard liquor.

I thought those figures should be placed on the record because there is no question that the swing is to hard liquor. While liquor itself is not advertised in the same way, there is no question that the sophistication of the beer ads, linking beer with good times, and all the beauty and the charisma that is put into them lately has made them much, much more powerful than the old ads used to be.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Perth.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): I’d just like to say a word or two on advertising. I have made a comment or two in the Legislature and I think I took part in a debate on a previous occasion, suggesting that this type of advertising should be banned. But I just wondered if I could get the feeling of the minister, particularly on the type of advertising that the Ministry of Health is doing. I know that a great amount of their advertising in that latest promotion might be all right --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): About $560,000 worth.

Mr. Edighoffer: -- but I am thinking in particular of the one with the excellent pictures of the different types of drinks; tied in with the drinks, of course, are types of recreation partaken in by the people of Ontario. They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. In this particular advertisement there are 12 pictures, so I’d say the pictures are worth 12,000 words; in addition, there are about a dozen actual words.

I feel that this type of advertising still plays right into the hands of the producers and seems to be similar to the type of advertising that they are producing. If the minister would like to make a comment, I’d appreciate hearing it.

If I may go back to the directives issued by the board, I believe, the minister stated before the dinner hour that they were pretty well set out, but I noticed the preface states that these guidelines are more flexible than statute law and can be changed without reference to the Legislature. That’s quite true, but I am just wondering whether the Legislature should have more power in assisting in the setting up of these directives.

While I am on my feet I also want to ask another question. I really don’t know what section this would come under, because actually it is covered in the draft code. On page 12 of the code -- it’s under section 12 as well, I now notice -- there is reference to the list that must be displayed to customers in any licensed premises. Under 16(c) it says: “The prices at which drinks may be purchased must be displayed in the licensed premises.” I just want to ask the minister to make certain that this would include all types of drinks that are served in a licensed premises. I wonder if that includes the tea, coffee and milk which he seemed to talk about so much before introducing the legislation.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 40(j) carry?

Mr. Haggerty: Oh, just a minute.

Mr. Stokes: No.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Wait a minute.

Mr. Haggerty: The minister perhaps should have a comment in response to the member for Perth.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, the member held up one of the posters that I believe the Ministry of Health distributed. That’s the one that says, “Drinking doesn’t go with everything,” or something of that nature. Yes, I looked at it once and I wasn’t too sure whether it was an ad for one of the distilleries or an ad promoting moderation. It does make the drinks look very attractive. On the other hand, I have seen one of the distillers’ ads -- which has a hand over a very attractive-looking mixed drink saying “I’ve had enough.”

I think what the Ministry of Health is trying to do, and what we did in some of our consumer advertising, is to adopt the techniques of those very sophisticated advertisers to promote the cause of moderation. We did the same thing. We used the hard sell technique to promote caution against the hard sell technique.

As you know, we discussed this in our estimates. I think the ministry took the best advice it could, from people who are skilled in the advertising world, and followed their suggestions. They may not have succeeded in every aspect of their campaign. I think it would be unusual if an advertising campaign was perfect in every one of its details.

As far as the directives being passed, with reference to the legislation, is concerned I think you’ll find that there is a degree of flexibility required. We do run into situations that require fairly quick action. As I recall, these had no sooner been published than there were found to be certain discrepancies in them, which could be corrected immediately by reference to the board, rather than requiring legislation.

Of course, under the new legislation they can be done by changing a regulation fairly quickly. I have taken into account your comments on the draft code. Of course, as I have previously stated, the draft code is not the final regulations. Your comments will be taken into account. We had only intended, in that particular section of the code, to include alcoholic beverages but, perhaps, all of the stock and trade of the licensed premise should be included on the price list.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Welland South.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to go back here a little bit. I’m not satisfied with the minister’s answer. If one looks at the advertising that is on here -- and, perhaps, those that are advertised on television -- you’d think it was the same advertising group that designed the whole scheme. There are six different spirits that one can see on this brochure. Perhaps, if you had followed the programme that the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) has, the buckle-up programme; you know, that one where he has the impact of an accident -- you would have got the message across right away.

Then there is one on fishing where you see someone applying mouth-to-mouth resuscitation; and you can go on down the list. It ends up with one showing the west entrance of Maple Leaf Gardens. If you can tie that in with the present television programmes that advertise liquor and beer, it almost looks like the same advertiser providing the same brochure.

There is only one place marked in here where there is no reference to drinks and that is the golf tee -- it is non-spirit. But the ball indicates go on and have a ball. I suggest, Mr. Minister, that I would bring that to the attention of the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller). That type of advertising is nothing but sheer foolishness, nonsense, folly.

Mr. Samis: Look at the heading. It’s a good one.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, and on this “Drinking doesn’t have to be a part of everything” then it goes on to say, at the bottom, “Mix a little thinking with your drinking.” Of course, the impact is to think about drinking. What a folly -- $560,000 for that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, it’s one item out of a large campaign. I think the hon. member should raise it with the Minister of Health, if he feels it is inappropriate to the campaign. Certainly he is entitled to that opinion.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: I spoke on this just before 6 o’clock and I have done a little bit of thinking about it since then. Here you have the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, which is responsible for the administration of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and the Liquor Licence Board, the sole agent for the dispensing -- certainly at the wholesale level -- of all alcoholic beverages in the province. I forget how much you yourselves make as a result of the purchase and the resale.

Mr. Young: Three hundred and seventy million dollars.

Mr. Stokes: All right, it’s close to $400 million that we as taxpayers of the province get as the result of your ability to market and to sell alcoholic beverages. Then we have the administrative costs of both the Liquor Licence Board and the Liquor Control Board in the Province of Ontario.

Then you have the quite considerable budget of the Ministry of Health which is responsible for the detoxification centres in the Province of Ontario and picking up certainly a portion of the social costs of people’s abuse and excessive use of alcoholic beverages. Then you have the industry itself spending heaven knows how many tens of millions of dollars on its advertising campaign extolling the virtues of the purchase of these beverages. Then you have the tremendous amount of money being spent by the Addiction Research Foundation through the Ministry of Health.

After all this, you have this educational and promotional job being done by the Ministry of Health, trying to warn people about the consequences of the abuse of alcohol.

I attended the seminar at Confederation College in Thunder Bay a few weeks ago and quite frankly I was impressed. It was the first of a series of productions under the sponsorship of the Ministry of Health. In all fairness to them I would have to say I was impressed with that presentation and if future productions and promotion of that particular scheme will tend to highlight the consequences of excessive use or abuse of alcohol, I think they are on the right track. When one considers the literally tens of millions of dollars in expense to society as a whole of the social and economic costs of the abuse of alcohol, if that $560,000 being spent in this current year by the Ministry of Health served the purpose it is intended to serve, I think the money is well spent.

Getting back to this particular section of this bill, I think it is absolutely ludicrous that you people should be spending millions and millions of dollars trying to pick up the pieces of people who really haven’t been able to control their urge to drink. When you consider the millions and millions of dollars it is costing OHIP and other forms of social assistance because of family breakups; because of the inability of family heads to produce a decent standard of living for their families; when you consider the tens and tens of millions of dollars it is costing you and we, as a society, as a result of the abuses of alcohol; I think it is absolutely ludicrous that you, the ministry responsible for the sale and the wise use of alcohol, allow these people to spend literally tens of millions of dollars promoting the sale of it. If people like it, they are going to drink it anyway.

To spend tens of millions of dollars on media of all forms, in order to promote even greater use of it, I think is counterproductive. The more successful they are in promoting their own particular products, the more problems you and I, as people responsible for keeping an orderly society, are going to face in social and economic terms.

I think if you were really sincere you would say “If one teenager or one individual in society is enticed to drink more as a result of this kind of advertising, I think you should stop and I think you should stop it now.” I think you’re being a little bit hypocritical to suggest that it’s fine and dandy because you are monitoring it and that as long as it falls within the four walls of your regulations it’s quite acceptable.

I’m sure, if you’re being honest with us here tonight and honest with yourself, I think you yourself are offended by some of those ads that come across. I’m sure you snicker to yourself and say: “Well, they’re really not kidding me. I know what their ulterior motive is. They want to sell more booze that creates more problems for society in social and economic terms.” I think it’s counterproductive. I think you should ban it entirely.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wellington South.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister, are the convictions that are recorded in regard to alcoholic offences passed on to your ministry? I would like to know if you have any records of last year’s convictions. I noticed in the annual report of the Ministry of the Solicitor General that there were some 35,000 convictions under the Liquor Control Act and some 11,000 under driving while impaired and in excess of 80 mg of alcohol in the blood. Do you have any record as to whether that’s up or down over previous years?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Those figures, Mr. Chairman, would be kept by the Attorney General (Mr. Clement) and we would have no knowledge of them. The charges are laid in the courts and the Attorney General is responsible for the operation of the courts.

Mr. Stokes: That’s the trouble. You don’t know what you’re doing.

Mr. Worton: Wouldn’t it be to your advantage to have these to assess just what is happening in the way of involvement of persons in the abuse of alcohol? Wouldn’t this be a factor?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Certainly those are available to us. If I might just revert back to the previous speaker, there has not yet been a jurisdiction that has been able to control this by legislation. I don’t know of one anywhere in the world. We’ve looked to see how best to control the distribution of alcohol and to reduce the social costs of abuse and the impaired driving charges and we haven’t been able to find a place that has been able to do it by legislation. You can have prohibition but if people want it they will get it even if you prohibit the product itself, let alone the advertising.

There’s really very little to show that consumption is any greater because of the ads. As a matter of fact, we’ve shown that consumption has gone up and advertising has gone down. There doesn’t seem to be any relationship between them. I quite agree that the advertisers are very ingenious. They are very creative and innovative. They have used every aspect of the directives -- I’m quite sincere in this, as I’ve watched the ads -- primarily to promote their brand. Perhaps in promoting their brand they promote the consumption.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Ban the advertising.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They are promoting brands in accordance with the directives. It’s all well and good to say ban the advertising. We have tried this with other products. Tobacco advertising has been stopped on television -- not completely, hut on television.

Mr. Young: But you increase it in other ways.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That hasn’t stopped the consumption of tobacco from going up, the use of tobacco and the abuse of it. It is ridiculous to show, as some of the tobacco ads in the magazines do, people having a great time, when at the bottom it says: “The Surgeon General warns you that this is harmful to your health.” They’re required to put the warning on, and it hasn’t stopped anybody from buying the product.

I think there’s a great deal to be said about advertising, but I don’t really believe that it has created overconsumption in the market.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Stormont.

Mr. Samis: First of all, I apologize for missing out on the debate this afternoon on this bill. While I share the concern of my colleague from Thunder Bay about the tremendous impact of advertising, I have to agree with the minister. I recall in my student days having visited the Soviet Union, where advertising, as you well know, is banned, and they have very serious drinking problems over there.

It’s interesting from my days of teaching in high school seeing why people are attracted to drink. I think with young people advertising undoubtedly is an influence, but I think there are other factors as well, such as the social mores and the values of a particular society.

What I would like to ask the minister is in his research for this bill has he found any jurisdictions that he would regard as a model in terms of how they treat the whole question of advertising of beer, wine and spirits? I would just like to know what your overall philosophical attitude is and what your ideal is in terms of how we treat this in the future -- not just this year, but for the next five to 10 years -- and where we’re going in our society.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Of course I don’t want to hedge behind not having been the minister, but I have read the research. This was done on both advertising and marketing, and it was felt that people were looking at Ontario as the model.

Ontario and Quebec have together developed this advertising directive, because that’s where the majority of the advertising originates. We have also worked with the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, which has the responsibility under the Broadcasting Act.

We think that among the three authorities, that is, Ontario and Quebec and the CRTC, as well as the liquor commissioners in the other provinces, that we have developed in Canada one of the most sensible sets of advertising directives -- and they are pretty well standard across the country -- that exist anywhere in the world.

Mr. Samis: How about the international scene? The Commonwealth countries?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, well, the Communist countries are of course --

Mr. Samis: No, the Commonwealth countries.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There are very little restrictions on advertising in any of the Commonwealth countries. I had hoped to be able to visit some of them this summer, but I won’t be able to find the time -- but we were hoping to see which direction they were going.

The hon. member did ask what direction we intended to go, and I can only say that the directives can become more stringent as time goes along, with the co-operation of the CRTC. We will continue to reduce the number of hours which are allowed on television, particularly.

We may, for example, allow the kind of thing that the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) complained about, the umbrellas outside an unlicensed restaurant. I don’t think it caused any great harm; but those aren’t permitted in the directives and, therefore, they were removed voluntarily by the importer.

I think we have to rationalize our directives, and at the same time going in the area of further reduction of advertising -- but a complete ban, I think, would be counterproductive.

Mr. Samis: May I ask what your research has shown in terms of European countries, whether they have liberalized or toughened their laws in advertising and compared the facts on drinking habits and alcoholism and so on? Have you come across any information to that effect?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The European countries have almost no prohibitions whatsoever. They consider liquor to be part of the free market in most of the countries, including the socialist countries and --

Mr. Young: Some of them are very tough with convicted drivers, for example.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In Sweden, for example, there are no curbs that I know of on advertising. Liquor is freely sold at almost every outlet. As you know, Britain has a hodgepodge of drinking hours, but that’s about the only control they have in Britain. They may look at Ontario as being a place where the drinking laws are very restrictive. We are only now, I think, coming to the point where we are rationalizing them without liberalizing them.

Mr. Young: They are very tough on convicted drivers.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Oh, that is another matter. I will speak to you on insurance.

Mr. Samis: Could I just ask one final question? Has there been any evolution in drinking in the European countries, because, obviously, it is a serious problem with the Mediterranean countries? Is there any evolution in terms of controls or education of any sort? They are more experienced with this problem than we are, obviously.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They have only recently recognized the problem in their own countries. We talked this afternoon about alcoholism being the very dramatic evidence of alcohol abuse, but probably not being the worst aspect of it. The cumulative costs of social drinking are the worst ones. They are now finding, for example, that they may not have as many alcoholics as they thought in countries like France, Italy and Portugal, but they have a tremendous amount of liver problems because of the lifelong drinking habits, so they are now going into education programmes in the schools. They are doing the kinds of moderation drinking advertising that the Minister of Health has started on here. They still haven’t got into restrictive legislation in the form that we have here. But I think they are beginning to recognize the problem and perhaps are looking to North America -- for a change -- for some leadership.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any more questions on section 40?

Mr. Edighoffer: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: What subsection?

Mr. Edighoffer: Oh, I am just wondering about subsection (t).

Mr. Haggerty: That’s a very moderate drink, tea.

Mr. Chairman: Any other inquiries previous to (t)?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): I wasn’t aware, Mr. Chairman, that we were going subsection by subsection. There was a focus on subsection (j), and that’s why people referred to it, but there was not --

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry. I came in tonight as you know and I understand we would do (j).

Mr. Cassidy: I had some questions related to section 40 generally; but the other member was up first.

Mr. Chairman: If it is ahead of (t), would you like to --

Mr. Cassidy: We are not going subsection by subsection, so if the member for Perth wants to go ahead, that’s quite all right with me.

Mr. Chairman: All right, the member for Perth.

Mr. Edighoffer: I am sorry. I guess on the new printed bill it is subsection (u), the identification card. On checking with the board some months ago I found that the identification card seems to be one of the poorer selling items of the board. Subsection (u) says: “Prescribing the form and content of the application for and of the card for proof of age.” I wonder if the minister has given any thought to making such a card mandatory for those 18 years old?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, no, we haven’t.

I’m not sure that I agree with the member when he says it is poor selling. The last report I saw from the LCBO indicates it is a very steady seller. There are several thousand of them going out all the time.

Mr. Edighoffer: Oh?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Oh yes. I don’t have the figures in front of me, but I happened to be glancing at them yesterday morning, and as I recall there were several thousand sent out in the preceding month -- I don’t recall the exact figure. No, we haven’t given any thought to making it compulsory. I think this becomes a question, I suppose, of philosophy -- of having compulsory identity cards.

Mr. Samis: They have them in Alberta, don’t they?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes. Well we have social security cards now. I don’t think that we want to have compulsory identification at this time. We have certainly not given it any thought, although obviously the law could be used for that purpose.

Mr. Samis: Could I ask a question on that clause, Mr. Chairman? Could you tell me if you are satisfied with the enforcement in most drinking establishments in this province of the minimum age? Are you satisfied the enforcement is strict enough?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The minimum age? Enforcement is the responsibility of the law officers. Certainly we know there are many people below the minimum age being served. It is an offence under the Act both to serve them and for them to consume alcoholic beverages, and the enforcement has to be left to the law officers and to the licensees. The licensees are punished quite severely when they are found to be contravening the Act.

Mr. Samis: You wouldn’t have any figures on the number of convictions?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, that is the Attorney General. You mean convictions --

Mr. Samis: For allowing minors to drink on their premises.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We might have those in the Liquor Licence Board. They wouldn’t be convictions. Their sanctions would be the suspension or cancellation of a licence.

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

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, a couple of specific questions and then one or two general ones. On a specific one -- I have been looking at the brief from the motel and hotel association. One of the points they raise -- which can’t be raised in the House directly because they were not down in committee -- is the possible licensing of employees rather than just the licensee. Their argument, which I would like to put to the minister, is simply that because there is a shortage of employees in the industry, possibly related to inadequate pay standards I might say, when an employee is fired because he breached a regulation -- and you know the licensee is punished and the employee is fired -- he can still come back into the industry because they are helpless, they have to hire somebody. That is the argument they put forward, and they suggest there would be more responsibility exercised by employees if the employee stood the risk of losing the right to work in the beverage-alcohol industry.

I am not sure how severe the problem is, and I’m not sure whether this isn’t a bit of a gratuitous attack on people they do generally underpay -- because the wages in the industry are pretty bad. But I would like to know what the minister’s considerations were on that particular point.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, we discussed this with the association. I don’t recall them mentioning anything about a shortage. They did mention the possibility of the person fired in one place for serving a minor getting a job in another place.

Mr. Cassidy: Because of the shortage.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t think there is that much of a shortage. They did say that through licensing they could at least hold the employee responsible. Our response was, if we start to license all waiters, bartenders and waitresses in this province, we will have a bureaucracy the size of which you would not want to envisage. There is no way we are going to start registering every waiter, every bartender, every waitress in the province -- particularly because it is by nature a transient kind of occupation. People work a few weeks then go somewhere else.

It would be an administrative nightmare to try to license them, keep track of them, keep them registered and collect fees for licensing. It was simply not the kind of task that we were prepared to undertake. We felt the privilege of having a licence brought with it the responsibility for supervising your employees to ensure that they obeyed the law, and we told that to the association when it presented its brief.

Mr. Cassidy: I wonder if the ministry would consider another approach which might be more positive -- and I accept the points made by the minister -- and that is, there is training available in the community colleges for people who want to go into restaurant management and for people who want to become chefs and that kind of thing. How far has the ministry or the Liquor Licence Board gone in terms of short training courses for people who are going to work in the hospitality industry?

This is something that the Ministry of Industry and Tourism may have an interest in as well, in order to help employers and employees upgrade standards. What kind of discussions have there been between the relevant boards or that minister or this minister and the hotel workers’ union, which is the main union in the industry, in terms of helping them or working with them in order to upgrade standards? And what steps has the ministry taken in order to encourage employers in the industry to upgrade salaries, job security and the other things that would lead to a better fitted, more capable work force in the industry?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: First of all, we have not involved ourselves in the actual training and education of the work force. I think the question of salaries and status of the employees would be more a matter for the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth) and, as you say, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) in the tourist trade. I am somewhat disappointed in that there was an initial response to our request for briefs from the union and then it sort of disappeared. I really had anticipated hearing more from the union, expressing its concerns about this Act and how it might affect its members, than I have heard.

I think we will be taking some initiatives, once the Act is passed and before the regulations are finally drafted, to ensure that we do have some input from them and that they also express some willingness to serve on the advisory council. But as I say, I did get an initial response, I have been looking forward since that time to a more detailed response and I have not had it, so we will probably have to take the initiative to go after the union and get its reaction to what we’re doing.

Mr. Cassidy: I gather then that you’re giving an assurance that there will be significant representation, a number of representatives of employees in the industry, on the liquor advisory committee? Is that right?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The Liquor Advisory Committee will be made up of nominees of associations and, as I say, we really have to locate some of these associations and ask them to give us names. I think I had one representation from one local of the bartenders’ union and that was the only one that we had. We will probably look for more. Maybe I will consult with my colleague, the Minister of Labour, to find out who in the field might be interested in having representation, because we certainly do want a wide variety of representation. But we want them nominated by their own organizations, rather than selecting individuals who come forward.

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps I can suggest this then, I know of two unions that have significant numbers of organized employees -- the hotel workers’ or bartenders’ union and the CBRT, which has a number of people in hotels like the Royal York, the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa, and other hotels across the province. In addition -- and I’m not quite sure how you get to them -- there are, of course, large numbers of employees in the industry who are not organized. I would suggest further that the minister might consider inviting the Ontario Federation of Labour to nominate one or two people to the Liquor Advisory Committee. Maybe they will be the body to try to find out the people who are in contact with the unorganized workers in the field.

The Liquor Advisory Committee is not statutory, and I would like to know what influence its recommendations will have on the regulations, and whether, specifically, it will be asked to comment every time there are new regulations or changes in the regulations which are being proposed by the ministry? Wouldn’t that be a good idea for the minister to accept?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, we’ve deliberately kept the advisory council’s terms of reference very loose. The chairman has already expressed a wish to initiate some inquiries of his own and we are certainly not standing in the way of that. At the same time I had expressed a wish to bounce some of the ideas off the council that have come to me during the course of preparation of this legislation. I don’t think there is any limit to what they can look into. I have an idea that their work will be so heavy, that they will probably have to break down into subcommittees and report back in that way.

Right now, I would say, I have at least 20 separate and distinct items that I would like them to look at. Of course, they will have right to comment on any changes. As an advisory committee -- and I have made it clear to the chairman that the advisory committee is simply that -- I hope that their advice will be sound. I expect it to be sound, because they will be appointed to give us sound advice. I am quite sure that we will probably be abiding by most of the things they advise the government to do. They will always he subject, of course, to the government’s final decision.

Mr. Cassidy: Maybe I can pursue this even further. This is a kind of “parliament of booze” that we are establishing or that the minister proposes to establish. How many members will there be in the Liquor Advisory Council -- or are there now? What associations do they represent? How many come from the manufacturing end of the industry? How many come from the hotels and restaurants and motels -- the proprietorial end of the industry? How many come from the employee end of the industry? How many come from the consuming end of the industry? How many come from those who have to pick up the pieces -- the health-care people, the alcohol rehabilitation people and maybe the teetotaller kind of people, who have various kinds of contact with the problems created by alcohol?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The council will be open-ended, Mr. Chairman, and as a result there really is no number set. I haven’t even a number in mind. I did see, for the first time last week, a suggested list of groups who should be invited. It was quite long -- a sheet of foolscap. It took almost the entire sheet. I have already spoken to Mr. Archibald about giving us three nominees from his group; there are also the Alcohol and Drug Concerns Inc.; the WCTU; the police chiefs; the hotel and motel association; the restaurant association.

You mentioned labour unions, consumer associations. Ethnic groups have been mentioned. We are simply going to try to give it as broad a representation of Ontario society as we possibly can, so that the advice which it gives to the minister, of the day, should be representative of Ontario society. I think it is a very unique experiment in having an open-ended council.

Mr. Stokes: Will the minister insist that one native person be on that?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We will ask for nominees from the native peoples groups.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. Cassidy: I have a couple more questions, Mr. Chairman. I can take it then that the industry -- that is, the hotel and restaurant industry and the manufacturers of beer and spirits -- will not dominate the council, is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Each association, that will be on the final list -- which we have not yet drawn up -- will be asked to nominate anywhere from three to five people, who are all entirely satisfactory. We would probably try to select one from each association. I expect the list will probably be well balanced between the industry’s side, the consumers’ side, the health side, the law protecting side -- everyone will be on it. It is not going to be a majority type voting council. It will try to reach consensus. Obviously it will not reach unanimity. I don’t think, in any subject, will there be unanimity when you are talking about something as sensitive as liquor. We will get, I think, a consensus on a broad range of questions, which we will put to them and which they will investigate on their own initiative. I am really looking forward to the kind of work that they will do. As new groups are brought to the attention of the ministry, we will have no hesitation, whatsoever, in asking them for nominees. But the appointments will be made by the ministry from that list.

We expect shortly to be announcing the executive committee to the chairman. This will be representative of the Consumers’ Association which is primarily the general public. That will be one area where there will not be an interest. In other words, these would be members of the public -- something along the same line as the chairman -- who don’t have a specific interest in the industry, except as members of the public. All of the rest of the council will be made up of special interest groups and presumably will promote their own special interests.

Mr. Cassidy: Finally, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate these comments from the minister. I raised a number of questions about the draft code of regulations. The minister said that we can’t discuss it, because they haven’t been passed yet. Could there be an assurance that draft regulations would go before the Liquor Advisory Council, before they are submitted to the Lieutenant Governor in Council? Would that not make a sensible way of handling this situation, in view of the fact that section 40 that we are considering in effect allows the writing of a complete new bill without any kind of oversight by this Parliament and in view of the fact that our regulations committee, as the minister is aware, is completely powerless to look at the content of regulations? All it is concerned about is whether there is legislative authority.

There is ample legislative authority here, but the content of those regulations should come under some form of public scrutiny. I am not saying you should be bound by the advice of the Liquor Advisory Council, but as a kind of parliament of booze, if they disagree strongly with a particular proposal, working by consensus, it would seem to me that the ministry will take that advice fairly seriously and think twice before going ahead with a regulation that touches off strong opposition, and that mightn’t be an unhealthy thing.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, we have had the draft code out since April of this year for public scrutiny exactly for that reason. We have had a variety of responses. You referred to the hotel-motel association brief. That is one of several hundred we will be seeing. We are now trying to iron out the conflicting submissions that have been made in the hope that we can see a consensus somewhere that we can put into at least a set of regulations so that we have working legislation and regulations; otherwise we have a vacuum. In those areas where there doesn’t seem to be any consensus at all between the pro and anti groups, whatever point it may be, we will, certainly.

That’s why I say we have at least 20 different things that I would like to submit to the advisory council so that it can get to work. I think we have a responsibility as a government, once the legislation is passed, to have regulations ready to be proclaimed at the end of the summer so that we can start working under the new legislation, because the new legislation, as you fully recognize, is completely useless without the regulations. We are going to have to pass regulations by the Lieutenant Governor in Council which will be published. Those items which we are not able to resolve will go to the advisory council.

Because of the flexibility of the regulation process, they can be pointed out to us by the advisory council immediately. I hope we don’t snake any mistakes of that nature, but we can react to them very quickly because the regulation-making process, as distinct from the legislation-amending process, is very, very fast.

Mr. Cassidy: Bearing in mind that the draft code of regulations will in effect have to be passed before the Liquor Advisory Council is fully formed, would the minister agree that subsequent changes in regulations will automatically go before the council and before the executive and that they will be informed of them and have some means of reacting before they go up before the Lieutenant Governor in Council?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I can’t make that assurance, Mr. Chairman, because it may be necessary to change a regulation very quickly to meet a specific need which had not been anticipated. Obviously the advisory council will have access to any regulations which have been passed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and if they don’t like them they will certainly not hesitate to let their views be known. But I don’t think I can commit the government to submitting it to an advisory council which may consist of 30 to 50 people and may want to conduct a public inquiry for three months in order to solve a problem which is of an urgent crisis nature and on which we have to act very quickly. I can’t make that commitment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cassidy: I hope you work in that spirit.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Oh, yes.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Chairman, I would like to carry on with one or two comments from the previous speaker. I spoke at some length during the bill on the Ombudsman in this regard. What has always bothered me, and you alluded to it earlier, is the fact that we set up the people under your direction in the Liquor Control Board and the Liquor Licence Board and everything else and we give them all these kinds of discretionary powers and arbitrary powers that they can really enforce at their whim.

I know there is no easy way around it, and I realize when it comes particularly to the regulations we have a severe problem, because we cannot have the regulations brought in as an amendment to the bill or attached to the bill or whatever. But it has always seemed to me that the intent of the legislation can be frustrated or circumvented or distorted by the regulations that ultimately appear, particularly because they never really appear to be approved, either by the House or a committee of the House.

We don’t have to go all through how the regulations are drawn up or finally promulgated, but certainly the members of the House, certainly members of the opposition, never have any input into the way these regulations finally appear in print. Having been a civil servant in my younger days -- which was just last week -- I realize just exactly how these things can come about and how the regulations can really frustrate the principles of the bills that they are intended to strengthen or give effect to.

I would like to talk to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, specifically about subsection (e) of section 40. This one deals with “the issuance of permits for special occasions and prescribing the special occasions for which permits may be issued.” I want to tie in my comments on section (e) with what I just said about the regulations, and I want to preface my comments with something that happened to me about three or four years ago.

At that point, of course, I was the member for Rainy River. I was appearing in court in Thunder Bay as a character witness for a Conservative who was up on a drunken driving charge -- not really, I would like that struck; I was just trying to get the minister’s attention. I was appearing in Thunder Bay at a court hearing where we were trying to have the American bush pilots cut off from flying into Canada, using our recreation areas and hunting and fishing. I was appearing at that court hearing in Thunder Bay, before a tribunal of the federal Ministry of Transport, and I got an urgent long-distance phone call from Emo, which is in my riding. Emo has always had a fall fair. Actually it is not a fall fair, it is a summer fair in the summer months. They have a two-week fair and they have cattle shows, and vegetable shows, and they have harness racing and stock car racing and the whole thing. To make a very long story short -- because I know the minister has a very short attention span -- they had applied for a special occasion permit for an outdoor beer garden at their summer fair.

Mr. Edighoffer: It’s like a ploughing match.

Mr. Reid: That’s right, and they had sent in their application, duly certified and notified with all the information, and they had received one of the many curt replies back from the special occasion permits branch saying, “You are not eligible for a special occasion permit; request denied.”

No reason was given, nothing. So they contacted me and they got me out of the court hearing and I phoned -- and I must admit I can’t recall the gentleman’s name to whom I spoke in the special occasion permits branch -- and I said: “Can you tell me on what basis this application for an outdoor beer garden at this summer fair was turned down?”

The gentleman -- and he was a young fellow, which I don’t hold against him personally -- said, “That’s our policy.”

I said to him, “Well, if that is your policy, can you quote me the regulation or, alternatively, the part of the section of the Liquor Control Act that that policy is found in, or where you have jurisdiction?”

There was a long silence. He said, “Well I will have to get back to you.”

Very shortly, he came back on the phone and said, “Well, there is no regulation or statute jurisdiction for this, but that is the board’s policy.”

I said, “Well, how do they arrive at policy in these matters?” And he couldn’t tell me. I said, “Was the policy decided over a coffee break?” and he said very honestly, “Perhaps it was.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, they were giving these kind of permits to the summer fairs at Waterloo and all the ones down east within calling distance or driving distance of Toronto. They were getting their special occasion permits and there was no problem.

He called me back in two hours and said, “I have spoken to the powers that be. We are sending them authority to have their beer garden at the Emo summer fair.”

That was a particular example of the kind of arbitrary decisions that are made by the board. It is an example, first of all, Mr. Chairman, of the arbitrariness that the board can employ. Had we been within 100 miles of Toronto there would have been no refusal in the first instance -- they would have got it. The second was that the board was able to make a decision without any reference to any statute or any regulation. It was simply that those people up in northern Ontario are not entitled to this kind of thing, even though the people in southern Ontario are. That is a very serious problem that we, in northern Ontario, face.

The second problem in this regard is that, as in most areas -- and perhaps small towns in northern Ontario are particularly prone to this -- there are many special occasion permits that need to be issued, for stags, for weddings, for all the service clubs. It seems that the smaller the community, the more service clubs or community functions are going on that require a special occasion permit.

As the system now stands, they have to go to the Liquor Control Board store for a permit, and they have to say it’s for a certain club or organization that is sponsoring it. Then they have to mail it in, with their $5 or $10 -- the amount escapes me -- to Toronto. Somebody under Mr. Gertley, if I recall correctly, looks at the application and says, “All right, is this valid? We will issue the licence.”

It seems 50 per cent of the time the authority has to be wired or Telexed down to them. In some cases, because of the slowness of the mail -- and I can attest to this -- it may take 10 days or longer for a letter to get from Fort Frances or Atikokan or Rainy River or Ignace down to Toronto. It may then sit on somebody’s desk for one or two days, so it is quite possible that almost 2½ weeks may go by before somebody looks at it.

What I am working around to is the fact that we should have someone in northwestern Ontario and probably someone in northeastern Ontario, out of Sudbury or Sault Ste. Marie, to have authority to issue the special occasion permits.

It is not as if the people who are applying for these things are Satan’s Choice or the Devil’s Disciples motorcycle gangs or whatever. It seems to me that our approach to these things should be that this is now, whether we like it or not, a legitimate social function. The local police or the OPP are informed. They have the responsibility to check these kinds of things and if everything is in order the licence should be issued forthwith. The onus should be on the protective elements of our society to ensure that the liquor regulations are being complied with, but it shouldn’t be such a hassle.

I say to the minister, through the chairman, that I have had excellent co-operation from Mr. Gertley and the people in that branch. I have no complaints. But it seems to me that it shouldn’t be necessary for these people or organizations to have to come to the member and say, “They turned us down. Can you do anything about it?” Nine times out of 10 the application will be approved unless somebody has really made a mess of it.

But the real point is that it seems to me there should be someone in each region of the province -- not just northwestern or northeastern Ontario but someone in each region. You could designate, I would think, five regions.

Mr. Haggerty: The liquor inspector is right there.

Mr. Reid: Even the liquor inspector, as my friend from Welland says, should be able to say, “All right, you have the authority to go ahead. You can buy your 10 cases of beer and four bottles of rye, six bottles of gin -- whatever you want,” and notify the local police or the OPP and say, “These people have a permit.”

There may be a problem in that you put the local inspector on the spot in case he turns somebody down. But he’s being paid for accepting that responsibility. At the very least there should be someone in the region who can Telex back within 20 minutes and say, “You’ve got the permit. Proceed as you will. All you have to do is follow the liquor regulations as outlined on the back of the application form.”

Now, we’ve been through this, Mr. Chairman, with this minister and his predecessor ad nauseam. It is not a big thing. But it would provide the service, at least to northern Ontario, that people within 100 miles of Toronto enjoy all the time.

I have some other comments. Maybe the minister would like to reply to that one.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I suppose the danger of the long debate is that there are always repetitive questions asked and repetitive answers given. I’ll be very brief. We have already dealt with the question of regionalization of the issue of special occasion permits. This is the last ministry you will have to ask because it is now being provided.

Mr. Reid: Glad to hear that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: And I think you did a disservice to your riding. I’m sure summer lasts longer than two weeks, even in Rainy River. But I don’t think it is really constructive to go over the past history of what has gone on.

In the introduction of the bill it was noted that one of the weaknesses has been the fact that there has been nothing written down that people can refer to and say, “That is the condition under which I will get a licence. I am entitled to one if I meet the conditions.

This is exactly what we are doing with section 40. We are going to have regulations which will be written and to which everybody can refer, saying, “I fit that regulation. Give me my licence.” And then, of course, if it is denied, there is an appeal provision.

Of course, in the event that the regulations are not all-embracing, we will have the flexibility to change them. So I really think that the new codification in the new Act will serve to avoid many of those problems. I was pleased to hear you say that you had no complaints because it sounded to me as though you were complaining about the fact that the licence was not granted in the first place.

But, in terms of the numbers of licences issued, that kind of comment is very, very scarce. I think the member would agree, Mr. Chairman, that he has received co-operation. I think all members have had this kind of co-operation when problems arise.

We must have some control. I think the local issuing of permits will enable us not to be overly suspicious of the Devil’s Disciples or the Satan’s group, whoever they might be. Because it is difficult in Toronto to ascertain who the group is that is applying for the licence.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister. I would also ask his indulgence. I was in his area last night, as a matter of fact --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: You stay out of my area.

Mr. Reid: -- so if I am being unnecessarily repetitive, please stop me. The other point is on subsection (m), “prescribing standards for premises or the part thereof ... ” I may have the wrong section of the Act, but I want to say something to the minister that I hope he will pass on to his inspectors particularly. I would like to preface it by asking if he has the figures on the number of establishments in, let’s say, Metro Toronto at his fingertips? Does he have the number of establishments in Metro Toronto that are now licensed under the Liquor Control Act?

The reason I ask is that in northern Ontario we have relatively few licensed bars. Most of our bars are in hotels so we have very few places with tavern licences or a nightclub licence. I have now been in Toronto for eight years and, of course, I would never go into any of these places on Yonge St. myself, unless --

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Who would you go in with?

Mr. Reid: -- unless the member for Brantford (Mr. Beckett) invited me. That used to happen on occasion before he was elevated to that great place in the sky.

Hon. R. B. Beckett (Minister Without Portfolio): Even now I am not that hard up.

Mr. Reid: I must say that over the period of eight years I have been here, Mr. Chairman, I have been inveigled into some of these places, especially along Yonge St., on my way home at night.

Mr. Stokes: Shame.

Mr. Samis: They had to twist your arm.

Mr. Reid: I must say I have done it only in a completely scientific manner to see exactly what was going on and to perceive the Toronto natives in their indigenous habitat.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s what most people go for.

An hon. member: What about Grossman’s?

Mr. Reid: I have even been into Grossman’s bar on Spadina, as a matter of fact, which will give you an idea of my fantastic research and --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Careful.

Mr. Samis: The breadth and scope of your research.

Mr. Reid: That’s right, the breadth and scope to which I have gone to look into this matter.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Have you been in Grossman’s Tavern?

Mr. Reid: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Great place, eh?

Mr. Reid: Great place? The only disappointing thing about being in Grossman’s Tavern was I expected the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick would pop out from behind a door with his white apron on with a tray of draft beer, saying, “What’ll you have? Here it is.”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You came at the wrong time.

Mr. Reid: Maybe you were playing the guitar there the last time. There was somebody I didn’t recognize in the band; it may have been you.

Mr. Haggerty: He’s a good fiddler anyway.

Mr. Stokes: Was it you who got the Victory closed?

Mr. Reid: If you can’t find him in Grossman’s, he’s just down the street a little south, anyway.

The point I really want to make to the minister is that I very often find his inspectors -- I have yet to meet one whom I didn’t like and respect -- perhaps more imbued with the legalization and the authority of the Liquor Control Act and the Board than the people who operate in Toronto. I say this most respectfully, Mr. Chairman, to the chairman. I don’t mind admitting to you I have seen things in some of these bars, particularly on Yonge St., which really amazed me.

It amazed me that those kinds of things could be going on in the city of Toronto particularly when I know that in my riding, if they find somebody under the definition of drunk, spilling their drinks or knocking them on the floor, the owner, manager or whatever of the hotel or licensed premises is hauled up in front of the chairman. He is required to come down to Toronto, 1,200 miles, at his own expense, to see the chairman or the board who say, “We have had these complaints.”

I am not saying that all these people -- I know there are a few of them who are real bad actors and maybe they should lose their licenses altogether -- it seems to me there are two kinds of liquor morality here. There is Yonge St., and that’s the only example, I must admit, that I can fasten on, and there are some of the bars, taverns and hotels in northern Ontario.

Mr. Stokes: What is your preoccupation with Yonge St.?

Mr. Reid: I don’t spend any time there anymore. Now that the minister is licensing 8mm movies I guess I won’t spend any time on Yonge St.

Really, I don’t go into these places. I don’t want to mention any names like the Bermuda Tavern and some of these others on Yonge St. I have seen life in the raw. I have been to --

Mr. Samis: You had better show --

Mr. Reid: -- Guelph and I’ve been to Nipigon and all these places.

Mr. Chairman: Order, order.

Mr. Reid: Really, I want to make that point because I feel that perhaps the inspectors are a little over-zealous in their requirements not just for offences against the Liquor Act but offences against the Hotel Act or to do with fire escapes and all these things which I understand are necessary. I appreciate them.

When I go into some of these places and I see the kind of exits they have; the kind of entrances they have; the way the tables and the people are crammed into these places; the kind of service they provide; the dirt and the filth in some of these places; I am really amazed when somebody in my riding phones me and says, “The liquor inspector was here and, by God, if we don’t do this we are going to be in trouble with the board.”

Which brings me to the next point; and I wrote the minister a letter on this about a year ago. Some of the hotels got orders from the board saying that if they didn’t comply by a certain date, that was it; they were going to lose their licences. Most of these were in relation to safety standards, which I really can’t quarrel with too much. I don’t quarrel with the fact that the board has a duty and a responsibility to say to these people, “Look you provide exits, you provide stairwells, you provide fire doors, and so on.” I can’t quarrel with that, obviously. But it’s the kind of dictatorial tone that the letters are written in that really bothers me -- and I have seen the letters. The word fascist comes to mind; but I’m not going to use that word.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Thank you for your restraint.

Mr. Reid: I’m not always so restrained, as the minister knows. But they really are couched in terms and attitudes that really bother me, particularly when they come from the civil service of the Province of Ontario.

Again, there is no doubt that some of these people will only respond to that kind of thing; after they’ve been given three or four letters or four or five warnings. But in some cases this was the first time it had happened.

I want to say to the minister, through the chairman, under the gallery, that really I think the minister should maybe be a little more tolerant, more tolerant. I don’t say he should relax the standards or anything. But it really bothers and annoys me as a person coming from the north.

When I’m home to see my constituents, I sit down in those places regularly and have a beer, because I enjoy that. I see what goes on in the main street of Toronto and the environs; and then I get word coming back from the people who run these places in my area saying, “They are really putting the pressure on me for this, that or the other thing.” But they allow all kinds of things to go on along Yonge St. This is a personal opinion. I hope we haven’t been through this ad nauseam, but perhaps the minister can respond.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, we discussed during second reading the new role of the liquor licence inspectors and their capacity as advisers to the establishments, rather than enforcers of regulations. Obviously, they will have to inspect. Again, one of the things that will be written out and very meticulously detailed will be these particular building standards. Probably those will be the last regulations to be written, because they are very complex.

I don’t accept that the enforcement in the north is any more stringent than that in the south. I want to introduce the member to some of his colleagues in this House from Metropolitan Toronto --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes siree.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- who have complained quite bitterly about the strict enforcement of standards.

Mr. Reid: You wouldn’t get away with anything with the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They say they are too easy in the north and too tough in Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I thought you were going to pursue the question of figures. I just happen to have a mass of detailed figures as to the kinds of establishments in various parts of the province. I want you to know that your area per capita is probably better served than Metropolitan Toronto in terms of the number of outlets.

Mr. Samis: He is rubbing off on you now. More taps per square mile.

Mr. Reid: When the minister says better served, I’m sure that’s kind of a play on words -- and perhaps he didn’t intend it. Perhaps the minister is right and I’m glad to hear what he has to say in this regard. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that I do feel that maybe we are being unduly restricted. I think we should get the same kind of break. I wonder if I could repeat my question. Does he have the number of outlets, let’s say, in Metro Toronto; do you have that figure handy, just as a matter of interest?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It depends on just what kind of outlets, because there is a difference between hotels, restaurants, taverns, public houses.

Mr. Reid: Let’s say how many licensed establishments -- you probably have a gross figure for that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, the total number of licensed establishments -- not including clubs and messes, which are a special kind of thing -- but in Toronto it would be 1,100, not including hotels. If you added hotels, you would have 1,916.

Mr. Reid: That’s in Metro Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Metro Toronto, yes.

Mr. Reid: Can you relate that to the number of people they are serving per capita?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I hope your arithmetic is better than mine. I don’t have it on a per capita basis. I could tell you what they are in the district of Kenora, Rainy River and Thunder Bay -- about 500.

Mr. Reid: One establishment to 500 people?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, no, I am saying 500 total establishments as compared to 1,900 -- approximately 25 per cent of the number of establishments that are in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Reid: The minister no doubt understands that we have almost two-thirds of the land mass of the Province of Ontario, and when you are campaigning particularly, it’s a long drive between one and the other.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Between drinks, I have been in Nipigon.

Mr. Stokes: A veritable oasis.

Mr. Reid: That’s right. You know, it makes the Sahara look like just a very short neighbourhood when one has to get from one place to the other. Let me ask the minister where in the regulations does he have any kind of standard as to the number of establishments per capita?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, that isn’t one of the criteria that’s used in issuing licences, although the board has the power to look at the number of licensees in a particular area. Again, we went over this yesterday. The public input in the hearing process will probably revolve around the number of outlets in an area; that is, if a group of people go and oppose the issuing of a licence, one of the grounds on which they might oppose it would be that the area is adequately served with outlets. But there are not specific criteria. The board will have to make some very subjective decisions in that regard.

Mr. Reid: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Section 40. The member for Stormont.

Mr. Samis: Could I ask about subsection (o), Mr. Chairman, very briefly, dealing with the minimum alcoholic contents? Have you given any encouragement to the manufacturers in Ontario to offer a variety of beverages of different alcoholic content in terms of beer? For example, in some Latin American countries there is a fairly wide option available. Have you offered any encouragement to them to offer near beer, for example, lighter beer? I know one brewery is already experimenting with it now.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, there was a provision in Bill 44 which permits the Liquor Control Board of Ontario to carry a variety of beverages which are not alcoholic beverages in the true sense of the word. Obviously the board will have the authority to carry them and they will still have to meet all the quality tests, and it will be the board’s decision. But with the potential market for them in Ontario, presumably now that there is authority to carry them in the liquor stores, the manufacturers will start manufacturing them. That was provided for in the Liquor Control Act.

Mr. Samis: But is there any incentive? I mean they are just experimenting right now.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, Mr. Chairman, we are not subsidizing --

Mr. Samis: No, I don’t mean that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We are not subsidizing the manufacturer of any alcoholic beverage.

Mr. Samis: How would you react to the idea of a quota; they must produce X percentage of the market sales in that? You reject that? I see.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Welland South.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, in section (o) they are “prescribing the minimum alcoholic content of wine and beer for the purposes of clauses (b) and (p) of section 1.” Is there any reason why the Liquor Licence Board cannot put the alcohol content on each bottle of wine, beer or liquor? In some cases imported wine is labelled as having 12 per cent alcohol content. Can you not do the same thing here with the different spirits that are available in Ontario, and the beer too?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I would assume, Mr. Chairman, that any such powers would be given to the Liquor Control Board under the Liquor Control Act. I don’t recall whether or not in that Act the board does, in fact, prescribe the alcoholic content. I knew that they do have certain regulations to define what a liquor is, what a beer is and what a wine is, and this regulation would be to prescribe the minimum alcoholic content of wine and beer as defined in the clauses mentioned in the subsection. But there is no power given in this regulation for this board to determine what goes on the label of products manufactured in Ontario. That would, if anything, be a power of the Liquor Control Board.

Mr. Haggerty: The reason I bring it to the minister’s attention is I thought that perhaps it should be indicated here that the label should inform the person who is purchasing the spirits of the content of alcohol in that bottle. If you want to control the use of alcoholic spirits, then I think you should inform the public just what they are drinking and how much strength is in it. I am not that frequent a user of alcoholic beverages but to my knowledge it is not indicated there.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Oh, yes. All distilled beverages would have the proof on them. Most of the wines show the amount of alcohol. The beers are standard except for one low alcohol beer.

Mr. Haggerty: Those are imported wines.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, all the wines.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): By volume.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They show it by volume and when you go into the wine store they show you the sugar content, the dryness -- and so on.

Mr. Haggerty: Is it on the label?

Mr. Drea: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes.

Sections 40 to 42, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 43:

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question in relation to section 43. There again we run into the problem of the regulations. Can the minister give us any indication as to just who might be exempt, shall we say? For instance, my father used to be in the hotel business and it would happen --

Mr. Drea: Shame.

Mr. Reid: Shame?

Mr. Drea: No kidding.

Mr. Reid: If we had the member for Scarborough Centre in my riding, my father would still be in the hotel business. Can you give us any indication who might be exempt from these regulations? For instance, can they give them as goodwill, if, say, the government is putting on a little display or a hotelkeeper or whoever?

I have the feeling, and maybe I am out of sync with everybody on this, that maybe we are getting unduly restrictive with all these things.

Mr. Drea: Oh come, come!

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Section 43 simply prohibits a manufacturer from making gifts of liquor to anyone except under certain circumstances and except as permitted by the regulations. There are a number of cases where liquor manufacturers are permitted to provide samples of their product under certain circumstances. I think I could say that there would not be a regulation which would permit the government to accept donations. In many cases there are manufacturers who host luncheons and as a result are permitted to provide samples. We have wine-tasting parties. I was at one not too long ago. There are a variety of places where it is appropriate in the marketing process for sampling to be permitted. This would be permitted by regulation.

Mr. Reid: For instance, somebody is having a stag. What brings it to mind is that in my riding Fort Frances puts on something called “Fun in the Sun” for a week in July 1 to 6 or 7. Molson’s supplies a great deal of advertising. They have their sound truck there and so on. They do a great deal of things for this programme. They also advertise almost Canada-wide on their labels that this is going on in Fort Frances. Would they be prohibited from supplying beer in this particular case? They know very well that hopefully people will buy their product. Do you consider that a legitimate marketing process?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t know what the specific regulation would say but I would say that would not be legitimate. The advertising feature of having the truck there would be. We just had a community picnic in my area. In this case, it was the O’Keefe caravan without Paul Rimstead that came and provided the loudspeaker system for the softball game and the races and the potato sacks and everything else, but there was no liquor and no beer being furnished free of charge. I think that would be inappropriate.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, before we go on, since the member for Rainy River has chosen to bring my name into this, I would say to the member for Rainy River if he has any evidence or anything he would like to bring before the appropriate commission or the appropriate body dealing with these matters, since he is a man of many proposals, that he do so. If you feel that somebody is violating this, for heaven’s sake, bring it to the attention of the minister or the chairman of the Liquor Licence Board. I think that would cover it at the moment but in the past it might have been the Liquor Licence Board or the LCBO.

Mr. Reid: I was trying to get in on the free donations.

Mr. Drea: I am sure you were. That’s exactly why I rose on it.

Section 43 agreed to.

On section 44:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Welland South.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to discuss this particular section, “No person shall sell or supply liquor or permit liquor to be sold or supplied to any person apparently (there’s the “apparently”) in an intoxicated condition.” I don’t know who will enforce this particular section but I recall the days when I was a member of local council and at one time, I believe, the municipality received from the Liquor Licence Control Board -- or one of those bodies -- a grant of maybe $2,500 or $3,000 to police tins particular section. I don’t know if it still continues this way or not but the grant was provided to the municipality to enforce this particular section.

This particular section really concerns me to some extent. As I said, I don’t frequent these places too often but it really disturbs me to see a police cruiser sitting outside the premises, just waiting for some person, perhaps innocent, to come out. The minute he puts his key in the ignition they are ready to pounce on him. He is charged with impaired ability or being intoxicated.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Then he is not innocent.

Mr. Haggerty: The reason I bring this to your attention is that if this section was policed as it should be --

Mr. Stokes: They are doing him a favour.

Mr. Drea: That’s right.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, they are doing him a favour after the damage is done.

Mr. Ferrier: But he’s not innocent, eh?

Mr. Haggerty: If this section was to be policed as is indicated here, the hotelkeeper or the innkeeper would be the one to be charged for having that person intoxicated in the first place. I have often seen the trays loaded up and before the person disposes of that one drink he is loaded up with another drink.

Mr. Stokes: You have often seen it?

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, I have seen it. It really bothers me. Who is going to enforce this particular section? In the case of a person charged with impaired ability or with being intoxicated, should it not go back to the innkeeper or the hotelkeeper? Is he not the one responsible for getting that person intoxicated in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Of course he is.

Mr. Haggerty: You can watch them; you see them staggering down Yonge St. here. It goes on day after day.

Mr. Drea: You had better talk to the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook). He didn’t want that stopped.

Mr. Haggerty: All right, Mr. Chairman, but the point is he can still be within his own capabilities.

Mr. Drea: The member for Sarnia didn’t want that stopped.

Mr. Haggerty: That’s right but it’s not apparently in this particular instance that he is intoxicated. The point I raised with the member for Scarborough centre is that the person who is guilty of this offence in the first place is the owner of those premises. That’s where the charge should be laid.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, it is an offence. It says no person shall do it. Obviously we can’t have an inspector in every licensed establishment in this province for every minute of their business operations. The deterrent, of course, is the loss of the licence which is the loss of livelihood and if this should happen in your area I hope you won’t come running to me saying, “Please give the man his licence back because he is now out of business.” I think the punishment is pretty severe and we expect, as a condition of holding a licence, that the man will obey the law, in particular this section of the Act.

You are quite right, it is his responsibility. I am quite sure there have been cases where people have driven off in an intoxicated condition, been killed in an automobile accident and their heirs and their estate have sued the tavern owner because he has neglected his responsibilities under this Act and under its predecessor. I think that is a pretty strong section, and there is an obligation on the part of the person who holds the licence to police his own establishment; but we will have inspectors, and they do their job and they certainly do lay charges.

Mr. Haggerty: Are the grants still available to the municipalities for police in this particular section?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No.

Mr. Haggerty: They used to be.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They get police grants for policing, and it’s their responsibility to police their municipalities.

Mr. Haggerty: This was a special grant.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, not that I know of.

Mr. Haggerty: Is there a member of your staff who can answer? Well, is there any possibility that a little advertising could be done under the Liquor Licence Act to advise patrons of beverage rooms of the alcoholic content of drinks and warning them that if they have three drinks, they could be charged with certain offences, such as get tin into a car and driving it away? Is there any way you could advertise that a person has had enough to drink at a certain level?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The impaired driving aspect of the hon. members’ question, of course, is not our responsibility. It’s an offence under the Highway Traffic Act to be in charge of a vehicle while impaired. The question of a person selling or supplying to a person who is in or apparently in an intoxicated condition is a violation or a contravention of this Act, and the sanctions are provided for in the Act. We will be coming to those sanctions in the later sections. Every licensee knows when he gets his licence that he is not supposed to serve anyone who is in an intoxicated condition. That’s all.

Mr. Haggerty: Well, again, Mr. Minister, what you have indicated to me is that your business is to sell liquor. You don’t care how you can control it to see that offenses do not occur.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Oh yes, we do.

Mr. Haggerty: All I’m suggesting is that you put up a sign in hotels or beverage rooms, wherever it may be in there, warning a person who is drinking that once he has had three drinks, that is enough.

Mr. Samis: Couldn’t you modify that and say the proprietor has the right to refuse drinks to a person who is intoxicated?

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

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, all I want to draw to the attention of my friend from Welland South is that I only like to see a conversion once a day on the road to Damascus, so to speak. But you and your party stood up on section 37(2); you took great umbrage with “apparently.” Now the question is, “Are we going to go after the hotel waiter? Is the policeman outside being too strict?”

All I’m saying to you -- and I’m not casting any stones -- is that you can’t have a liquor Act in this province two ways. Either you want it enforced for the protection of the public -- and you voted against that this afternoon -- or you want it wide open.

I am really flabbergasted by all these questions. What about the waiters? Should there be a sign up? Should there be this? Should there be that? It’s all covered in here. It seems very odd to me that the people -- and I quote the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) -- who stand for small-l liberalization are asking those kinds of questions. You can’t be both things at the same time. Either you want the liquor code enforced the way it should be or you want it liberalized to the point where there is virtually no enforcement. You voted against it once, and it really flabbergasts me that it would come up again tonight. You said “apparently” is too much of an inducement to the police officer --

Mr. Haggerty: You said that.

Mr. Drea: No, you voted for it; not me. No, you raised this amendment. Your party raised it last night. You voted for it today. Apparently it was just too stringent an obligation to put on a police constable. Then we hear it tonight. Why don’t we put up signs saying, “One drink, two drinks, three drinks, four drinks -- you might get picked up for being impaired”? You can’t have it both ways. I’m not subbing it in or anything else, but we’ve got a long way to go tonight.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, perhaps to answer the member for Scarborough Centre, my major complaint is that you are spending around $565,000 on this alcohol education programmes. You know, you can’t have it both ways.

Mr. Drea: That has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Haggerty: It certainly does have.

Mr. Drea: No, it doesn’t.

Mr. Haggerty: If you want to control drinking, which is quite a problem in the Province of Ontario and perhaps throughout almost every developed nation in the world and which is costing other taxpayers a fortune --

Mr. Drea: Were you here this afternoon?

Mr. Haggerty: I was here this afternoon. I have been sitting here all day. The whole point I want to say to you is if you are going to have a programme like this you can’t have it both ways. You want it wide open and you want to control it. That is what you are telling me.

Mr. Drea: Not us.

Mr. Haggerty: I just said the word “apparently” comes up again in this one particular paragraph. Whether that is the right word or not, I don’t know; I don’t think it is. The other point I would raise is that a few years ago, as a member of a municipal council, there were grants provided particularly for the policing of hotels for that particular section there. Can anyone in your branch tell me whether it continues today or not?

Mr. Drea: It is under the general policing.

Mr. Haggerty: It is shoved in under that. Then you are shirking your responsibility once more. Who is going to police it? You have your own inspector but he can’t cover about 125 outlets on the Niagara peninsula or maybe more than that. One man can’t do it. Then, as I said, there are infractions under that section that are not being policed as they should be.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is under section 44.

Mr. Haggerty: If it was policed as it should be, we wouldn’t have the persons picked up on the street for impaired ability.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, if there were no offences under this bill, there would never be anybody drunk in the province, let’s face it. You can’t get drunk unless you are supplied with or are sold liquor, and that is all there is to it. Obviously there are offences under this section which are not caught. I suppose what the hon. member is saying is that we should enforce it more stringently and the sanction will be the loss or suspension of licence to anybody that we can prove bas contravened this section or any other section of the Act. There are provisions for large fines, Those may be discussed later on. There are provisions for jail terms for contraventions of the Act. I feel the Act is pretty tough, but obviously any time you see anybody drunk there has been a contravention of the Act because it is a contravention to serve that person.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions on any other section of the bill?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I just want to add one last thing. If the member for Welland South is really sincere in what he says, and I believe he is, then I can reasonably expect him to support the government on sections 46 and 47.

Mr. Chairman: Do you wish to speak on sections 46 and 47?

Mr. Drea: No, I am just saying right now that I reasonably expect the member and his party to support the government on sections 46 and 47.

Mr. Chairman: Any other questions on any other section?

Mr. Samis: On section 45(2) I think I can guess why the minister has worded it that way, especially when he talks about “apparently under the age,” and “from the appearance” and so on. I am just wondering if he can give us an explanation of why it has been worded that way.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is a continuation of the old wording and it has been there for quite some time. We have had a fair amount of debate this afternoon on the word “apparently.” I quoted this section as the reason for using the word “apparently” in a previous section where we did have a vote prior to the dinner break. This is, to permit a person to make a subjective decision without having to be found guilty. If a person is not apparently under the age of 18 then there would have to be a prosecution against that person and he would have to show that he felt this person was not under 18. I think it would be a question in his view, of whether or not this person was apparently 18. He can always demand proof of age to satisfy himself, if he wants to, and he can refuse to serve the person. The word “apparently” has been there for quite some time and has worked quite well.

Mr. Samis: Doesn’t the minister find that can be used as a loophole by certain unscrupulous proprietors if they want to get around the law?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t really think it is a loophole because if the charge is laid, then it would seem to me, while he may say that the person is not apparently under the age of 18 years of age, that would be a question of judgement. If the charge was laid and the person was there in front of the person who was making the decision who said, “No, in my view, this person is quite obviously under the age of 18,” the defence simply wouldn’t stand up.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: I would like to speak briefly on subsection 6 of section 45. My reason for doing so is that I’m concerned about the suppliers, those who supply alcoholic beverages to minors.

I was discussing with my colleague from Guelph the number of convictions under the Liquor Control Act and there were something like 36,000. I don’t know what percentage of those would be attributed to those under the age of 18 who are consuming.

There’s a particular court held in my riding once a month and I think the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development might even know the community I’m referring to since he and I have had reason to discuss it from time to time. If you take the time to go to that court, there could be up to 100 cases appearing on the docket and a good 50 per cent of them might be attributed to charges under the Liquor Control Act or even this Act of consuming under the age of 18.

It’s a fairly routine thing. The juvenile is paraded before the court, the charge is read and you hear a few giggles in the courtroom. The judge says, “Guilty or not guilty?” A few more snickers and he pleads guilty. The judge will say, “All right, $10 or five days.” Or “Fifteen dollars and 10 days.”

Usually they find the money and everything is back to normal except that next month the same kids are before the same judge on the same charge. It’s just like a sausage factory -- the same violations, the same people, the same result. The officers of the court don’t even take the trouble to question the accused, the kids, or to question the arresting officer and say, “Did you hold an inquiry at the time? Did you try to determine who the supplier was?”

Obviously, it’s somebody who’s under age -- if you sit in that courtroom as I have from time to time you see 13-, 14- and 15-year-old kids of both sexes. It’s quite obvious to everybody that they are under the age of 18 and yet nobody, including the judge, takes the trouble to find out who the real culprit is in the piece.

I consider section 45, subsection 6, is just a joke really. Not because I’m trying to ridicule you but the arresting officer, sure, will make a real and honest attempt to find out who supplied the juvenile with the liquor. But it’s very difficult to get it out of the kids simply because the source will dry up and the ball game is over.

I think it is the responsibility of the courts to back up the law enforcement agencies in this province. I think it’s somewhat different when you’ve got an arresting officer trying to quiz a kid who’s in a drunken stupor and trying to get sense out of him. I think it’s an entirely different matter when you get a juvenile in a courtroom where there’s supposed to be a certain amount of decorum and where it’s a little bit more awesome.

I think it is the responsibility of the courts to see how subsection 6 of this section can be enforced. It’s just a joke right now. Nobody even takes the trouble to ask. It’s just routine in a good many of the courts that are sitting. I don’t know what it would be like down here in Metropolitan Toronto, I’m only speaking of the area that I know best.

I would like to impress upon this minister to chat with his colleague, the Provincial Secretary for Justice, who also wears the other two hats of Attorney General and the Solicitor General. I would say it is absolutely meaningless for your ministry to have this section in the Act if they aren’t going to co-operate.

If juveniles of 14, 15 and 16 are getting into the habit of drinking at that very tender age, you know what is going to happen. The problems are just going to continue to escalate. Before they even get into the world of work they have become well established drunks and alcoholics. Until such time as your colleague, the Provincial Secretary for Justice, really takes a look at what’s going on in the courts, with regard to the enforcement of this section, everything that you and I and everybody else may want to do will be of no effect at all. We must come to grips with the real offender -- the person who is of age and who is supplying juveniles with the liquor that leads up to the kind of offences that we are talking about.

I had occasion to write to your colleague, the Provincial Secretary for Justice, with a copy to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch). I am hoping as a result of that we will at least begin to take the initial steps toward fighting the ravages of alcoholism. In the northern part of the province I think it’s a real dilemma -- it’s a real social and economic problem.

When you allow people to supply juveniles with complete impunity -- no questions asked at all -- the juvenile goes before the court and it’s an automatic, $5 and 10 days or $10 and 15 days, or whatever. As I said before, it’s just like a sausage factory. Until your colleagues back up your law enforcement officers, and make sure that when they find the violations and bring them to the attention of the court, until the court does a little bit of digging and tries to bring the real culprit -- that is the supplier -- to heel and make sure that he pays his debt to society for the violation of subsection 6 of clause 46, until you do that all of the legislation in the world isn’t going to do any good. Alcoholism starts at 14, 15 and 16 with a good many people in the province, and from what I can observe, you are not doing anything about that.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Welland.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might just comment very, very briefly on this. It has been my experience that just the opposite is true. Our major thrust is against the person who is supplying it and less against the minor. The minor obviously should be punished, otherwise there is no deterrent to consumption by minors. But it has been my experience that the courts and the police and the board have been very, very strict whenever there is sufficient evidence to convict, or to prove that a person has contravened the Act.

Mr. Stokes: Do you have the statistics of the number of convictions for those who supply?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t have the statistics but I think we can get statistics on the number of licences which have been suspended or cancelled for violations of supplying minors -- that is by licensees. We can certainly obtain those from the board.

Mr. Stokes: I just want to react to what you have said now. I am not going to argue with your statistics, but you must appreciate that the number of under-age kids who find their way into a bar in a small community is minimal, because the bartender saw these kids grow up and he knows what age they are. The real problem is they will go into a liquor store and they will bring it out and then take it out behind the barn and get drunk. Then they’ll want to take on the whole world and come down the main street and, of course, the OPP arrest them. It isn’t a problem of the person in the beer parlour or the liquor lounge who is supplying it; it is somebody else who is going in and buying a bottle or buying 12 beers and then after he gets out he hands it to the kids, for whatever consideration. That’s where the problem is.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, in my experience with Correctional Services this was a problem we had to deal with constantly. At that time, I spoke to the police and I spoke to judges and so on. One of the problems was precisely what the hon. member for Thunder Bay has finished off his comments with. You get a bunch of youngsters and one of them is just old enough to be able to go in and buy alcohol, beer or whisky legally. He gets enough and he hands it around to his pals, and this is where the problem usually begins.

The police have that problem and the judge has the same problem -- the problem of whether you take an 18-year-old and you prosecute him. They’re loath to prosecute young people to begin with. Sometimes that will begin them on a career of crime and make criminals of them. Essentially that’s where the problem is, and I’m glad the hon. member pointed out that, by and large, they don’t get it from licensed premises. The operator are tough on juveniles, because their licence is at stake. But that’s where the problem is and I don’t think we should underestimate the difficulties the law enforcement agencies have in dealing with that problem.

Mr. Stokes: I have all the respect in the world for the law enforcement agencies, but I think the courts have a responsibility to be much more vigilant and much more concerned about the problem.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Welland South.

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to raise a matter with the minister dealing with the duty-free shops that are available at any airport in Ontario, and in particular deal with the liquor outlets there. I received a letter from a constituent of mine, Ald. Douglas Young of Fort Erie, Ont., who was a little bit concerned about a trip that his daughter and a number of other school children in the Ridgeway area had taken within the past year. This deals with a flight that originated here, from out of Toronto, to Montreal, Copenhagen, Denmark, and then to Oslo, Norway, and returned within 10 days. He says this tour was arranged by Canadian Student Tours Ltd. His two complaints are:

“I have two main complaints:

“1. Just before they were to leave Montreal (via SAS) they were presented with a ‘duty-free’ bag of one 40-oz. bottle of liquor and two cartons of cigarettes, and were told they had to take this with them to Copenhagen. They were told that if they did not, their prepaid accommodations rate in Copenhagen would be higher.

“Now some of these young adults were under 16 and the majority of them were under 18. The forcing of this item upon them, to me, was wrong, and especially in the manner it was done.

“2. I believe sincerely that they overbooked the tour, because in Oslo, in the youth hostel they were supposed to stay in, because of insufficient room, some of the male members were taken to a second class hotel and slept on the floor on straw mattresses.

“I fully realize that this was a charter flight and different rules apply -- but surely there must be some laws prohibiting against two such items as went on, on this flight, particularly in regards to the first item.”

There were other inquiries made by my federal MP, Mr. Roger Young, from Niagara Falls, and I had your assistant, Mr. Frank Drea, look into the matter for me. I received a letter from Mr. D. N. Caven, registrar, Travel Industry Act, on May 16, and he enclosed a letter from the president and managing director, Mr. R. V. Hermansen I guess it is, of Canadian Student Tours. This is what he had to say:

“Thank you for your letter of April 10. As you had requested an explanation of the items raised by Mr. Douglas Young, I am pleased to pass on to you my knowledge of these matters.

“First, we stepped out of our normal routine because we accepted over 30 adults as part of the normal March break tour. I assure you that this is a policy error that will not be repeated. However, these people had good credentials and were either teachers, relatives of teachers, or in some way connected with the educational scene. Through their contacts in the school, a large quantity of liquor and cigarettes were ordered for the flight to Denmark. I should tell you that a bottle of Canadian Club costs $24 in Norway, the highest-taxed country in Western Europe.

“The order was delivered to the Danish flight for pickup by the people involved. Unfortunately, the Niagara Falls Board of Education ruled that no teacher who was not supervising students could leave school premises before closing time (a decision that I endorse). This means that all of those adults had to take the last connecting flight out of Toronto (Air Canada 454) instead of doing the normal shopping at the duty-free shop, these people had to actually run to get their flight.

“In order to make sure that the packages were not left behind, we asked several of the students to board them and we would redistribute them to their proper owners. It requires a stamped boarding pass to satisfy the legal requirements of the duty-free shop personnel.

“All’s well that ends well. We did get the packages on the plane and got their original order in Copenhagen. With regard to forcing the packages on everyone, this would not be necessary, as we had plenty of volunteers to help us out. [I don’t know who the volunteers were.] With regard to ages, we did not have records to check ages at the airport and no student asked to help was tinder 16. The Danish customs give adult status to tourists who have reached their 13th birthday.

“To travel in Europe during the Easter season is a calculated risk, particularly in areas where the comparatively wealthy Germans and Swedes congregate, for example, Norway.

“However, we did pay in advance (way in advance) for all accommodations and transportations under contract, as an examination of our records would easily prove. The problems caused by the late arrival at Fagernes were solved the next morning, so if Mr. Young’s daughter was inconvenienced, we sincerely apologize.

“I appreciate your corresponding directly with me, as over the years we have worked very hard to develop the feasibility of European travel for Canadian students. The very high air fares, inflation of prices and the services in Western Europe and the continuing weakness of the North American currencies may soon end the possibility of this market. After all, our students can only save a certain amount for this annual adventure and when this amount is passed, ‘Goodbye Europe.’

“Yours very truly,

“Canadian Student Tours Ltd.”

But I would say by reading between the lines on this thing that perhaps this is the practice that is going on here in Ontario. In a sense you might say it’s a method of bootlegging booze over to Europe by shoving it off on to the students who are taking these flights or on the tours. Now, I don’t know how far you check into this.

Mr. Drea: I checked, and it is not happening in this province.

Mr. Haggerty: But the flight originated here in the Province of Ontario, and this is where it was put on board.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: But in that jurisdiction, that liquor was sold in Montreal by a government which has nothing to do with this government. We do not control the sale of liquor in Montreal. The Travel Industry Act, which will be proclaimed on July 15, will govern the kind of operations of this tour organization with which the board of education was dealing.

The teachers, whose conduct in this particular case I would prefer not to comment on, would be under the jurisdiction of the Travel Industry Act. I presume that they got a consideration for their great activities in being hosts on this tour to Norway, which apparently enabled them to make some money on the side as well as getting a free trip and a few other things. Those are the things that we cover under the Travel Industry Act. But as far as the liquor legislation is concerned, I am very much afraid we have no jurisdiction in Montreal whatsoever.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I will read the letter again to you. I presume this letter originated here in Toronto. It goes on to say:

“The order was delivered to the Danish flight for pickup by the people involved. Unfortunately, the Niagara Falls Board of Education ruled that no teacher who was not supervising students could leave school premises before closing time (a decision that I endorsed). This meant that all of these adults had to take the last connecting flight out of Toronto, (Air Canada 454). Instead of doing the normal shopping at the duty-free shop, these people had to actually run to get their flight.”

Mr. Chairman: Order, order. There’s a point of order.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I am very adequately acquainted with the particular complaint that was brought up by the member for Welland South. As a matter of fact, he first directed it to me. I directed it to our registrar under the Travel Services Act, Mr. Douglas Caven.

I would only like to make two observations. Regardless of the fact that teachers were smugglers on the trip, the liquor was purchased in Montreal, which is in the Province of Quebec. They have different rules concerning the operations of duty-free stores. It’s a very valid complaint, but the particular circumstances and the valid complaint that occurred in the Province of Quebec could not happen in the Province of Ontario, concerning the sale of liquor to minors and the delivery of liquor to minors on board the airplane. The fact that a school tour was used to smuggle liquor into Scandinavian countries is a very fair commentary upon the Travel Services Act. But, unfortunately, and I would draw this to your attention, that Act went through the estimates last week.

Mr. Chairman: Order. I’m going to rule both speakers out of order. It dealt with the Province of Quebec.

Mr. Haggerty: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. You haven’t got the message of this letter yet. It doesn’t say the Province of Quebec.

Mr. Drea: They bought the liquor in Montreal.

Mr. Haggerty: No, it doesn’t say that in here. Let me read you this paragraph again, then you’ll get it. Now listen:

“In order to make sure that the packages were not left behind, [that’s on Air Canada flight 454 at the Toronto airport here] we asked several of the students to board them and we would redistribute them to the proper owners. It requires a stamped boarding pass to satisfy the legal requirements of the duty-free shop personnel.”

That’s where they got it -- here in Toronto and not in Quebec.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. The liquor was delivered physically on board the plane that went to Europe in the Province of Quebec, not in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Haggerty: Then the letter in response to your inquiry on May 16 mentioned nothing as to where the liquor was purchased.

“Your letter to Mr. Frank Drea attaching a copy of a complaint of Mr. Douglas J. Young of Ridgeway, Ont. has been referred to this office for investigation and reply.

“I have contacted the president of Canadian Student Tours Ltd. with respect to the difficulties encountered by Mr. Young’s daughter. He was aware of the problem and had already received an inquiry from Mr. Roger Young, MP for Niagara Falls.

“Mr. Hermansen has forwarded a copy of this reply to Mr. Young and I attach a photocopy here for your information.”

There was no mention whatsoever that that liquor was bought in Montreal.

Mr. Drea: You know it was supplied in Montreal.

Mr. Chairman: Section 45 carried? Carried.

Are there any other inquiries on any other section of the bill?

Mr. Edighoffer: Just one brief inquiry.

Mr. Chairman: On what section?

Mr. Edighoffer: I have one brief inquiry still on section 45. Is that carried?

Mr. Chairman: It is carried.

Mr. Edighoffer: Oh, I didn’t hear that. I must have been asleep.

Mr. Stokes: You are cut off. Cut him off.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, your section.

Mr. Edighoffer: I am just wondering about sub 5 of 45. It says: “This section does not apply to the supplying of liquor to a person under the age of 18 years by the parent or guardian of such person in the residence as defined in section 46 or to the consumption of liquor therein by such person.” Section 46 defines a residence, I believe, which also includes a tent. I am just wondering if the term “guardian” should have the word “legal” in front of that that or is “guardian” a legal enough word? I’m thinking of a group of people who might be out tenting some night. There would be one adult in charge who could legally supply alcoholic beverages to young people in the tent.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the word “guardian” has a meaning in law which the hon. member wants to have clarified by the word “legal”. I don’t think it is necessary; it would be redundant. A guardian is a guardian. It has a status in law.

Section 45 agreed to.

On section 46:

Mr. Samis: Could I just ask the minister for clarification on section 46(2)? What are the legal rights of people who indulge in picnics and want to bring along a bottle of wine or something of this sort? Are they still in contravention of the existing statutes if they bring wine or beer with them?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, they are. This is one of the problems I suggested would be given to the advisory council to see how you can possibly reconcile the quite legitimate interest in my view, of certain peoples who have been accustomed to wine as a beverage with meals in a public place with the problems of over-consumption in a public place by a bunch of students bringing in two or three cases of beer. It is a very difficult problem and it is one I would like to have the advisory council tackle and give me its advice on. So it is still a contravention to have a bottle of wine or beer in a public place such as a farm.

Mr. Samis: Could I ask you what you instruct the police to do if they do come across that situation?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, Mr. Chairman, I can’t instruct the police to ignore a contravention of the law. I think we have to leave some things to their common sense and lodgement.

Mr. Samis: You do admit the law -- especially in terms of European people in our province who cause a very special --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I can’t tell the police to ignore the law.

Mr. Samis: I know that.

Mr. Stokes: I would like to pursue this a little bit further with the minister.

Section 46 says that residence means “a place that is actually occupied and used as a dwelling, whether or not in common with other persons, including all premises used in conjunction therewith that is not a public place and, where the place occupied and used as a dwelling is a tent, includes the land immediately adjacent and used in conjunction therewith.”

You said that one of the acts, even though they are sitting beside a stream before a fire and they may or may not have a bottle in their hand, and since they are not actually consuming isn’t a contravention. Just to carry this to the ridiculous, let’s assume that a person is out on Crown land, having a picnic and sticks up a tent. That is his dwelling for that evening, with members of his family or whatever. As long as he has that tent that is considered his dwelling for the purposes of this Act. It is perfectly legal for him to consume, even though some people might consider that to be a public place. Let’s assume the chairman here has a 100-acre lot.

Mr. Drea: He is a temperance man now.

Mr. Chairman: Two hundred.

Mr. Stokes: Let’s assume he has got a 200-acre lot and he goes out to the back 40 with a bottle and says, “I am going to sit under my favourite apple tree -- “

Mr. Drea: Not now; he is a temperance man.

Mr. Samis: Used to be; use the past tense.

Mr. Stokes: Let’s say the member for Scarborough East. He can’t make that claim. If I can stop him from interrupting and spoiling my trend of thought.

Mr. Drea: I am?

Mr. Stokes: Let’s say the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. Chairman: No, the chairman enjoys it.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): One of his many 200-acre lots.

Mr. Stokes: He goes back on his 200-acre lot.

Mr. Drea: One of his many.

Mr. Stokes: Let’s say he backs over the bluff.

Mr. Drea: It is your leader, he has the bluffs.

Mr. Stokes: He could be within a quarter or half a mile from his actual home; his abode. But, that is his property. Is he entitled under this Act to sit down and have a bottle of beer or a dry martini or whatever? You say you have to leave this to the discretion of the law enforcement officer who is going to make a --

Mr. Bounsall: You don’t farm like the old farmers.

Mr. Stokes: -- subjective decision as to whether or not any particular person I may be in contravention of this particular section.

Mr. Drea: Your leader has never been arrested.

Mr. Stokes: Don’t you think it should be defined much more clearly? I am not a lawyer but reading this section of the Act, it could be interpreted any way you want, tinder any circumstances you want to name. I think all I have to do is carry a tent under one arm and unopened bottle or an unopened case of beer under the other, and I think I am perfectly legal.

An hon. member: You’d get tired.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Throw you in the jug.

Mr. Stokes: I could even put it out on the park here, under the statue with the horse and rider, as long as I have a tent.

Mr. Bounsall: There will be a lot of pup tents sold.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): Are you going to try it?

Mr. Stokes: No, I am not going to try it but I can think of a lot of people who will.

I know some people who have tried it and who have got away with it simply because there didn’t happen to be an officer around.

I think this is much too loosely worded and I think, for my benefit if for nobody else’s, you should shore it up a bit.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I think you have to use some judgement here and there is a qualifying phrase that the tent must be used as a dwelling. I am sure any reasonable court or judicial body would be able to interpret that. In other words, it is not something you carry on your back and put up in order to have a drink. As far as drinking in a public place is concerned you cannot drink in a public place and it says this. Any premises used in conjunction with --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is not a public place. If you drink in a public place, you are contravening the Act, Of course, in the case of the chairman’s 200 acres, drinking on his own property is not drinking in a public place and he would be perfectly entitled to do so on any part of his property. It is the same as drinking in your own backyard. It is not against the law to do that. It has not been for quite some time.

Mr. Stokes: All right, let’s assume you and I go out for a long weekend to Rainbow Falls, which is a provincial park. We get a three-night pass and we say, “We are going to do some fishing and we are going to follow the nature trail and everything else.” There isn’t any place more public than a provincial park and yet that is my dwelling. I have paid for the right to occupy that particular campground for three nights. That is my dwelling; I can prove I have paid for it; I have a tent; what is to prevent you and me from sharing a bottle?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Nothing. Nothing at all. It is perfectly legal.

Mr. Stokes: It is perfectly legal?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Under this section.

Mr. Stokes: Is this a departure from the way it is at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, I think so. I would have to check that to see whether or not the current Act permits it.

Mr. Stokes: I have heard of convictions under the present Act.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Certainly in the situation you describe, the tent is your temporary dwelling. There is no question about it. The land immediately adjacent to it and used in conjunction with it is perfectly okay.

I am advised it is not a change. Provincial parks give you a permit for the campsite; they tell you the area you are entitled to occupy and as long as you are using the tent for a dwelling and the land is used in conjunction with the tent, consumption of alcoholic beverages is within the law. It is not a change.

Mr. Stokes: But not a boat?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Stormont.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Chairman, could I go back to 46(2) again? I’d like to ask the minister, in view of the fact we have laws against illegal sale of liquor; laws against drunkenness; laws regarding trespassing on private property; why do you consider that clause necessary in 1975?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: You are talking about subsection 2?

Mr. Samis: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: As I say, I think one of our problems has been to try to achieve some kind of a balance in the consumption of liquor in a public place. You are talking about a public place.

There are many people who are offended by the consumption of alcohol. Certainly I think they have every right to enjoy a public place without being offended by something which is now against the law and, in our review of the legislation, we did not feel it should be changed at this time. We are quite prepared to have it reviewed by the advisory committee to see if it can suggest a change which might be in line with current society and what society will accept. In our judgement society will not accept this at the present time.

Mr. Samis: May I ask you how our regulations in this respect compare with other jurisdictions in Canada, the United States and Europe? Are you aware of the comparisons?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In this regard, Mr. Chairman, no, I can’t say. This is one of the items that was discussed at great length in our review of the legislation. It was felt that no change should be made at the present time.

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

Mr. Bounsall: On this section, and I suppose there’s another section which covers it, I assume premises can be a houseboat. If you had a houseboat in which you dwelled and you moved it up and down the river and so on, that would be considered premises?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes.

Mr. Bounsall: How far down the chain can that boat go before it ceases to be a houseboat? I assume if you have a cabin cruiser that has even limited facilities in which to sleep that would still be premises according to the Act. What’s the demarcation point of a houseboat which is clearly premises? How far down the line can you go in order that you could then say about a boat that it is no longer qualifies as premises? If I took a canoe out and laid a mattress on it and put an awning around the top of it, would that be sufficient to qualify as premises, because I could sleep in it and I could cook in it? Just what’s the dividing line?

An hon. member: A kayak.

Mr. Bounsall: I can see problems if you don’t somewhere define it, but just what is the dividing line? I want to protect you and Mr. Stokes from possible prosecution when you go on this wild weekend that the two of you are obviously planning.

Mr. Samis: Rainbow Falls, look out.

Mr. Stokes: You might be able to tip in that, but you can’t tipple.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t pretend to claim that the Act has achieved perfection. There will be some difficulties in administration, but obviously those things are clarified by the courts. What we have said in the definition is that it must be used as a dwelling. A dwelling usually means sleeping, eating, overnight accommodation, having your meals there and probably some provision for a lavatory or toilet accommodation. There are a variety of things which are usually involved in a dwelling.

A test probably would have to be made in the courts if you were to put your sleeping bag in the bottom of a kayak and have a propane stove at the end of it. I think the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) might want to ask you what you’ve been doing in between drinks.

Mr. Stokes: You’ve got a holding tank.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s right.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Bounsall: A small holding tank.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The test would be whether or not it was a dwelling. If it came to a situation like that and a charge was laid, eventually the courts would have to determine.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman). No? The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I have a couple of questions. The previous Act said that in your residence and the lands and building that pertained to thereto it was okay to be involved with drinking there so long as it wasn’t a public place. As a matter of fact, the previous Act was clearer than I had realized. The minister is saying unequivocally that the word “premises” here means lands and not just buildings that pertain to a residence. Is that right?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, I didn’t say that. It has to be a residence, a place that is actually occupied and used as a dwelling. The lands which pertain to that residence are the premises, but not just an open area. I would not consider that to be a residence.

Mr. Cassidy: Fair enough. If I had, which I haven’t, a two-acre garden, for example, and wished to have an alcoholic garden party for 200 people in that place, as long as it was not open to the public, but was simply for a group of people who were friends or acquaintances, that would be legal. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I might have to get an interpretation of that. It is my understanding that the only place where liquor can be legally consumed is in a dwelling, the land which is used in conjunction with that dwelling, which can be of any size, or a licensed premises. If a piece of land is not licensed and does not contain a dwelling, I would have to get some legal guidance as to whether or not the consumption of alcohol was a violation of the Act.

Mr. Cassidy: If my house had a two-acre garden.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Oh, you could use the whole area.

Mr. Cassidy: I could use the whole garden.

The other question I want to raise with the minister relates to this one and to the penalty section later in this bill.

The penalties for infractions of the Act are doubled, or more than doubled, from $1,000 in the previous Act to $2,000 and from three months in the previous Act to a year. That’s the maximum penalty for any infraction of this Act, including section 46(3). Yet in the period since the last set of liquor Acts was passed there has been a change in attitude about public drunkenness which is reflected in the detoxification centres and in the possibility of sending somebody out for a drying-out session and that kind of thing.

We don’t say now that to be drunk in public is really a criminal offence. We say it’s a nuisance and an injury to the individual, and we try to treat it as such. But in the penalty section of the bill we are increasing the penalty to a level which is quite out of proportion with the actual penalties which are meted out in the drunk tank over here in Toronto or in the other provincial courts around the province that deal with people who are intoxicated. We give them a suspended sentence, maybe a $10 fine or maybe a couple of days in jail so they can get a bit of food on their bones and that kind of thing.

Would the minister consider having a different maximum penalty for the offence of drunkenness, which is clearly not on the same order as, say, infractions of the Liquor Licence Act, serving booze to minors or doing other nasty things?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, the so-called doubling of the penalties is not quite correct. What we have done is we have increased the maximum penalties for individuals and for corporations and these are maximum penalties in accordance with McRuer. The courts may levy any penalties they want, including no penalty at all. In most of the cases, there are very, very few heavy penalties levied against persons who are found drunk. As the member for Thunder Bay mentioned, some of the fines levied are $10 and $15; and the courts can continue to do those under this section just as well as they have done under the old section.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, in the same way that we managed to indicate to the courts as a principle that we’d like them to send drunks to the detoxification centres and not to jail, would it not also be desirable to indicate to them that we don’t think drunkenness is that serious? It’s not a one-year offence; under no circumstances is it that, and it is not comparable with other offences under this particular Act. It’s mainly an offence against the individual. It’s not on offence against society.

Mr. Drea: Yes, it is.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, I am not so sure about that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, in the judgement of the government, it is felt that the penalties should be increased and that we would leave to the discretion of the courts the seriousness of the offence. It would be up to the courts to levy any fine they wished, up to the maximum, but including no fine at all. I don’t think we want to depart from that principle.

Mr. Chairman: Any other inquiries on any section of the Act?

Section 46 agreed to.

Mr. Samis: Section 48(b), Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Section 48.

On section 48:

Mr. Samis: I would just like the minister to clarify the position of someone who may be in a position of going to a party or visiting a friend, carrying, let’s say, a package of beer. Would he be in contravention of that regulation or not? Not a case, but just say half a dozen in a paper bag, or something of that sort -- or loosely in the back seat of his car.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Oh, if it was loose in the back seat, yes, it would be an offence. What we are talking about here is that it must be securely packed away so that neither the driver nor any passenger can have access to it while the vehicle is in motion.

Mr. Samis: How about in a brown bag?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, he should put it away in the trunk, locked away from anybody’s access to it while they are in the car.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): What about if he had a passenger in the trunk?

Mr. Bounsall: What about a station wagon? I have a station wagon? How can I lock it away from myself?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: You put it in your personal effects or in some kind of a suitcase so that you can’t reach in and grab it while you are driving or while you are riding along in the station wagon.

Mr. Samis: And that is the criterion?

Section 48 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other questions on any other section of the bill?

Sections 49 to 60, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 45, as amended, reported.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed. Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 45, the Liquor Licence Act, 1975.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, as previously noted, on Thursday we will proceed with item 17, Bill 106; then proceed to item 21, Bill 111, and then item 8, Bill 77.

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

Motion agreed to.

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