The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

ACCELERATED FAMILY RENTAL HOUSING

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, on June 10, together with other provincial ministers responsible for housing, I met with Urban Affairs Minister Barney Danson in Ottawa. We urged upon him the necessity for substantially increasing the federal budget allocation for housing. This increase in funding, I emphasized at that time, was necessary both to meet a great social need and to stimulate employment across this nation. On that occasion, Ontario asked for an increase in the federal budget of $390 million.

The fact that the whole of Canada received just half this amount -- some $200 million -- in the federal budget last night further underscores my previous observations that Ottawa treats housing as a poor cousin with a zero priority Mr. Turner’s pathetic contribution to housing will make it difficult for any jurisdiction to meet its housing goals.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, while we have the minister’s statement.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, at the Ottawa meeting, Ontario requested that the federal budget for housing and related programmes for Ontario be increased from $442.7 million to $832.7 million. I want to add for the hon. members here today that some $209 million of the requested increase represented federal funds Ontario would have borrowed and not been granted for its programmes and would have paid back with interest. This being so, I am all the more disappointed in last night’s very feeble response to the needs of those persons seeking affordable housing in a worsening economic climate.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): This government doesn’t do anything when it does get funds.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): It was feeble all right. So are this government’s efforts.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I do not know at this time, Mr. Speaker, how much of that $200 million will come to this province to assist us in our rental and ownership programmes.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Why doesn’t the minister find out?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: But I am not going to hold my breath waiting to find out because I know it is not going to be enough in any event. Today I am pleased to inform all the members of this House that the Ministry of Housing for Ontario through the Ontario Housing Corp. and through the Ontario Mortgage Corp. is this week issuing an invitation to the building industry in 16 municipalities to participate in the construction of approximately 2,000 family rental dwellings under the accelerated rental housing programme. We are making available an additional $50 million for this call and we anticipate a very enthusiastic response from the building and development industry.

I want to add here, Mr. Speaker, this is in addition to our first call, at which time there was approximately $40 million put forward by the Province of Ontario for rental accommodation. The Ontario Mortgage Corp. will make loans for up to 95 per cent of the costs of the developments at eight per cent interest. The loan will be amortized over 50 years. Borrowers must be prepared to enter into an operating agreement with Ontario Mortgage Corp. which will make 25 per cent of the units available to the Ontario Housing Corp. for its rent supplement programme and provide for rent stabilization in the remaining units.

Completed units or units under construction are not eligible for this programme. We are interested in generating additional starts to meet the need and demand for affordable housing.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, to facilitate this programme, I am asking today for the full co-operation of all local levels of government in order that we will have speedy approvals and issuing of the necessary building permits to allow this housing to come on stream this year and next. Thank you.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): What misplaced confidence!

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker --

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): This is going to be a round-robin, is it?

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): And the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) is the cleanup speaker.

Hon. Mr. Miller: There are 26 statements today!

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Before the Liberals have another picnic, will they warn us so we know what comes afterwards?

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): We’re glad we had it.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The Minister of Health has forgotten what he was going to say.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

CANCER TREATMENT AT OTTAWA HOSPITAL

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, during the question period on June 17, the hon. member for Carleton East (Mr. P. Taylor) asked me whether I would look into the situation at the cancer clinic at the Ottawa Civic Hospital. Because of the fear generated by certain articles in a newspaper, I took the unusual step of answering it by a statement rather than just replying to questions.

I would like to draw the hon. member’s attention to a letter to the editor from Dr. T. G. Stoddart, director of the Ottawa Cancer Clinic, printed in the Ottawa Journal on June 11.

Dr. Stoddart said he assumed the purpose of the article about Ottawa cancer patients primarily was to stress the urgent need for improved facilities at the Ottawa Clinic. He pointed out that the Ontario Cancer Foundation recognized that new facilities were necessary eight years ago when planning first began for the new foundation clinic. However, should any patients obtain from the June 7 article the erroneous impression that they had received inadequate radiotherapy in Ottawa, then Dr. Stoddart felt these people had been done a grave disservice.

Dr. Stoddart pointed out that the physicians responsible for radiotherapy treatment at the Ottawa clinic have long recognized the technical advantage of cobalt radiotherapy and have not withheld such treatment when it was felt necessary. He noted it is important to realize that in assessing the value of radiotherapy in terms of the tissue dose measured, the tumour or cancer cell cannot distinguish between a dose in “pads,” whether given by x-ray therapy or cobalt therapy. In other words, the ultimate damage to the cancer tissue is similar.

Dr. Stoddart’s letter indicated that the single most important factor in all radiotherapy is not the treatment machine but the skill, knowledge and ability of the physician -- that is, the radiotherapist -- who is responsible for the planning, prescribing and supervision of the actual radiotherapy treatment. The assistance of skilled radiotherapy technologists and radiation physicists in the treatment programme is essential; however, the key factor is the skilled radiotherapist.

I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Stoddart’s statement that it is important to reassure patients receiving treatment in Ottawa that the cancer clinic at the Ottawa Civic Hospital is fortunate in having such skilled physicians and associated support staff, and the treatment programme in each and every case is expressly tailored to the needs of the particular patient. The quality of treatment and care at the Ottawa clinic has been maintained at a high level for the past 25 years, and the staff intend to continue in this tradition.

Certainly we are all looking forward with great anticipation to the construction of new cancer clinic facilities at the Ottawa Civic Hospital, which are in the late planning stages. It is hoped the new three-storey building will get under way within the next eight months.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the member for Carleton East before we start the oral question period.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we were given to understand during question period yesterday by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell), I believe, that the Premier (Mr. Davis) would be here to make a statement today of the government’s response to the budget.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Premier is just on his way in and I would expect that he would be here in about one minute.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, fine. Perhaps we could wait with questions.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York South.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I attended a meeting, along with about some 500 farmers in Smiths Falls last Thursday evening, at the conclusion of which a spokesman for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food invited a delegation from eastern Ontario to come to a meeting here at Queen’s Park this morning to discuss along with representatives from northern Ontario, particularly Manitoulin Island, the government’s proposals with regard to cow-calf assistance.

Because of that kind of an invitation, I assumed it was a public meeting. Along with my colleague, the hon. member for Cochrane South (Mr. Ferrier), I sought to attend that meeting this morning and was requested by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food to leave because he said it was a private meeting.

Mr. Speaker, a private meeting that deals with public business is not a private meeting. I draw your attention to the fact that we were excluded, whereas the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) and the hon. member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) were permitted to attend the meeting.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: I object to this private negotiation on public matters and public businesses with a hand-picked group of farmers, excluding farm organizations and excluding members of the House if they happen to sit in the opposition.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Cry baby.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The Acting Speaker will take it under advisement and report to the Speaker of the House tomorrow. The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House 44 grade 8 students and several adults from Mary Immaculate School in Chepstow. I’m sure that the House would want to extend a very warm welcome to them.

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

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Let’s wait for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Is the Leader of the Opposition ready to proceed with his questions? I am sure he has other ministers he would like to ask questions of.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is now arriving. Perhaps we might just give him a moment to take his place because I am sure that he has got something to tell us of interest.

Mr. Roy: He has his dark blue suit on. He must mean business.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): There was nothing of interest last night.

FEDERAL BUDGET

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister of Canada sent me a Telex which said that the federal budget would be geared, among other things, to keeping oil and gas prices as low as possible and developing secure sources of supply. I see a direct contradiction between these objectives and the actions outlined in the federal budget. The energy proposals announced by Mr. Turner amount to a 15-cent price increase to motorists and a 20 per cent increase in the cost of home heating. This will generate almost $2 billion in additional revenues but once again most of these funds go to governments, not to expanding energy supply.

All of the 10-cent excise tax on gasoline goes to Ottawa and five-sixths of the $1.50 increase per barrel of oil goes to the producing provinces and the federal government. This blatant tax grab will have severe repercussions in Ontario. It will add over two points to the consumer price index and result in 15,000 fewer jobs in Ontario alone. It will damage our tourist and recreation businesses and hit particularly hard at the auto industry and its more than 100,000 employees just as it begins to recover momentum.

Mr. Turner made reference to new realities but, in my view, ignored completely the important old realities of jobs, economic growth, and price moderation. No energy policy can be responsible which undermines the livelihood of so many of our citizens.

A distressing feature of the federal budget is its revelation of the serious state of the nation’s financial and economic management. In two years, the federal budget has skyrocketed from a cash shortfall of $1.6 billion to a colossal $5.3 billion. This is bound to have a dramatic impact on capacity markets, interest rates and inflation. Despite this record growth in federal spending, we have, across Canada now, historically high levels of unemployment, a gross national product that has stagnated or declined for four quarters in succession and an explosive inflationary situation.

The underlying objective of this budget was one of raising revenue to offset the lack of control over federal spending. Mr. Turner’s professed restraint on federal spending is a cynical illusion. In each of the last two years there have been runaway increases in federal spending of almost 30 per cent, which have directly fuelled inflation. Now that the damage is done, we are told that Ottawa intends to exercise restraint. Some restraint, Mr. Speaker. Instead of the 15,000 additional civil servants originally planned for 1975-1976, heavens above, they are only going to add 12,000 to the public payroll this year, at a cost of $150 million.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): What about Ontario’s contract employees?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Real restraint, Mr. Speaker, would call for zero growth in civil service complements, or better yet --

Mr. Yakabuski: The Leader of the Opposition shouldn’t defend it; he shouldn’t commit suicide.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- an absolute reduction, comparable to Ontario’s action at the provincial level. Instead of increasing the payroll by $150 million --

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): What about the contract employees?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, those members over there will have all the chance in the world to apologize for Mr. Turner and their colleague’s budget --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): What about contractual employees?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and it will take them several weeks to do it.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Why don’t they hang their heads in shame?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That will be the day --

Hon. Mr. Davis: But I’ve got some advice for them -- they’ll be damn fools if they try.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, that was not parliamentary.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Instead of increasing the payroll by $150 million --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Have a nice day.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- such a three per cent complement cut would have saved $150 million, thereby avoiding the need for the 10-cent excise tax on motorists.

An hon. member: The Premier doesn’t know anything about it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Now, dealing with employment, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): He is not in favour of the budget, is he?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Carleton East is totally in favour of this budget, that’s great. Let the record show that the member for Carleton East -- I know he is very indebted to Mr. Turner, but one can carry it to extremes, I forewarn him.

Mr. Lewis: The member for Kitchener said it was, by and large, a good budget.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I know the member for Kitchener will rue the day he said it was, by and large, a good budget.

Mr. Breithaupt: I doubt it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just how much loyalty is over there? I am intrigued.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Get to the punchline.

Mr. Cassidy: Rely on Pierre Trudeau to pull it through.

An hon. member: Good for whom?

Mr. Lewis: What is the Premier going to do now?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, Canada is currently experiencing its worst economic performance since World War II. The rate of unemployment in Canada has averaged seven per cent since the beginning of the year, and in this province about six per cent. The budget does not inject stimulus to the economy on an overall basis, and in Ontario the net potential job loss over one year is about 15,000 jobs. The emerging recovery in the United States will only slowly impact on this country. Consequently, the country faces high levels of unemployment for the balance of this year and most likely well into 1976.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome measures to expand the rate of growth and investments, but I am shocked by the lack of flexibility in the federal position and by the size -- in fact, the smallness -- of the job-stimulating package. It indicates that we shall have to endure high levels of unemployment for many more months to come.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): It’s disgraceful; absolutely disgraceful.

Hon. Mr. Davis: This should have been the number one priority, together with measures to offset the impact on economic growth of rising oil and natural gas prices. I see nothing, Mr. Speaker, in the budget to counteract the loss of jobs and incomes which will surely occur as a result of the $740 million increase in energy cost to Ontario consumers and businesses.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Disgraceful; absolutely disgraceful.

Mr. Lewis: Even the Tories didn’t believe they would be so helpful.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In the field of housing, Mr. Speaker, the budget provides a meagre $200 million in additional funds for housing all across Canada. Ontario alone needs more than that amount to finance the minimum number of starts required to house its growing population. To illustrate, the original CMHC budget allocated only $68 million to Ontario under the accelerated rental programme, whereas our need, as measured by actual proposals submitted by builders, is almost $240 million.

The increase in direct grants by CMHC will probably not spur housing starts significantly, although it will provide some additional relief to low-income purchasers and renters. No broad relief has been provided from current high interest rates and no action has been taken to stimulate the supply of mortgage funds from the private sector. In fact, current exchange rate policy impedes a reduction on interest rates.

The budget implicitly supports high interest rates over the next few months and will make the housing situation progressively worse. Given this budget’s failure to act decisively, the least that should be done is to abandon the LIP extravagance and apply that $285 million to the housing sector, where there would be some real immediate input.

Mr. Lewis: I think that’s not a bad one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, dealing in the area of municipal finance and despite the professed concern -- and we have heard it so many times in the past few months -- the professed concern of the federal government, the budget ignores completely the financial plight of the municipalities.

The increased costs of travelling to and from work and other personal travel have not been offset by new initiatives to expand public transportation. It was about a year ago now that I was sitting in the Royal York Hotel working --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What else?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just wanted to make sure the members knew why I was there.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is that right?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- when I heard on television in the next room a speech on transportation. Maybe I am about one week past the year on the time. Somebody said, “Davis, you better go in there, they are making another speech on transportation.” The first minister of this country told all they were going to do in terms of rapid or urban transit -- and not one word is mentioned in the budget; no incentives to the municipalities or the provinces to offset this horrendous increase in gasoline costs by trying to assist urban transportation. I will never understand it.

Mr. Lewis: Yes he will. It is called the provincial Liberal death wish.

Mr. Roy: Later on he will.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No unconditional tax sharing has been provided, despite the growing financial imbalance within the public sector.

Mr. Roy: Tell us about Krauss-Maffei.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have waited more than two months for this federal budget, only to be disillusioned and disappointed. It is contradictory, it is contractionary, and it fuels inflation at the same time. If there are two basic issues in this country at this moment they are inflation and unemployment. If any budget could have been devised to do nothing about those two issues, then the Minister of Finance of this country has succeeded eminently well.

Mr. Martel: Lougheed really likes that budget.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It does little to help expand energy supply, Mr. Speaker. If the Globe and Mail report this morning was correct, with Mr. Turner, by implication, saying to the Premier of this province that I am going to be grateful and the people of this province are going to be grateful for what they have done to ensure energy supply and dependence on domestic resources, I can only say, Mr. Speaker -- and I say this as politely as I can -- that is sheer and utter hogwash. It doesn’t make any sense; it doesn’t.

You know, we are just as interested in security of supply and domestic development of our resources as anyone else, but this budget doesn’t accomplish that objective. They could have done it a year ago within the terms of the taxes that they have already imposed with very little alteration in the existing price.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier appears to be alive and well in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It does little to expand energy supply and contains no help for local governments or public transit, and almost nothing for housing, which is a basic economic and social priority, at least in this province.

However, in fairness, it does contain one new reality; namely, much higher gas prices to the average Canadian just as he sets out to enjoy his summer vacation. The timing could not have been worse.

I, therefore, call upon the federal government to take immediate action along the following lines --

Mr. Lewis: Oh come on, this isn’t the Premier’s answer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Firstly, withdraw the 10-cent excise tax on gas, which is discriminatory. It does virtually nothing for conservation.

Mr. Lewis: It worked with John White; it won’t work with John Turner. Come on, the Premier has to do better than this.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It does virtually nothing for conservation, and is not an appropriate method of funding the one-price policy.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition means he is not in favour of the withdrawal of that tax? He likes that tax?

The Liberal Party of Ontario supports the 10-cent excise tax. Remember that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: These are the authors of the budget.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The second thing, Mr. Speaker -- look what they did to Petro-Can.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier is surely not going to stop and do nothing. John Turner isn’t John White, he won’t back down.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The second thing, Mr. Speaker, is we call on the federal government to reduce the scheduled increase in natural gas prices --

Mr. Lewis: Oh. Very useful.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- as it would put Ontario at a competitive disadvantage with the US and cost the province thousands of jobs.

Mr. Martel: Lougheed might object to that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Third, Mr. Speaker, we are asking the federal government to extend the 45-day transition period for the oil-price increase. We do not believe any price increase is necessary until after Labour Day, by which time we will be in a better position to set the appropriate date.

Mr. Lewis: Hey, this is not bad.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is what the member said; that’s right.

Mr. Lewis: That is true. What is the Premier going to do about it now that he has called on the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Fourth, Mr. Speaker, we are calling upon the federal government to expand substantially the totally inadequate funding for housing.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have instructed the Treasurer, keeping in mind the fiscal resources Ontario committed in April, first to reassess the performance of our economy and to gauge the impact on this of the federal budget, and to report back to me within 10 days, at which time I shall have more to say on this very critical development.

Mr. P. Taylor: Point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Point of order.

Mr. Martel: That is a lot of fluff but no stuff.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier doesn’t do badly in opposition; we might make it permanent.

Point of order, Mr. Speaker? What was that?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East with a point of order.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry.

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in order that the record be straight, the Premier said that the 10 cent a gallon imposed on gas is going to the federal government, is going to Ottawa; the record should show that the 10 cents is being collected to help ease the cost of foreign oil in eastern Canada.

Mr. Speaker: That’s not a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member for Carleton East is speaking for the provincial Liberal Party and saying that 10 cents does not go to the federal Treasury to help them with their cash problems because of their irresponsibility in other programmes, great. But don’t come here and say that that 10 cents isn’t going to the federal government; it is, and he knows it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West, a point of order?

Mr. Cassidy: The member for Carleton East was just talking with his patron.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Don’t go too far in helping him; the member will be sorry.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Scarborough West has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, which amounts to a point of information from the Premier: In the excitement of his finale we missed who was reporting back to the Premier in 10 days?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Treasurer will be reporting to me in 10 days.

Mr. Lewis: It is the Treasurer we are talking about.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If we are now on questions, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Martel: A lot of fluff but no stuff.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Cynical joy is displayed for that budget, cynical joy. Look at their faces.

Mr. Speaker: Order; order, please. Could we have some order in the House? We start our question period with the Leader of the Opposition.

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your assistance.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You see? It is a great day for us. Members of the government thought we would feel badly about this.

I want to ask the Premier, since he was present when the Treasurer presented his budget some two months ago and heard him predicate the financial arrangements on the basis of no increase in oil prices -- and we now have not only an increase in oil prices announced for, I believe, the middle of August but an excise tax of 10 cents a gallon which, of course, goes into the general revenues of Canada --

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Shame.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We heard that.

An hon. member: Get the message?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- why is the Premier waiting for a further 10 days --

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): What’s the member’s policy?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- in order to hear from the Treasurer of the impact of this, since obviously the budgetary provisions we are now operating under have had the foundations kicked out from under them. Obviously we need a new budget. Will he announce that the House will stay in session until we are presented with a new budget which will take into account the dramatic changes which have been effected by the announcements in Ottawa yesterday?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think something is very obvious from yesterday’s budget. It was done with great haste, with no real direction or thrust.

Mr. MacDonald: Two months. How hasty can one get?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Which is totally different from the budget of the Province of Ontario of a couple of months ago. I am saying to the Leader of the Opposition, we are not going to make the same mistake which has obviously been made by his federal colleagues.

The budget introduced by the provincial Treasurer in this province had two objectives: One was to stimulate the economy, the other was to deal with inflation. Within the limits of the jurisdiction available to us, I think it was an excellent budget. In comparison -- well, there is no comparison.

The Treasurer and others will be reassessing our own position over the next 10 days. I shall have more to say about it but we do not intend to act off the top of our heads which is almost the impression I got, at about 9 o’clock last night, of the budget in Ottawa.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: If we can cut through the rhetoric the Premier is enjoying -- he hasn’t had a good day for a long time and it’s nice to see him in action --

Mr. Yakabuski: The member’s days are numbered.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He doesn’t get back; he gets even.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It’s nice to see the Premier smiling at what he considers the catastrophic misfortunes --

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the opposition have a supplementary question?

An hon. member: Leave it to the Liberals.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: We in this House must deal with the problems as they are presented in this province.

Mr. Lewis: By the federal Liberals.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Of course. The problems are a part of this budget.

Mr. R. K. McNeil (Elgin): Will the member be the candidate for leadership at the next election?

Mr. Lewis: That’s how we spend most of our time around here, dealing with Liberals.

Mr. G. Nixon: How about another one?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Surely, the Premier can indicate some actions that will be taken other than fulminating against the inadequacies of the federal budget?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Back to a two-party system.

Mr. Lewis: I hope not.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We have a budget ourselves of over $10 billion, we have powers to do certain things which have been put before this administration now for many weeks. How can the Premier wait when he knew this oil price increase was coming and there should be some basis of action we can enter into right now? Why can’t we?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want to say this to the Leader of the Opposition: It might have been a matter of judgement as to whether there would have been an increase in terms of the price per barrel.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier should have had plans. He must have plans.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would only say this to the Leader of the Opposition: He may have had some advance notice --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I did not. Of course, I did not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- about the 10-cent excise tax increase but I tell this House it was never discussed, never thought of, and I think it is irresponsible.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, let me disabuse both you and the Premier in case there’s any indication that there was any advance notice because, of course, there was none.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member said we knew about it. We didn’t know about the 10 cents at all.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They are the government of the province and they are dealing with the government up there.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why have they not got alternatives under these circumstances?

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park has a supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It’s an irresponsible statement.

Mr. Shulman: Is the Premier in a position to advise us how much the $1.5-billion deficit he planned on will now be increased?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is no.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West with a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may. Since the Premier has been wrong in his expectations of the federal government on every single occasion in the last several weeks and months, and will undoubtedly be wrong in his requests of them again in expecting a positive response, putting aside therefore the caterwauling at the barn door, can the Premier tell us why he is willing to wait 10 days when the prices are already going up now but he knows, as Premier, that if he insists that the Ontario Energy Board review the increases immediately, that no price increase may be necessary for the Province of Ontario until he, as Premier, permits it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, that argument might or might not have application to the increase --

Mr. MacDonald: It has constitutional validity.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just a minute. Let me finish. It might or might not have application to the increase that relates to the $1.50 per barrel. The 10-cent excise, which is on the wholesale price of gas and could reflect itself almost like yesterday or tomorrow, is a different matter altogether.

I just want to clear up some misapprehension in the minds of the members opposite. We didn’t guess wrong with respect to the federal government. We put what we thought was a totally rational and logical position to them, which in light of last night’s budget I would say -- and I say this as objectively as I can -- is still logical, rational and intelligent for the state of Canada’s economy at this precise moment.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t disagree with that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, just don’t say we have been --

Mr. Lewis: But the government knew it would lose, and it lost. It made a calculated gamble and it lost.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, I guess I always live in hope that intelligence and rationality --

Mr. Lewis: Never mind that -- try reality.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- will sometimes prevail. In this case --

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Scarborough West come to order, please?

Mr. Lewis: What is wrong with the Premier?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: On the basis of the Premier’s indication that he is going to get some further recommendations from the Treasurer within 10 days, would he ask the Treasurer to assess the possibility of at least controlling the increase of energy prices recommended by Ontario Hydro, which is a 29 to 30 per cent increase?

Mr. Yakabuski: Oh, forget the smokescreen.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Look, let’s be serious about this. Why should this area, which comes under the direct jurisdiction of this government, not he subject to the same kind of review that the Premier is indicating he is demanding from the government of Canada? There is not a difference, and there should be a review of these price increases.

Hon. Mr. White: The Leader of the Opposition struck out again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You know, that question is so silly I feel badly about it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is not silly.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, the price request is already under review by the Ontario Energy Board; it is functioning for that precise purpose and the Leader of the Opposition knows it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary to that: A review can only operate effectively and intelligently if the government’s position is known --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Be nice now.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- and the government ought to be putting a position before that board that it is not going to permit the increase. That is quite within the government’s powers.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The leader of the Opposition should quit trying to change his image. He is a nice guy. He can’t change his image.

Mr. Yakabuski: The member is a provincial socialist and a federal Liberal.

Mr. Speaker: Order. One more supplementary. The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I have a supplementary for the Premier. Since the price of gasoline in northern Ontario was already 15 cents a gallon in excess of what it was in the south, and since the price of home heating oil was 10 to 15 cents a gallon greater in the north even before the announcement by the federal government, is the Premier in a position to indicate that he might come to the assistance of users in northern Ontario, particularly senior citizens, with regard to some kind of subsidy to them for home heating oil?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is too gentle.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have been through this discussion before, which will be compounded in terms of price for senior citizens, not just in northern Ontario but throughout the whole country.

Mr. Stokes: It is cold up there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, to get into a discussion as to the specific areas of the Province of Ontario, until such time as we assess the impact of the federal budget and hear what the Treasurer will be reporting, I think would be doing a disservice. I am concerned about senior citizens in the north, but I have news for the hon. member: I am very concerned about the senior citizens one mile away from this building and the price impact it will have on them; it is going to affect them too.

Mr. Lewis: Then do something about it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Are we still on the general theme?

Mr. Speaker: I said that would be the last supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I can open it up again.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a new question.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to pursue the matter with a new question to the Premier on the basis of the expected hearings before the Energy Board having to do with Hydro price increases --

Mr. Yakabuski: Oh, that smoke-screen again?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the Premier aware that these bearings have been twice postponed --

Hon. Mr. White: Very weak stuff.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- and that there is a clear indication that because of a reduction in our exports of energy to the United States the whole load increase pattern that is going to be a direct responsibility of this House is changing rapidly? On the basis of that information why would the Premier not indicate to the Minister of Energy that there should be a presentation made that is opposed to this 29 to 30 per cent increase? Why couldn’t the government do this?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question last week.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Is the Premier not aware of the new information that was available over the last two or three days which indicates clearly that the load growth figures have changed dramatically because of the change in the American economy; and that the growth rate is going to be somewhat reduced, probably by four per cent, which is going to change dramatically the requirements of the Hydro increase?

Mr. Lewis: That was the recommendation of the board last year.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes. How can we sit here and criticize another level of government -- and I believe it should be criticized --

Mr. Speaker: All right, that’s not a supplementary.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- when this government is not prepared to do anything, but laugh and refuse to answer the question?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): The government is not prepared to do anything.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: At least answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary on that specific matter of Ontario Hydro: How is it that the one major recommendation of the Ontario Energy Board, to reduce the peak levels of 27 per cent down to 23 per cent, which is now borne out by experience, has been resisted by Ontario Hydro? How long will the Premier allow them to resist a recommendation from the board?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier says there is no new information.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be properly directed to the Minister of Energy --

Mr. Lewis: It shouldn’t. It is supplementary to the question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Minister of Energy doesn’t even know what is happening.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- but I am quite prepared to discuss this. I don’t know how it relates, really, to the statement that I made, but I will just try once again to explain to the members opposite the functioning of the Ontario Energy Board, if they so desire. I shall try to draw a distinction between the increase in the price of natural gas and oil and the proposed rate increase by Ontario Hydro, if the members want me to restate all of the observations that I made last week.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier made them already.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, that’s right, and I think they’re actually quite relevant. So, unless somebody wants me to restate them, let’s read Hansard and the members will have the answer.

Mr. Lewis: They are wrong, but they are relevant.

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a new question. I would like the Premier to make it a little clearer to the House and the people of the province just what the indications are of the 10-day delay? Presumably, if we are to take the statement of the Treasurer at the time of the presentation of his budget, then this budget under which we are presently working, if not now irrelevant, at least has it application seriously reduced. Are we then to expect that there is a real opportunity, or a real chance of a well-considered additional budget? If so, would the House be called into session later in July or in the fall; because, if we’re going to cope with the changing economic pressures, surely we cannot delay until the autumn to consider a matter of this importance? What kind of timetable has the Premier?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only restate what I said a few moments ago, that we intend to look at this thing very carefully and the Treasurer will be reporting within 10 days. What his recommendations may or may not be I cannot predict. Quite obviously, if it involves further considerations of a financial nature by the government, the House will obviously have to deal with them. If there aren’t, then we won’t. The hon. Leader of the Opposition knows the facts of life.

Mr. Roy: Is the Treasurer going to report to the House?

Hon. Mr. White: It’s a sad day for the Liberals.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have one supplementary to pursue this. The Treasurer made it clear that the basis of our budget now depended on no increase in oil price. We’ve had a dramatic increase in oil price, but it seems to be obvious that as soon as the government can gather itself together we’re going to have to have a change in the emphasis in our own budget. Why can’t there be an announcement of an intention of that type? Was his basis for the first budget wrong or were we not supposed to take him seriously?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would say that the basis of the budget of the Treasurer of this province was one of great intelligence, of substance, of logic, of rationality -- which is escaping me in terms of the federal budget. That is a very distinct difference.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: I would like to go back to the Premier and talk about what Ontario can do for Ontario. Why is he willing to let the excise tax be passed on at all, since it is paid by the producers and the importers but is only passed on to the consumer by the retailers if we permit it? Why does he not then, as Premier, insist on a freeze at the pump today, based on yesterday’s prices, and then go to the Ontario Energy Board and see what the appropriate price should be?

Mr. Breithaupt: Yesterday starts today.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I tried to point out, we are dealing with two not separate but related problems. One is the excise tax imposed now on the existing price to the wholesaler which will be passed on to the retailer and to the consumer. The question of the $1.50 per barrel does not come into effect.

Mr. Lewis: It doesn’t need to be.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What the leader of the New Democratic organization is suggesting is that we roll back the price by 10 cents per gallon.

Mr. Lewis: What does the Premier say we are suggesting?

Hon. Mr. Davis: That we roll the price back by 10 cents.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, in order to vindicate his public stand and protect the consumers of Ontario, why is the Premier allowing the excise tax to be passed on automatically without insisting on a public review of the entire gasoline pricing system? Why does he capitulate to 10 cents more per gallon for the consumers of Ontario when he doesn’t have to? Why is he waiting?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are not capitulating at all.

Mr. Lewis: Sure he is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It’s a federally imposed tax as of last night. Mr. Speaker, I have sent a Telex to all the heads of the oil companies related to the 45 days in terms of the $1.50. The 10 cents is a tax imposed by the federal government to take effect as of last night.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, surely the Premier understands that the excise tax is imposed, right here in the regulations which we’ve read, on the producer or the importer but not on the consumer unless the Premier joins with the federal government in allowing the tax to be imposed on the consumer?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, why does the Premier not say now when he has the chance that we insist on a freeze?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Yakabuski: Let the leader of the New Democratic Party be honest.

Mr. Lewis: What is wrong with this government?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: This is part of the petard with which the Premier is hoist, because there is no answer to this if he capitulates. Why does the Premier not say we impose a freeze on the prices as they were and we will examine all the ingredients that make up the final price charged to the consumer and only then we will permit an increase if any? Why does he allow the increase to go now?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of allowing the increase. I will restate it once again. The excise tax has been imposed by the federal government on the existing price.

Mr. Lewis: On the producer only.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): But not on the consumer.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier gives in to them always and then yells about it after. I have another question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I think the member for York South has a supplementary.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: Since the province constitutionally has control of the regulation of prices at the retail level, a fact that has been reaffirmed in the experience in Nova Scotia in control of energy prices in recent months, why can’t this government act to fix the prices at the retail level until it has an opportunity to review them with the Energy Board? Why can’t it exercise its constitutional powers?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The prices in Nova Scotia, even with their system, are higher than they are here in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. MacDonald: Oh, come on.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly they are.

An hon. member: They are.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park has a supplementary.

Mr. Shulman: Is the Premier denying that he has the right to fix the retail prices? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not.

Mr. MacDonald: Do it then. What is the Premier waiting for?

Mr. Lewis: What a whimper to end with after that statement!

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Scarborough West have a new question?

Mr. Lewis: The next question then is, why is the Premier calling on the federal government to ask it to make sure that the inventory stocks are exhausted over an extended period of time, when again it is Ontario’s right to dictate when the price increase on the $1.50 section will take effect? Why doesn’t the Premier exert his right there? What’s wrong with him? Does he mean he gives up on that as well and won’t do anything?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member won’t listen.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Breithaupt: The member for London South might even be the next Treasurer with his luck.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask, since he knows the inventories --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I can see Elmer Sopha running for the woods right now.

Mr. Martel: I wouldn’t want that thug the Conservative Party has got running for us.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I may, a question of the Premier: Since the Ontario Energy Board last year dealt with inventory stocks in connection with the natural gas increase so effectively they were just about oil, why does the Premier not give to the board on this occasion the right to indicate when the price increase on the additional $1.50 per barrel as reflected at the pump should take effect? Why does he always retreat right at the point when he can protect the consumer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we don’t and we haven’t and we shan’t; I won’t read all of the Telex sent to the companies. The Minister of Energy would be delighted to relate to the member what he has sent to the federal minister in terms of the 45 days, which is totally unsatisfactory. We intend to have discussions with the companies and with the federal government. Our own guestimate -- and that’s why I said in my statement around Labour Day -- is a much closer date as it relates to existing inventories.

Mr. Lewis: Well, does the Premier appreciate that the one thing today that this government has in common with the federal Liberals is a willingness to let the oil companies run Ontario’s economy ragged?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. No.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: That is exactly what this government has done.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: That is exactly what it has done.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: And no one understands -- I want to understand, we want to understand -- why it is that the Premier isn’t prepared to bring the oil companies before the Energy Board when he is prepared to bring the natural gas companies before the Energy Board.

Mr. Yakabuski: Throw him out; there’s no question.

Mr. Lewis: There’s no answer to that either.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have any further questions? If not, the Minister of Transportation and Communications has the answer to a previous question.

WHITBY PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Mr. Lewis: I have one other question of the Minister of Health on an entirely different matter which one of my colleagues is very concerned about. I would like to open it up.

There is immense anxiety, we are told, in the Whitby Psychiatric Hospital, at the apparent cutbacks which will affect the medical staff and therefore patient treatment. Anxiety and near panic is running through some of the echelons of the hospital. Has the minister involved himself? Has he looked into it?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have talked to the member for Oshawa (Mr. McIlveen) and other members of my own caucus have talked to me about this problem and it is not as widespread as it may seem on the surface. There are a number of temporary staff who were affected by the overall budget constraints within the ministry this year, rather than permanent staff. I have asked for a report on it in detail and I expect to have it very soon.

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When the minister says there are only a few who have been affected, is he aware that as of July 1 the administrator has told nine part-time physicians that their services will no longer be required, which will affect directly 45 per cent of all medical services in the hospital and increase the load of the physicians from 30 patients per physician to 60? Is this what he calls a temporary and a minor disarrangement?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, once I have my report back, I’ll let the members know.

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. Lewis: I am almost apologetic for this, but I want to come back to the Premier on one matter which continues to perplex me.

If I understand what has happened correctly, Ontario is apparently willing to allow the 10 cent per gallon tax to go on without any suggestion that it can be reviewed or frozen in advance of application. We are not setting for ourselves, but merely responding to the federal government, in regard to the point at which the $1.50 is applied; we will take no initiative to dictate our own dates in defence of the consumer; and we have indicated no conceivable alternative, either by way of energy tax credit, Ontario Energy Board review, or even gasoline tax decrease, as a response.

I ask the Premier, in the light of all the events for the last two months, does he think it is responsible government to allow the increase to take effect in this fashion without being able to provide one single alternative to the people of the province the following day?

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Let’s not pay income tax.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to appear to misunderstand the leader of the New Democratic group. He made three assumptions --

Mr. Lewis: Party -- group -- operation -- organization --

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right. The member made three assumptions that are totally wrong.

Mr. Lewis: Yes? Which ones? Which ones?

Hon. Mr. Davis: And I know it’s political. Well, that’s fine; we can play a little politics too.

Mr. Deans: It is not political.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly it is.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are not acquiescent. The 10-cent tax is imposed as of last night. We are not acquiescing in terms of the 45 days.

Mr. Lewis: Heavens above; it is not political!

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are seizing the initiative in terms of the 45 days with respect to what may or may not emerge in terms of the Treasurer’s reassessment, Mr. Speaker, and we will report on it in 10 days. That doesn’t take effect, under the federal proposal, until mid-August.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier should quote his own terms then; he is capitulating.

Mr. Renwick: No initiative today at all. It will be all over by then.

Mr. Lewis: The game will be all over then.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let the Premier answer the questions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But the member is wrong on all three assumptions. He is wrong on all three.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Roy: No, it’s a new question.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier is throwing in the towel.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Transportation and Communications has an answer to a previous question.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier should call an election on this, but he hasn’t the stamina to do that either.

MOPEDS

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the member for Windsor West asked me a question in two parts. Briefly, one part involved the recognition of the motor-assisted bicycles to enter provincial parks on a vehicle permit; the other concerned the charges that might be levelled at the federal parks.

While the question might have been more properly addressed to my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, I have discussed it with the minister. I am advised that with the respect to entry into Ontario provincial parks, there is no charge; they are permitted in free.

In the matter of entry into national parks, it appears to be the case that there is a fee for these vehicles entering the national parks. I believe it to be $2 per vehicle per day. I understand that is as a result of the National Parks Act which says: “Any vehicle that is propelled by any power other than muscular power is charged a fee.” That is in the National Parks Act. It is not within the authority of this government to change or set the fees for entry into the national parks.

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

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Supplementary: Is the minister not approaching the national parks organization and asking them to classify for entry without fee into their parks, vehicles which the ministry in Ontario has classified as bicycles?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. We have just been discussing for the last hour the futility of contacting the federal government on anything.

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

COSTS OF HEALTH CARE

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Health a question relating to the announcement last night in the budget concerning the limits on health cost-sharing programmes with the provinces. Will the minister advise whether he has any programmes whereby he will be curbing the increase in health costs provincially to fit in with the increases that are going to be permitted by the federal government, or does he believe he can live within the 13 per cent increase that’s predicted for next year.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the announcements that were probably missed in the statement last night by the federal Finance Minister that are of very grave importance for this province, were those that related to the sharing of health care costs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s another dandy.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Now if I have ever seen any example of unilateral decision-making without consultation with the provinces, that is it. We have been negotiating, patiently, for four years with the federal government to get a means of sharing health care costs that would allow the provinces to use their own discretion and to set their own priorities, instead of sharing on only those most costly services, the hospital and the physician. In the face of that, without any further consultation, they have unilaterally set guidelines. They started the plan; it has got out of control. They have unilaterally limited the amount they will put into it. I don’t know how we’ll live within it. The Treasurer and I will have to talk about that

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The greatest wrecker of Confederation --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I might, a supplementary on this: In view of the fact that this government has been negotiating on this since 1971 and was not able to arrive at any agreement, the minister should have been in a position to predict a unilateral decision. In view of that, what are this minister’s plans to fit in with the increase that will be coming in from the feds?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Stop trying to defend the federal grants.

Mr. Roy: I am not defending them at all. The government is going to have to fight us, not the feds.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member certainly is. He defends them all the time.

Mr. Roy: The minister is going to be fighting us, not the feds.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They are just a hunch of patsies over there. Just a bunch of patsies on the federal grants.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The last time a similar breach of faith took place was on Pearl Harbour day, when we were in the middle of negotiations with the Japanese and they bombed Pearl Harbour. We were negotiating with the federal government when that unilateral decision came out.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member for London South thinks that is a great line.

Mr. Lewis: Well that was certainly the perfect analogy, Mr. Speaker.

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

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They are so embarrassed over there they should leave.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder Bay has the floor.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The Leader of the Opposition is so embarrassed over there that he shouldn’t have shown up.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We have passed the supplementary stage on that particular question. Now we have the member for Thunder Bay with a new question.

LAKE NIPIGON FISHERMEN

Mr. Stokes: I have question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Since the minister has already been quoted as having said his government will authorize the commercial fishermen of Lake Nipigon to market their fish outside of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corp., when can those fishermen expect authority by way of order in council to allow them to do that?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this regulation went through the regulations committee last week and they should be notified as of this week. I’ll certainly cheek on it. It was my understanding they could proceed immediately.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia.

FEDERAL BUDGET

Mr. Bullbrook: I’d like to direct a question, if I may, to the Premier. Recognizing my lack of knowledge and almost ignorance of economic matters, I wonder if he could explain to me, since the federal budget is approximately three times our budget and the federal deficit is approximately three times our deficit, how he could characterize their budget as, I think, fractious, inefficient, and irresponsible, and ours as the essence of responsibility and showing great restraint?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think one can make those comparisons very readily. If the hon. member would like to take an hour or two with the Treasurer and others, and I’d be delighted to join the discussion, I think we could explain it to him in a way that both of us would understand --

Mr. Reid: Not “we,” just the Treasurer; The Premier doesn’t understand.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and he would end up agreeing as to the differences between the two budgets. I don’t think there is any question about it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier has added $4.2 billion to the existing debt; that is the Bill Davis record.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Eglinton.

Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing.

Mr. Stokes: He is not here.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): The member has his signals crossed.

Mr. Reilly: We don’t cross signals as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

SOLAR ENERGY

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): I have a question of the Minister of Energy regarding the recent revelation that capital costs for Canada’s future conventional energy supplies will be $20,000 per household. In view of the fact that in addition to these astronomical capital costs there will be the regular fuel bills for every residence and industry, does the minister not agree we must make every possible effort to speed up the introduction of various solar energy systems for which the fuel will be free and eternal?

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, I think the fact that this ministry, in co-operation with other levels of government and the industry, has this year inaugurated the first two solar energy projects in the country, and the fact that yesterday, as the member knows, I announced the government’s project for the evaluation of wind energy indicate we are taking every step possible. I think, though, if the hon. member is suggesting that in some way solar energy, wind energy or something like them, will in the next five to 10 years become a source of power to challenge what we now consider to be conventional sources, I am afraid he is mistaken. There is no question that sometime in the future, probably looking 20, 30 or 40 years ahead, we have to look for more of these sources, but we are just getting started.

Mr. Stokes: He had better start looking seriously right now.

Mr. Burr: Supplementary: Has the minister forgotten the report of the American solar energy panel of 1972 which predicted that with proper research, money and development they could bring in solar energy for heating in the first five years, solar energy for air conditioning in the second five and solar energy for electricity on a widespread basis in the next five? That doesn’t add up to 40 or 50 years.

Mr. Bounsall: He should get his five-year plan going here.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I must admit I don’t recall that specific report, although there are a number of things I have read on it.

I would say two things: First of all I don’t know where the member is getting the figure of $20,000 per home capital costs.

Mr. Burr: It is in the paper.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It may be in the paper but that doesn’t mean it is right; with all due respect to the gallery.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s a new line.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Secondly, without question a great deal can be done in terms of heating and cooling with solar energy. The big problem is the capital cost. There is no question, for instance, that in the case of the Provident House, in which we are assisting --

Mr. Burr: It is not $20,000 a household.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- on construction, north of Toronto, not only can it be done, it will be done. But it is extremely expensive. It is not yet, and to be honest with you and the public, frankly, I can’t see it for many years to come, being economically viable.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

RAILWAY RELOCATION

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. The Premier is aware of the city of Windsor’s concern with railway relocation, especially after his pleasant visit to the community last Wednesday. Has the Premier given favourable consideration to including the city of Windsor as one of the four centres which would have railway relocation plans studied?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I certainly enjoyed my visit to Windsor last week but I think really that question should be directed to the responsible minister, the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Roy: Was the Premier wearing his medal?

Mr. B. Newman: May I redirect that question?

Mr. Speaker: You may redirect that question.

Mr. Roy: Did the Premier wear his medal to Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member probably knows, we had entered into an understanding with both the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and the representatives of the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee that after discussions eight communities within the province would be considered for studies for railway relocation.

At a recent meeting with the PMLC -- last Friday -- the eight communities were submitted to the PMLC for their consideration and they are to determine, in conjunction and conversation with representatives of the federal staff and my own staff, which four of the eight we will proceed with.

My ministry has made a recommendation, after discussion with the Minister of Housing and the Treasurer, as to which four communities we think should be considered. I would respectfully ask the member not to ask me if Windsor was one of those included because we have said we would not make any public announcement until PMLC had made their recommendation.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: May I ask the minister if he will seriously and favourably consider Windsor’s suggestion that it be included?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I am favourably considering all eight of them. It is up to the PMLC to decide on the four.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parkdale.

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Mr. Dukszta: I want to ask another question of the Minister of Health about the three per cent general cut in budgets.

Is he aware that at the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital the crisis unit has been abolished; that adolescent services have now been curtailed because the administrator has not filled the occurring vacancies; and that generally by this action he is creating a really serious risk with the psychiatric services and is turning the hospital’s back again to being custodial institutions?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, like all ministries in government we have been putting into effect the three per cent complement cut. In view of the fact that most of our psychiatric hospitals are less than 50 per cent full of patients living in, it was believed, and I still believe, that the three per cent cut can be effected without any material change in the level of service.

Mr. Dukszta: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that this three per cent cut in general budget really means much more than that? He has not allowed for the increase in inflation and the fact that the hospitals operate on a budget from the previous year and not this one. In effect, he is making a 15 per cent cut in general services with the consequent detriment to the health/patient services working out to approximately one-fifth.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think the member’s figures are correct. We have allowed for iodation. It intrigues me: On the one hand we are being damned for spending too much money and the moment we try to save it we are damned for making any savings. I don’t know how we win the fight.

Mr. Shulman: The minister is saving the wrong way. A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, one more supplementary.

Mr. Shulman: If, as he says, the institutions are half full, why doesn’t the minister close half of them and leave the others properly staffed and save some real money?

Hon. Mr. Miller: That’s a brilliant suggestion.

Mr. Shulman: Well, he should.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

PROCESSING PLANT STRIKE

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) -- and we all hope he returns soon to the House: Is the minister aware that a strike is on at the Omstead processing plant; that the farmers cannot deliver their peas there and it’s causing a great hardship to many in the area?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am not; but I will draw it to the attention of the appropriate officials.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary from the member for Essex South.

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): When the hon. minister is looking into this matter, would he check with the crop insurance commission to verify their attitude in relation to the coverage any farmers may expect, based on information that has been given to them by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food? I believe these two sources are at odds in relation to this matter.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will be very pleased to do so.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York South.

COW-CALF ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, have I permission to ask a question of his parliamentary assistant?

An hon. member: No, the policy secretary.

Mr. Speaker: I think the member should ask the question of the policy secretary.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, no; don’t do that.

Mr. MacDonald: My question, then, to the policy secretary.

Mr. Lewis: What a disaster.

Mr. MacDonald: Now that the ministerial officials have had still further meetings with farmers, can the provincial secretary indicate when the government is going to be in a position to announce its programme for cow-calf assistance?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, very shortly.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, supplementary: What is wrong with the government that it offers privately to the farmers only the equivalent of 50 cents, without making it retroactive and without recognizing that the real cost is 71 cents; and doesn’t it realize those farmers will go down the drain anyway, even with the minor supplement?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think that’s a question; but there is nothing wrong with this government and we will make sure the farmers will never go down the drain.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary from the member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Has the minister got the report of this morning’s meeting in which the farmers from northern Ontario told the parliamentary assistant and the others there that the programme was of no use to them at all; that the government’s figures were completely unrealistic and they had to have a minimum of 71 cents or the programme did them no good at all? Does the provincial secretary know that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East.

CANCER TREATMENT AT OTTAWA HOSPITAL

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister of Health for responding to my questions of the last two weeks with respect to the cancer clinic at the Ottawa Civic Hospital.

In the minister’s statement at the outset of today’s sitting he referred only to Dr. Stoddart as a source of information for making his statement. Can the minister say whether or not he dealt with the contention of the Mayo Clinic that the kind of therapy being given at the Civic is Model T therapy that definitely should no longer be used; and did he generally consult with authorities other than the vested interest, namely the clinic?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did. I was handed some material directly by the Ontario Cancer Foundation just before I came into the House today, and after I had written my statement. We did, continuously, discuss it with other people, and the statements made by one particular gentleman appear to be totally false.

Mr. Speaker: The time for the question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

PUBLIC HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Miller moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Public Health Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

HEALTH INSURANCE REGISTRATION BOARD REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Miller moves the first reading of bill intituled, An Act to repeal the Health Insurance Registration Board Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

HEALTH DISCIPLINES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Miller moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Health Disciplines Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

PROTECTION OF WAGES IN BANKRUPTCY OR RECEIVERSHIP ACT

Mr. Samis moves first reading of a bill intituled, An Act to provide for the protection of Wages in Bankruptcy or Receivership.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to provide protection for employees and their wages in cases of bankruptcy or receivership.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The fourth order, House in committee of the whole.

LIQUOR LICENCE ACT (CONTINUED)

House in committee on Bill 45, the Liquor Licence Act.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sarnia.

On section 37:

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by saying it is wonderful to see the member of Ontario (Mr. Dymond) in the chair. Nobody would grace it more than you would in the context of what went on here, and with no more equanimity. Yesterday evening I moved an amendment that I would like to withdraw by way of amendment because --

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): You can’t speak twice on it.

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, we can speak as many times as we want to in committee. It’s an old rule; it goes back to about the 17th century. In committee you can speak as many times as you want to.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Even 17 times.

Mr. Bullbrook: I might even get up three or four more times; I’m not sure --

Mr. Drea: You do that.

Mr. Bullbrook: In any event, with your permission, I would like to withdraw that motion.

Mr. Bullbrook moves that section 37(2) be amended by removing the word “apparently” in the second line and replacing it with the words “and where he has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that such person is..."

Mr. Bullbrook: If I might, for the sake of my colleagues I would like to read the subsection as it would be amended:

“Where a constable or other police officer finds a person in a public place and where he has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that such person is in contravention of subsection 3 of section 46, he may take such person into custody and, in lieu of laying an information in respect of the contravention, may escort the person to a detoxification centre.”

In putting forward the amendment, sir -- did you wish to read it? -- I will try not to be unduly reiterative, but I want to say that yesterday evening, sir, we began with a similar motion, certainly the same in intent, though somewhat different in wording. I tried to express on behalf of the Liberal opposition that we are much concerned with the ability of a police officer to take into custody any person on the basis of appearance. I attempted to use, for the sake of clarity, the example of a person who might be subject to epilepsy or cerebral palsy or something of that nature, which might manifest external symptoms of intoxication. The problem in those circumstances, of course, is that a peace officer would be able to, purely because of appearance of the citizen, take that person into custody.

The argument that we put forward was that we wish to retain some degree of objectivity, and there had developed a body of law in the other criminal and quasi-criminal statutes, where a police officer is exercising the right of arrest or, comparably, the right of taking a person into custody, Mr. Chairman, that he does so on reasonable and probable grounds. Those grounds are, therefore, assessed, in the light of the factual circumstances, by the court at the time of the interpretation of the actions of the police officer. This is just too subjective an evaluation.

In resistance, my colleague from Scarborough --

Mr. Drea: You know where it is.

Mr. Singer: Scarborough whatever.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’m sorry. I am not attempting in any way to demean the member. There are three Scarborough ridings -- well, there are four. I’m not sure whether it was Scarborough Centre, but I’ll find out. I want you to realize, as a matter of record, I’m not doing this to embarrass you in any way.

Mr. Drea: Oh?

Mr. Singer: You embarrass yourself sufficiently.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Smacks of sincerity, doesn’t it?

Mr. Bullbrook: I’m sorry, sir. The member for Scarborough Centre has resisted this particular amendment and proposition on the basis that the citizen wasn’t being incarcerated, but in effect the citizen was being taken, for the citizen’s benefit and welfare, to a detoxification centre. And that’s readily understood.

But the fact of the matter is, as I understand the spirit and intent of our law, that a person should not be deprived of their liberty without just and adequate cause, notwithstanding the equation here that the usurpation of that liberty in these circumstances is for the benefit of the individual citizen.

I didn’t mention last night, and I don’t want to dwell on it now, but I do want to remark this. Notwithstanding what I consider to be a valid concept here, something that we must jealously guard is that we should not enshrine in statutes the right of peace officers or constables to deprive a citizen of his freedom and liberty on a question of whim. I want to say to you if I may, Mr. Chairman, that I have the highest regard, believe me, for the body of the constabulary throughout our province, but that really begs the question. The question is, should a peace officer have the ability to take persons into custody and deprive them of their liberty on the basis of their appearance?

To me, there is something essentially reprehensible and unacceptable in that concept. It leaves itself open to the possibility where duly constituted law enforcement officials could use a section of this nature, under the guise of a person apparently being intoxicated, for the purpose of bringing that person under custody, and we just can’t have that.

I say to you, I hope without exaggeration, that I happen to be a student of, if I may say, the Ramsey Clark type of law enforcement syndrome, and that is --

Mr. Drea: That figures.

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, and I don’t apologize for that for one moment. I am a great believer that due process must be undertaken before any citizen is taken into custody, and I close in saying that the appearance of the individual is far from due process, as I understand it.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I don’t wish to rebut --

Mr. Roy: Why don’t you let the minister speak first?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reply since the member for Sarnia -- did I get it right -- Sarnia?

Mr. Singer: Sarnia-Sandwich.

Mr. Drea: Since the member for Sarnia last night invited debate upon this particular section, that’s why I rose last night.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Boy, the minister is lucky he’s got you.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about section 2 in the light of (1) what is the law, and (2) what are current observations of the law, because I think the two are particularly applicable in the context of what the intent of the Legislature is and in really -- and I want to stress this most emphatically -- what the intent is of the police constable who is faced with the particular situation.

Mr. Chairman, it is all very well to talk about the Ramsey Clarks and the other things that this --

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): You just don’t understand, do you?

Mr. Drea: Yes, I do, but you see the difference is I understand, and I say this to the member for Ottawa East, I am not particularly concerned about what defrocked Attorneys General of the United States say. I happen to live in the Province of Ontario, I happen to live in the Dominion of Canada, and I am not terribly interested in their speeches now, then, or in advance. I want to talk about --

Mr. Roy: I suppose that Mitchell is your type of Attorney General? Right?

Mr. Bullbrook: Let’s get to the point, let’s forget about Ramsey Clark. I shouldn’t have thrown it in. I didn’t mean for you to play with it.

Mr. Drea: All right. Now I want to raise the particular situation here and I want to talk to the member for Sarnia, because he raised the thing as a debate last night and I want to reply to him in this.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): Get on with it.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): We are sitting here with bated breath.

Mr. Drea: We are talking about the position of the police constable when he sees a person who is apparently under the influence of alcohol or, under subsection 3 of section 46, which means he is intoxicated in a public place. Now then if we were still back in the days when the particular person who was to be apprehended was to be taken into a jail, was to be kept for a number of hours, was to face a judgement by the judge, and all of the things that used to be, then granted, I would probably agree with you. But what I am suggesting, and I suggested last night, is that we live in a new day.

First of all, if the particular person is ill, whether he is an epileptic or whether he is taking medication or, indeed whether his physical condition or what have you is such that the inclination to the public might be that the person is intoxicated and, indeed, to the police officer that there is an odour of something that appears as alcohol, all right, under this section with the word “apparent,” the police constable can take him to a detoxification centre, which is defined in this section as a public hospital.

Now then, presumably the person may be examined by a physician and the determination can be made as to whether he is intoxicated, under the meaning of section 46, subsection 3, or he is not. If he is not -- and I said this last night -- if he is not, but cannot give, because of his physical, or his emotional or his mental infirmity, the kind of answer that a reasonable police officer would take that he was not intoxicated, then I suggest to you the person did require medical attention. Indeed, under this subsection, he is taken to the place where a medical determination can be made as to whether he is epileptic, under the control of prescribed medical drugs, or in a mental or emotional condition where he might appear to a layman to be intoxicated. He is examined under this section by a medical practitioner at a detoxification centre.

I suggest to you, that is far more protection for the individual than laying down an absolute clause that the police officer must have reasonable and probable grounds. It is all very well to stand up in this chamber and say these things are enshrined in Canadian legal jurisprudence. For practical purposes, “reasonable and probable grounds” means that the police officer has an absolute, or as near to absolute certainty as is possible, that the person is intoxicated within the meaning of section 46, subsection 3.

I suggest to you, to have the police constable ascertain within reasonable and probable grounds is not a protection for the particular person under this subsection, because if you look at the whole of section 37, it has to deal with detoxification only. As a matter of fact, in subsection 3, it says there can be no action against the physician who is involved in the detoxification procedure. That is how explicit this section is.

With the greatest of respect, I suggest that to say subsection 2 provides too much of a judgement call for the police constable is really putting another burden on the police constable’s shoulders.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s right. It is.

Mr. Drea: Because I suggest to you, and I said in the beginning, I want to talk about the onus that is on the police constable. Let’s talk just for a moment among ourselves about the onus of public drunkenness. It is something that none of us likes to witness. It is something the public doesn’t like to witness. If I recall properly -- and I’m going to take the points perhaps a little bit out of context, but the member for Sarnia can refresh my memory -- he said last night, in essence; that there is at the moment a public revulsion against this kind of thing and that there is a natural revulsion by the public against some other aspects of the permissive society. I think what he was trying to say -- and I’ll yield to him if I’m not correct.

Mr. Bullbrook: Then we’d better have the record straight.

Mr. Drea: All right.

Mr. Bullbrook: I wasn’t talking about intoxification at all.

Mr. Drea: In context you were. I’ll yield to you.

Mr. Bullbrook: Since you asked me, I just want you to know what I intended. I wasn’t talking about intoxification. I was intending to talk about the permissive society and express my concern that, along with eradicating some of the undue permissiveness that we don’t take away people’s rights.

Mr. Drea: In all fairness to the member for Sarnia -- l didn’t really ask him; I said I could be corrected if I was wrong and I suppose I was wrong -- I had the general impression from your remarks last night that one of the concerns was that the public, at the moment -- and I think it’s quite accurate -- that the public at the moment is in a state of rebellion against some of the consequences of the permissive society. One of the apparent consequences on the street, which is readily available to anybody with normal eyesight, is the person who is publicly intoxicated. There was some concern that this might become too readily apparent. All right, fine, I’ll drop it; I’ll use it my own way.

Mr. Chairman, there is a tide in society and that tide, particularly at the moment, is that the permissive society has gone too far.

One of the most apparent concerns about society at large today is the feeling that people who used not to are now bothering or hassling people or what have you upon the public streets. There apparently seems to be a degree --

Mr. Bullbrook: That surely isn’t the justification for this? The intention of this is to help other persons, not to stop them jostling someone else. The whole purpose of this statute is to help the intoxicated person, not to worry about whether he jostles somebody on the street.

Mr. Drea: You don’t care about the public?

Mr. Bullbrook: Certainly but --

Mr. Drea: If you don’t care about the public, keep on interrupting me. If you do, let me finish.

Mr. Laughren: Come on.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): You are not the personification of the public.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, there is a feeling by the public that public intoxication has reached a particular extent. It is bothersome to the public. The public demands the right to know why the police are not clearing the streets or the parks or what have you.

Mr. Bullbrook: If this is why you are passing this statute, my friend, we are really going to have a debate -- if this is under the guise of that. I thought this statute was to help intoxicated people and if you are attempting, you or the commissioners --

On a point of order, then. I want to say this without reservations: If the intention of this statute is to incarcerate people -- I thought the intention of this statute was to help intoxicated people -- if this is quasi-criminal legislation and that’s the guise of it, we’ll fight it all day here. Make no bones about that.

Mr. Drea: You may fight it all night, but why don’t you listen to me before you get on with your histrionics here? I am suggesting to you, Mr. Chairman, that there is a feeling out there. This was first raised by the member for Sarnia last night as a justification for the points he was raising or else I would not have raised it. Perhaps the member for Sarnia might like to read the Hansard from last night.

Mr. Chairman, what I’m saying to you is that there is a public concern and we can take it on two sides. One -- and let’s be honest about it, among ourselves -- there is a public revulsion within all of us on seeing an intoxicated person. It is not that he is intoxicated; it is that he may do injury to himself. He may do injury to somebody else. I really like to think -- and I’m sure the member for Sarnia does -- that justification really is that we are concerned about the particular person; all right.

Mr. Bullbrook: Do you realize the injury has nothing to do with this section? He can arrest him without warrant if he is a danger to himself. This has nothing to do with this section.

Mr. Drea: Under section 46 -- and we are at section 37; would you control yourself? We will get to 46. You’ll have every opportunity. I’m trying to elaborate on the things you raised last night because they move me. You do move me at times. You may not know my proper title but you do move me.

Mr. Laughren: That’s when he moves you.

Mr. Drea: Not the most. All right, we are dealing with the public attitude toward it. There is also a feeling, and this is what I was really trying to get to, in the police constable. The police constable really isn’t trying to eliminate a nuisance from the street. I don’t believe that. The police constable is really trying to do what he has taken an oath to do

-- protect the public. In this case the public interest is the injury to the person because he or she is no longer capable of protecting himself or herself or, conversely, the injury that may be afflicted upon the public at large because of the first criterion. I suggest --

Mr. Bullbrook: I am going to rise on a point of order here. I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but I want to point this out to you. I want to point out if you look at section 46 --

Mr. Drea: Why don’t you read the Hansard of last night?

Mr. Bullbrook: Sir, may I point this out to you? My amendment purely has to do with section 37, in connection with the question of taking into custody. Under section 46 you will find a subsection that gives the police constable power to arrest without warrant if the intoxicated person is a danger to himself or any other person. The question of injury that he is talking about now has nothing whatever to do with this section at all.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, the member for Sarnia got up last night and he was most explicit. He was in full flight. He talked about taking into custody. He talked about a great number of things. I am trying to give you a logical, rational explanation for section 37. That’s all I am trying to do. I am not trying to defer his amendment. I am not suggesting he is soft on certain things by proposing this amendment. I am not doing that kind of thing.

I am trying to put into context the attitude of the police constable. I suggest to you, with all due deference, Mr. Chairman, the key word in here is “apparently” in the second line. “Apparently” -- that is the sole question that the fine legal mind from Sarnia raised last night -- apparently -- vis-à-vis reasonable and probable cause. I think I am fully in line and within the context of this section we are talking about.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): You are a way off base, Frank.

Mr. Drea: Furthermore, I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Liberal deputy House leader, although his remarks were confined by the limits of time last night, did raise very seriously the import of the particular words “taken into custody.” While he hasn’t risen today, I presume that he will. In any event the remarks last night left that suggestion.

I would just like to comment in three or four or five more sentences on this. Surely since the person is being taken to a detoxification centre -- and once again I draw attention to the explanatory note: “Taking to detoxification centre in lieu of charge.” That is what we are talking about.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that here we have a person, male or female, who appears on the surface to be under the influence of alcohol and -- let’s be honest about it -- not enough to be in contravention of subsection 3 of 46, which is intoxication. We are saying that at this particular time, the police officer has the right to take the person into custody. How else is he going to get the person who is unwilling to a detoxification centre?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): He can arrest him.

Mr. Haggerty: Right in the hotel, the premises where he gets his liquor.

Mr. Drea: All right, fine. Then I would suggest to you --

Mr. Haggerty: Not out on the street.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: All right, fine. I will accept the interjection from the deputy House leader of the Liberal Party. He can arrest him. When he arrests him under subsection 3 of section 46 he can either take him to a detoxification centre or he can take him to jail. There is a big difference, because in this section there are no grounds for incarceration.

This is what concerns me a very great deal. If the person was going to jail, then all right, I buy the argument of all the defence lawyers that the charge should be proven against him. But in this case, surely taking him to a centre is lesser than taking him to jail. This is an attempt, before he could reasonably be incarcerated under our laws, to take him to a detoxification centre where he or she might be helped. That is really the basis of my argument.

If it was jail, as I said last night and I’ll say it again, I agree with you. But when we are taking people to a detoxification centre, which is really a medical centre, surely there should be lesser grounds than for incarceration. This is really the thrust of the argument.

When a police officer sees someone, I really think that instead of adding another onus to his shoulders, another law book for him to pull out, another set of rules and regulations -- surely in 20th-century Canadian society we have come to the point where we take reasonable people, we train them to be police officers and we pay them a good deal of money. Then we put them out on the streets because you and I don’t want to go or are physically incapable of going; we put them out there and we say to them, “Here’s a number of things that you are supposed to look out for.”

I realize that the Hollywood movies and the entertainment spectacles don’t talk about this kind of thing, but in a downtown area this is really an obligation upon the police constable. You may shake your head, but if one of them froze to death, oh, wow, would the questions come across here. There is an obligation upon him. It is a judgement call. Now let’s go to intoxication just for a moment.

Mr. Haggerty: How many centres do you have in Ontario?

Mr. Drea: I think we answered that last night -- something around 46.

Mr. Renwick: How many have you got in Toronto?

Mr. Haggerty: But you don’t have one in every municipality, do you?

Mr. Drea: You’ve got one. I don’t know why you’re arguing; you’ve got one.

Mr. Haggerty: You tell me where it is.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think we’re going too far astray in this matter. Will you stick to the section, please?

Mr. Drea: All right. Let’s look at the judgement call, the words “apparently” or “with reasonable and probable cause.” With the indulgence of all the professional solicitors who are here --

Mr. Renwick: That’s a redundancy, I think.

Mr. Singer: I would hope.

Mr. Drea: -- let’s go back to impaired driving, prior to the mandatory breathalyser. The percentage of convictions for impaired driving prior to the mandatory breathalyser test was significantly lower than under the present Act. There’s a very simple reason for it: There were no criteria.

If the particular suspect refused, and under the old law the suspect had every right to refuse to undergo the breathalyser examination, then it was up to the police, as expert witnesses, to testify as to the degree of impaired driving. We went through the old thing about picking up nickels and dimes on the floor, touching the nose and the ears, and walking in a straight line. I suggest to you, and I suggest to all the solicitors here -- and I presume, since they’re laughing, they defended many and probably won most -- that those weren’t very absolute tests.

I suggest to you that if you want to bring in reasonable and probable grounds under subsection 2, you are literally getting to the point where someone who is apparently in contravention of section 46(3), you are literally going to have to have a breathalyser test.

Mr. Breithaupt: Not at all.

Mr. Drea: Oh, yes. How else are you going to find out if they’re apparently intoxicated or there is reasonable and probable cause?

Mr. Bullbrook: Would you yield to me just for a moment?

Mr. Drea: No.

Mr. Bullbrook: You won’t?

Mr. Drea: That’s three times in two days. Contain yourself.

Mr. Bullbrook: I just wanted to answer the question.

Mr. Drea: You’ve got lots of time. That’s three times in two days. A very, very serious thing in my mind coming back to what the member for Sarnia said -- and I agree with this -- is that this is not a punitive section, this is not an incarceration section; this is a help section.

Surely, if we are going to load the onus upon the shoulders of the police officer, that he has to take an extra load, he has to check his book, he has to do this or he has to do that, I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what kind of a help section is it? It’s for the person who really needs help and that is not the police officer.

Last night the point was raised that the police officer would indeed be protecting himself against any kind of lawsuit by having the words “reasonable and probable grounds” substituted for “apparent.” Mr. Chairman, I’m going to argue with you that it is a judgement call whether the words that are used are “apparently” or “with reasonable and probable cause.” It is a judgement by a trained peace officer. It is not something done by a layman. It is not something done by a do-gooder. It is a judgement call by a trained police officer.

While I recognize indeed in the courts the difference between “apparently” and “with reasonable and probable cause,” I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that all that would be accomplished under this subsection by substituting those words would be in essence to deny help in a great number of cases to those who desperately need help and who have no control over themselves.

While I very seldom quote the press here, I would like to remind the members there have been articles in the press in the last three or four weeks, particularly in the Toronto area, dealing with the fact that many of those who are on skid row or in that particular degree of affliction with alcohol that they literally are unable to control themselves or to fend for themselves have been saying that the police have been too busy to fend for them and to take them in. At least when they were taken in they got food and they got proper shelter. Because of the affliction -- I don’t think anybody can be terribly accurate about the accuracy of the statistics, but the press has been raising the point -- people have been dying of malnutrition out there because the police have been too busy.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that by accepting the amendment we are only adding to the onus that is upon the police officer’s shoulders. In terms of human nature, we are making it easier for him not to forego his duty but to postpone it and to take another look an hour or two later. I suggest to you that on the other side of the scale are those who are saying: “We may be the outcasts of society but at least we operated under a game plan in which from time to time the police came. They did take us in. We did receive proper meals and shelter and we went out again.”

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that by accepting this amendment we are not only loading extra duties upon the shoulders of the police officer, but we are forgoing help to those who really need help and who are unfortunately -- and really I’m sorry about this -- not in a position to come to us and say they need help.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the argument last night and again this afternoon and I’m afraid I simply cannot match the eloquence of the protagonists in this argument. I think I accept that the mover of the amendment and his supporters are quite sincere in their intent to protect the civil rights of the person who may be judged improperly by a peace officer or constable.

I availed myself overnight of some legal advice because obviously I’m at a disadvantage in speaking on this point from a legal point of view. I satisfied myself that the word “apparently” in the section, while it may very well have the connotation attached to it by the member for Sarnia, also has others which would seem to me to provide sufficient protection. I’ve looked at several other statutes. The Criminal Code contains an inference of an offence by the appearance of a juvenile which, in my view, is far greater than this because I think the word “apparently” in this means far more than appearance and in order to support that point I just wanted to read a couple of definitions that have been brought to my attention.

“Apparent” -- which is, of course, the adjective -- “That which is obvious, evident or manifest; means open to view; capable of being easily understood; evident.” It seems to me there would, from those meanings, he a very important onus on the constable before he used the power to take into custody as provided in this section.

I had another one here for the word “apparently” itself, the adverb, in which it says, “Evidently; visibly. Evidently to the understanding; clearly.” It seems to me that this is far more than just physical appearance; that the police officer is going to have to use a great deal of judgement, as my colleague from Scarborough Centre has said. He is going to use all of the evidence available to him, not simply the sense of sight. I am sure he will use other senses as well. He will also rely on verbal evidence given to him by bystanders and others who have seen the actions of the person who is to be taken into custody, and since the purpose of the section is, in fact, to help the person who is under the influence of alcohol in a public place --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, it would seem to me that the officer should have probably wider power than he might otherwise have in enforcing the law for a criminal offence. In this case it is for the purpose of helping, and I think the peace officer has to be given this somewhat broader power. We can get into a semantic argument, but I think we wanted to avoid that last night.

Mr. Singer: It is not semantic, it is legal.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It was said that it was more than an argument of semantics and I am prepared to accept that. But it does seem to me that the word “apparently,” from the definitions that I have seen, does impose a much greater onus on the police officer than the member for Sarnia attributed to him in his interpretation of the word.

I would certainly agree that if it was simply by appearance, by what is visible to the constable’s eyes, perhaps it might -- and I say “might” again advisedly -- give him greater power than we should properly give to a person who is taking another person into custody. But I do suggest to the hon. members opposite that the word “apparently” does impose a stronger onus than that on the police officer, and I would ask them to support the subsection in the wording as proposed in the bill.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask the minister, since he has now responded and has had the opportunity to consider the meanings of this word, whether he could proceed to respond to two particular points?

First of all, the constable may indeed make those various considerations that you said he would make, but he doesn’t have to make those considerations. He apparently does not have to justify the reasoning behind his decision in any particular matter. Secondly, if the wording of the amendment which my colleague brought in, to require “reasonable and probable grounds,” is not satisfactory, perhaps the minister could give us the benefit of the advice he had which found that phrase unacceptable, or if not unacceptable, at least not wanted in this place.

The reason I ask that question is because it would seem to me that the police constable or the peace officer who is involved in making this observation as to a person’s circumstance, has protection if he follows his traditional role and gets his traditional protection which the courts give to him if a decision is made within the ambit of his authority and within the known belief that he was acting upon reasonable and probable grounds. As we mentioned last evening, this phrase has a particular known dimension within the courts, it offers protection to the police constable, and it also ensures that if an arrest, or the taking into custody, is done by whim, by the decision that he didn’t like the colour of coat the person was wearing, then that police constable is not acting correctly. So it works both ways.

In this situation we believe it would be far better to have that continuing judgement call, as the member for Scarborough Centre has referred to it, based upon the traditional framework in which the police constable ordinarily operates. Indeed, to do otherwise, we think, would allow the possibility of an abuse either of the individual’s rights or possibly of the constable’s own rights and privileges. We think you should use that phrase which has a good meaning and an acceptable balance well known by the police authorities by the training which they undergo and take on a task which, as the member for Scarborough Centre said, many of us would not prefer take on. They do it well. To do it in this manner, we think, is not in the best interests of either the individuals who may be taken into custody or of the police constable.

The point at which I disagree with the comments of the member for Scarborough Centre is when he raises the point that it depends upon where the individual goes as to the judgement which should be made. I suggest rather it depends upon the taking into custody in the first place, which is the important criterion. Where the individual goes after he or she is taken into custody is, of course, a further judgement of the police constable and properly so. The taking into custody in the first instance is surely the time at which reasonable and probable grounds should be held. That is the reason for the approach we have taken.

We think the constable should justify naturally to himself, to his employers, to the public, to his superiors, the making of this decision and in many cases it will be a difficult and perhaps even a distasteful decision to make. The point is that by putting in the phrase we have alluded to and accepting the amendment, we think you will come up with a better, clearer item of legislation.

Accordingly I would like to hear from the minister why he would feel that phrase does not find favour and isn’t useful in the statute.

Mr. Chairman: Did the minister want to reply to that first?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, I did, Mr. Chairman. I think I can reply very briefly. I don’t think I ever suggested that the phrase which is incorporated into the amendment was unacceptable or did not find favour.

Mr. Breithaupt: Unsatisfactory.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes. What I suggested was that the onus imposed on the person taking another into custody, by the use of the word “apparent” or “apparently,” does not relieve him of the necessity of having to meet certain criteria as suggested by the member. In my view, he would have to justify under that word a serious set of criteria and he would, in fact, justify --

Mr. Singer: Where do you find that? Where do you find any authority for that?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In the definition of the word “apparently.” In the definitions I read previously.

Mr. Singer: “In any case,” has that ever been said? There are clear definitions of reasonable and probable cause but “apparently” is subjective. That’s where you miss the whole point.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They are all subjective and it means that the constable must come to a decision --

Mr. Singer: They are not subjective.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- based on a certain set of criteria.

Mr. Singer: No, it doesn’t say on a certain set of criteria at all.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: When the word in the legal dictionary is defined as clearly, I don’t --

Mr. Singer: What Canadian cases have said that?

Mr. Drea: When was the last time you defended one?

Mr. Singer: Who, you?

Mr. Drea: No, that. You wouldn’t defend me; that is for sure.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There are a number of cases in which the word apparent, or obvious, evident or manifest have been used. They are not Canadian cases; the ones I see here are both American cases. I really don’t want to argue jurisprudence with the member because I think it would be futile to do that.

I simply say I feel the use of the word apparently does impose a number of criteria on the constable, puts an onus on him and he is not relieved of proving the necessity. Therefore, I think the word apparently is satisfactory and there need not be an amendment. I didn’t want to suggest for one minute that the words which the members have suggested in their amendment don’t have an honourable tradition in jurisprudence because I am advised they do.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I would like to support the amendment put forward by the member for Sarnia for two reasons. One is that the phraseology is one with which the police are familiar and comfortable and does not appear to add any additional ingredient to the word “apparently.” More importantly, from my point of view in any event, as I read subsection 2, I tend to read it disjunctively and not necessarily conjunctively.

The argument has been made by the member for Scarborough Centre and perhaps others in the assembly believe it to be a section which can be read conjunctively, that is, when the police officer takes the person into custody, i.e., arrests him, he then decides will he take him to a police station or will he take him to the detoxification centre. I think the clause of necessity doesn’t have to be read conjunctively and that the police officer, having taken the person into custody, then makes up his mind as to which of two courses lie will follow.

My concern about that is if that is so, then in fact what we are conferring here is not necessarily an ameliorative provision but simply saying to the police officer that he can arrest without a warrant. Therefore, that would appear to me to extend the ambit of subsection 3 of section 46 where the police officer can only arrest without a warrant as provided in subsection 4 of section 46, namely, that “a police officer may arrest without warrant any person whom he finds contravening subsection 3, where to do so is necessary to protect that person or another from injury.”

I think that section 46 carefully provides that the circumstances under which the police officer can arrest without a warrant are where the additional ingredient is present, i.e., “where to do so is necessary to protect that person or another from injury.” That’s an additional factor. As much as we are all interested in being able to use detoxification centres and to provide the police constable with the alternative under section 37, subsection 2, we are not really providing him with a conjunctive alternative where he says: “If I am exercising my power under subsection 2 of 37, I can take him to a detoxification centre.” The police officer at the time he makes the arrest under subsection 2 of section 37 and takes the person into custody -- because that’s what it is; he makes an arrest. He impedes the person. He is arrested.

The person doesn’t know whether there is a detoxification centre available or a bed available. Having arrested him under subsection 2 of section 37, with the best will in the world he may want to take him to the detoxification centre but there are only 78 beds in Toronto at the, present time. He then says: “I have now arrested this person without a warrant. There is no place for him in the detoxification centre. What do I now do? I take him to the police station.” That happens regularly in the city of Toronto. Therefore, what we are doing by reason of What we believe to be an ameliorative provision is that we have in fact enlarged the authority of the police constable to arrest without a warrant which we had both in this and the previous statute carefully limited only to those circumstances where it was necessary to protect the person or another from injury.

I point that out as it appears to me to be a conundrum. The resolution of the conundrum, in my view, is as I have stated, that having arrested under subsection 2 of section 37, the police constable then has a choice. He may have a choice in his own mind; he may have a choice perforce because there is no place for him in the detoxification centre. For example, in certain places in the Province of Ontario there are no detoxification centres. Obviously he can’t use this section for that purpose. He can only arrest him and I think that perhaps poses the real problem. Let me see if I can find a place. Let’s take the city of Timmins, for example. Now, a police constable in Timmins, presumably, can only arrest without a warrant where to do so is necessary in order to protect that person or another person from injury. Obviously, he can’t use subsection 2 of section 37, because there’s no detoxification centre in the Timmins area.

So, it seems to me that you have a very real conundrum for the police officer. Even if he doesn’t know there’s a detoxification centre in the locality, he won’t know at the point at which he makes the arrest whether or not there is any available facility for him, because they are so limited. There are 16 beds in Sudbury, 20 in Windsor, 35 in Kenora, and so forth. There is a total of 245 across the province. So that is my principle reason. I think that it is most important that tie amendment by the member for Sarnia be accepted for these two reasons.

If it is intended that this is an arrest without a warrant in broader circumstances than is permitted under subsection 3 of section 46, I think we’d better insert in that section, “take into custody without a warrant.” Otherwise, I think a police officer is put into a very difficult position.

I don’t pretend to know what the answer is or the resolution of the problem is, but I think you’ve got a much larger problem than the member for Scarborough Centre seemed to believe. Because he was reading it conjunctively; that there was some lesser evidence required of the intoxication that would permit the police officer to take the person into custody and he would do so only because he was going to take bins for treatment to a detoxification centre, rather than to a police station.

Maybe this is not the time we can resolve the two sections in this assembly. But I would think that between now and the next session of the assembly, somebody better give some serious thought to section 37 and section 46 to make sure that we understand exactly what we want to do when we’re trying to assist persons who are intoxicated.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: I don’t find any difficulty at all in supporting the position taken by my colleague, the member for Sarnia -- .and as supported by the remarks of the hon. member for Riverdale. I do find some considerable difficulty in following the logic of the hon. member for Scarborough Centre and also the minister’s efforts into legal jurisprudential logic, which doesn’t just quite fit together.

What concerns me very much is the kind of precedent that we’re going to set if the minister keeps his heels dug in and says, “I won’t accept it, because somebody gave me an opinion outside.” Whatever that opinion is, I would be much more impressed if you said something more than, “I got a legal opinion from somebody, unnamed, and I will read you now a definition out of” -- and it turns out to be a legal dictionary.

There are all sorts of legal dictionaries. There are American ones, British ones, Canadian ones; Quebec ones, and so forth. I would like to know the authority which you are quoting. I think it’s most important. I would like to know the reference to any case where the courts have ruled on this matter.

It would seem to me that the minister is in a very difficult position when he says, for instance, “I have looked at things like ‘apparently’ being a juvenile.” I would suggest that there is a pretty reasonable objective test when you put those two words together.

For instance, if someone apparently came to the conclusion that the minister was not a juvenile, that could be tested very quickly by a judge who wanted to inquire about that. He could take a look at the minister and see whether or not a peace officer had come to a reasonable conclusion. But hours or days after the event when a peace officer came to the conclusion that someone apparently was in breach of section 46(3) you are in a completely subjective testing position. A constable could be all by himself and could say, “I saw the arrested person and apparently he was in breach of 46(3) and apparently he was going to injure himself or some other people.” End that kind of logic and that kind of testing you propose to set up as part of our law escapes any judicial review, no matter how many dictionary definitions you are going to read to us. But surely when you took legal advice from your solicitors in the department or from the law officers of the Crown, somebody must have whispered to you that the words “reasonable and probable cause” have a long meaning in the law in Ontario, in Canada, in Great Britain. They have been dealt with many times judicially, have been reviewed by many judges on all levels and can’t, in fact, be tested.

What concerns us, Mr. Minister, is what the section says -- not what you think it might say because somebody gave you a definition out of some dictionary. What the section says is “where a constable finds a person in a public place apparently in contravention of section 46(3)” -- that’s what it says, “apparently” -- not “when he believes with reasonable and probable cause he is in contravention,” but “apparently” -- then he can take such person into custody.

This is quite contrary to what the member for Scarborough Centre said -- it’s not a custodial section. The section says, then he can take the person into custody. There couldn’t be anything more custodial than those words.

I don’t think you weaken your section at all by putting in those protections to people who might have their civil liberties interfered with. In a sort of way, this was the kind of a thing we were concerned about when we argued Bill 99. I don’t know that we are going to have the same kind of public attention addressed to this, but I urge the minister to be cautious and careful and not to go down in the history of the Province of Ontario, in his short tenure in that office, as one who is taking away civil liberties.

Because that is what you are going to do. And the first time this comes up in court, and some judge who has a penchant for getting publicity comes to interpret the word “apparently,” guess who is going to get it in the neck? This minister -- who could, with logic and sense, accept the reasonable amendment put forward by my colleague. You are not weakening your section or your statute one iota.

This is quite aside from -- and a very good attack could be mounted on this whole section -- how many detoxification beds you’ve got in the whole province. And it skirts the issue of the great announcement made by that fellow Lawrence, who now sits in the House of Commons, when he was bringing a new era to Ontario and avoiding a swinging door concept of dealing with drunks. We were going to do better in Ontario. We were going to have ample treatment facilities and we just didn’t want to bring them in one door and fine them $10 or 10 days and let them circulate through the swinging door and go out again.

This is quite aside from the question. We were willing, just mildly on the way by, to say you have not done your job -- the collective you -- you and your predecessor. You make great speeches. Al Lawrence was a good speechmaker. He told us about this new era, and about how you had a new concept of how one should treat alcoholics.

I get puzzled by the approach of the member for Scarborough Centre when he said when we put this forward, “We are not in favour of trying to help alcoholics”. I suppose when you get a section like this anything is fair game whether it makes sense or not. It would seem to me that the minister could reasonably rely on the legal advice that you are getting from the legal members, professional or not, of this House who are saying be careful and don’t clothe peace officers with this kind of authority. I would urge the minister to accept my colleague’s amendment.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am more concerned about the possibility that was pointed out by the member for Riverdale than the arguments of the member for Downsview, and I am concerned about it. It does seem to me that the amendment does not meet the concerns expressed by the member for Riverdale.

He has said, of course, that subsection 2 of section 37 enlarges the power to arrest without warrant, and I don’t see how on earth the suggested amendment meets that argument. I must say that certainly there was no intention to do that, and all I can do here is rely again on the advice of those who have drafted this section, who tell me and who have indicated quite clearly that it does not, in fact, do that.

I just want to point out to all of those who have supported the amendment that we are not doing anything new. This section follows the wording of the existing section 90 in the present Act. There are no reported cases, it has not been before a judge, none of my predecessors has gone down in history as having destroyed the civil rights of the people.

Mr. Singer: With your luck, probably you would be the first one.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It may be, if your interpretation is right. But we have no knowledge and there has been no case brought before us of any abuse by a police officer of this section and this has been around since 1971. It seems to me if there had been any possibility of abuse, any possibility of a reported case, it would have happened by now. But perhaps the member for Downsview is right; with my luck it may be tomorrow when this Act becomes law, if it becomes law tomorrow.

So I just want to repeat what I have said before. I think there is ample protection of the civil rights of the person involved in the section as it stands. I am somewhat concerned about the possibility pointed out by the member for Riverdale but I don’t see how the amendment meets his concern or the concern that I share with him.

Mr. Renwick: I agree with that. I just thought your people should look at it between now and next year.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, I agree.

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t want to elongate the debate unduly -- I am sorry, Mr. Chairman -- but I just want, if I may, to try to point out objectively, with a set of facts, what I understand my amendment is intended to do.

May I say to you, by the way, that I grappled with this whole question some years ago. I defended a hotel in Sarnia on a charge of permitting drunkenness. I forget the section, but I distinctly recall being quite involved with these words “intoxicated,” “under the influence” and “permitting drunkenness,” because of the fact that they were so abstract and so difficult to come to grips with.

What I am trying to point out to you, if I may, is to ask you again to reconsider. If a man is lying on a park bench -- okay, I exaggerate for clarity -- lying on a park bench showing the symptoms of intoxication, then the police officer is entitled to take him into custody under this section. If somebody beside him says, “That fellow hasn’t been drinking. I am sorry, he is having a seizure,” then he still has the right to take him into custody if you use the word “apparently,” whereas if you use the words “reasonable and probable grounds” he hasn’t the right to take him into custody, because he has no reasonable grounds -- since he was told that he wasn’t in an intoxicated condition -- to take him into custody. That’s the reason for words like “reasonable and probable grounds.” It is not a question of appearance, it is not a question of how the person looks, but it is a judgement that the police officer must take at the time.

May I say to you, if the man has the stench of alcohol, his locomotion is impossible, he takes him into custody on the basis of that appearance, but because he makes a judgement, a reasonable and probable judgement of those facts. That is really the total intention of the amendment.

I want to say to you, if I may, in closing, through the Chairman, the intention wasn’t to make it more difficult for you. I recognize that this section was really therapeutic in its intent. I dissociate myself entirely from the comments of the member for Scarborough Centre when he talked about people not wanting to see drunks, and getting them out of the park. That isn’t the intention here. If it is the intention then, boy, I will tell you, I don’t like this type of statute.

But I really believe the motivation here isn’t that. It isn’t to get the drunks out of public view. We sympathize with them. We don’t find any revulsion in them; we sympathize with them. So the intention is to help them -- I realize that -- but it is paramount that one keeps in mind that you don’t put these things in statutes. They are reason for protection. The word “appearance” in the Criminal Code in connection with juveniles has nothing to do, may I say, with taking into custody. The question of the appearance of a juvenile under the Criminal Code is for the purpose of how that person is treated before the courts, not for taking them into custody. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other member wish to take part in the debate on the amendment to section 37, subsection 2?

Is it your wish that we stack it?

Mr. Bullbrook: No.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): No.

The committee divided on Mr. Bullbrook’s motion that section 37(2) be amended by removing the word “apparently” and replacing that with the words “who has reasonable and probably grounds to believe that he is in an intoxicated condition”; which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 34, the “nays” are 51.

Section 37 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Would the minister like to revert to section 8 -- his amendment requested by Mr. Cassidy?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, we have discussed section 8 but I would like to move an amendment to section 8.

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves that subsection 2 of section 8 of the bill be amended by striking out “and subsections 1 and 2 of section 6 apply in respect of permits, mutatis mutandis, in the same way as they apply in respect of licences” in the fourth, fifth and sixth lines, and inserting in lieu thereof “and subsection 2 of section 6 applies in respect of permits, mutatis mutandis, in the same way as it applies in respect of licences.”

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): I object to the second mutatis mutandis, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, it is an amendment which I understand satisfies the member for Ottawa Centre who questioned the need for it in the first place.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Handleman’s --

Mr. Breithaupt: In order to save the time of the House on this we can take the same vote reversed.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): We would accept it as well. I would even say, mutatis mutandis, if he weren’t a Tory he would be a nice fellow.

Motion agreed to.

Section 8 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: On section 38 of the bill?

Mr. Cassidy: I believe the minister has an amendment on 38, Mr. Chairman.

On section 38:

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves that section 38 be amended by inserting after “days” in the fourth line “or such lesser period as he thinks advisable.”

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If I might explain the purpose of the amendment, the member for Ottawa Centre and I had some discussions while we were waiting for the vote, and it was decided that the section did not give the judge the power to order a person to be detained for any period less than 90 days. I agreed with the hon. member that perhaps the judge should be given that discretion, and the amendment achieves that.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment to section 38?

Mr. Cassidy: Before the vote, is it understood that we can come back to another point on section 38 after the vote is taken? I would appreciate it if that would be the case.

Mr. Chairman: If there’s only the one part to section 38; if the amendment carried, that would carry the section.

Mr. Cassidy: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment to bring forward on section 38, which I would like to discuss before we take the vote on this particular one.

Mr. Chairman: We’ll dispose of this one and then deal with yours.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the minister’s amendment?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I would thank the minister. I had suggested that we make that penalty up to 90 days, and he’s done it by using different language.

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 38 of Bill 45 be amended by deleting all words after the word “regulations” and by substituting the following:

“But the person shall be released if (a) at any time during the period, the superintendent of the institution is of the opinion that further detention therein will not benefit him or (b) the person makes application to a judge of the provincial court and the judge, having reached the opinion that further detention therein will not benefit the person or that there are other reasons to justify release, orders the person released.”

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the minister and I have had words about this, and he feels it is difficult to accept this second amendment.

As I understand it, section 38 as proposed is similar to the existing legislation, but it raises some pretty grave concerns in our minds because of the fact that the period of incarceration in an institute for rehabilitating alcoholics can be 90 days; and there’s no parole, there’s no probation, there’s no way to get out if the superintendent decides he should stay in. It really makes it seem like a sentence, in other words, and compares rather unfavourably with the standard sentence for people who are intoxicated, which, as the minister knows, is as often as not a $10 fine, a suspended sentence or a couple of days over the weekend in order to dry out. We are concerned about the disparity between the one- or two-day sentence, or the small monetary fine on the one hand, and the 90 days which the judges are still being urged to give in order to have a drying-out process take place.

As the minister also knows, you don’t really benefit from rehabilitation from alcoholism unless you’re psychologically ready to benefit from it. You can therefore get a situation where a person is incarcerated or put in against his will; he doesn’t really want to go along and is constantly looking for ways to sneak a drink, and he is really not having very much benefit, but where for various reasons the superintendent remains hopeful.

There’s no way that the person or that person’s family can get into the situation and can go to a judge, put the case and possibly have a release. It is also not open to a superintendent officially, although I’m sure it might happen in many cases, to let the person out if there were compelling family reasons why there should be a release. That would be permitted under this particular amendment as well. I’d appreciate the minister’s comments on the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: First of all, the hon. member and I did discuss his proposed amendment, and it is my view, and it has been confirmed to me by the officials of the ministry, that this section as it now appears in the Act has worked very, very well in the past -- that the only person really qualified to determine whether or not further detention would benefit the person involved is the superintendent of the institution.

It would seem to me that any possible abuse of the phrase “in the opinion of” -- which is really the key phrase in this section -- could very well be avoided, if necessary by an application to the Ombudsman. It would seems to me that by giving the person the option of going through the court procedures, they are almost forcing him to place on transcript certain evidence which the judge would have to consider before releasing the person against the wishes of the superintendent. I don’t believe that would be in the best interest of the person himself.

If there were any injustices because of the capricious use of the superintendent’s powers, I think the proper course would be for the Ombudsman to look into this kind of thing and probably that would put an end to any abuses of the privilege of the superintendent. I do feel it was worthwhile in the past and that we shouldn’t tamper with something which most of those who are in the field of alcohol reclamation favour keeping.

Mr. Cassidy: If I might just comment on that, Mr. Chairman. There is going to be one Ombudsman and a small staff across the province. For somebody who is in Kenora or who is in Ottawa, distant from where the Ombudsman is there is going to be problems -- with the Ombudsman looking through the mail and stuff like that, it will all take time.

I am suggesting that if a person feels an injustice has been done, they ought to be able to go off to the court and say, “I shouldn’t he in this institution anymore,” or, “My wife is sick, there is nobody to look after the kids. I think that I can hack it back at home and look after the kids and there are compelling reasons for me to get out, whether or not I might benefit from staying in the institution any further.”

I think it is wrong on civil libertarian grounds to leave the mutter to the opinion of the superintendent. Whether his opinion is right or wrong, there is no appeal from that opinion.

Finally, it’s our practice in the province to entrust many matters to the judiciary in which the judiciary are not necessarily more expert than the people who made the original decision. The hospital appeals tribunal -- the thing that Dr. Schiller was involved in -- is one example. Likewise, it’s our practice to entrust many matters to this Legislature and to members of the cabinet in which they, too, are not as expert as the people who are advising them or the people whose lives they affect.

Therefore I don’t think it is wrong for a judge to hear the evidence, to hear what the individual who is in the institution for the rehabilitation of alcoholics has got to say, and to hear the response from the superintendent who says, “In my opinion, here are the reasons why this person ought to remain.”

As the minister says, to our knowledge this has not created problems in the past. Nevertheless it seems to me that we ought to leave that avenue open for the same reasons that moved the province to establish all of the system tribunals that exist in relation to the McRuer report on civil liberties and civil rights. The avenue ought to be available, even though we accept the fact that seldom, if ever, is it liable to be used.

It seems to me also that if the avenue of a court is available as a last resort, then when there is a disagreement between a person and the superintendent about whether or not that person should remain in the institute, the superintendent will be more liable to give the benefit of the doubt to the individual. Now, because only the opinion of the superintendent is involved, he may be more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the institution. This is a problem which exists not just in these institutes, but in many other types of institutional care. So for these reasons I hope that the minister might reconsider and either accept this particular amendment or else stand this section. That would allow his people to look at the drafting and maybe come back with a slightly reworded version before we get to the end of the bill.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, before the minister replies, I would like to draw to the attention of the minister that if we’re going to accept that kind of an amendment, we might as well disregard section 38 altogether. Quite frankly, there is no one who would be categorized as a hard drinker or a person who required the particular attention of section 38. After a day or two or three, there is no one who, in all sincerity, would not say that he or she was perfectly able to go on the outside. On this business of being able to appeal the professional judgement of those who are dealing with the very difficult problem of alcoholism; it is not a physical disease, I would hope that the member for Ottawa Centre would concede that. It’s not just the physical process of pouring it down the throat. It is a combination of mental, psychological, emotional -- a great number of processes.

Over the years this province has gone through a great deal of money and expertise to try and produce programmes that would be of benefit for rehabilitation. I don’t like the word reclamation, although that is constantly used on the other side these days. I prefer rehabilitation. We have gone through a great deal of time, money, professional training and everything else, yet the people we have produced will still tell you that it is a matter of judgment. Nothing is certain.

There is far more of moment in this section than meets the eye. If we are to have a process whereby anybody who is undergoing rehabilitation therapy for the problem of alcoholism can appeal to a court and say “on this particular day I feel good enough to go out,” surely that is going to be self-defeating.

There are a great number of us, before we were in this House, who spent a great deal of time and did a great deal of convincing to not only get law enforcement but medical people to recognize the long-term rehabilitation programme that was necessary. I must confess when I hear an amendment like this, I have to regard it as woolly-headed. It is all very well to say that the person may wrongfully be here or wrongfully he there, but there is a very limited time limit. As a matter of fact the minister has just accepted an amendment which limits the time “up to.”

If we are going to have professional programmes, then surely we are not going to cut the legs out from under them. If it was a physical ailment where it could be diagnosed from A to Z, that’s one thing. But this particular one is very intangible. I suggest to you that under the guise of civil liberties or what have you, laudable as those may be, in the instance of a very short-term confinement that type of supposed remedy is really defeating the programme as a whole.

What are you going to say after two or three days? The person feels well equipped to go out into society. You mean a court is going to determine when the person comes in there at 10 o’clock in the morning that they are well equipped to go out in society? Of course they are. They have been in the particular institution the night before they have been brought into court. The particular problem is not 10 o’clock in the morning, before they are released; the particular problem is 11, 12, 1 o’clock in the afternoon; and maybe not that day, maybe 10 days later.

Surely the 90-day time limit as a maximum and a shorter term -- in terms of civil liberties, of protection of the individual, of medical treatment -- is a very limited thing.

It’s not the kind of imposition where a person is going to be incarcerated for life. It’s a very brief period of time. I am not an expert in the behavioural sciences, but I can hardly conceive of anybody in the behavioural sciences who would say that in a day or two they can make an accurate judgement. You have to have time.

Of course, the particular problem with alcoholism is that once there is a detention centre or a place where the person is denied the use of the particular drug you can’t realistically look at the person in the light of his previous environment. These have to be judgements. I suggest to you that this is an assessment period and some assessments have to be longer than others. I don’t think it is an imposition on the particular person.

Mr. Cassidy: I had decided earlier I wouldn’t take part in this debate; but frankly I’m distressed by some of the things the member for Scarborough Centre has said. Ninety days is not a brief period. If the member were told he had to spend the next 90 days in an institute for the reclamation of alcoholics --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: -- it might or might not do him good, but it is a long time out of anybody’s life. It is all of the rest of June, it is July, it is August and it is most of September to be put into an institution. It is a long time.

Clearly, if after two days in one of these institutions, somebody says “I want to get out” and goes off to the judge, the judge will ask the superintendent or the representative from the institution. “What do you think?” The guy will say: “We have just got this fellow in. He’s only been in here for a couple of days. As far as we are concerned, we generally don’t know where we are with alcoholics and the possible reclamation thereof for a period of several weeks.”

Mr. Drea: Then why are you moving your amendment?

Mr. Cassidy: I’ll read the amendment again. “The person shall be released if” -- the first part is essentially as it is here; if the superintendent says it is okay.

The second part is if a person makes application to a judge of the provincial court and the judge, having reached the opinion that further detention therein will not benefit the person or that there are other reasons to justify a release, orders the person released. How does the judge reach his opinion, Mr. Minister? He reaches his opinion by listening to the person who has made the application and by listening to the people who are responsible for the institute for the reclamation of alcoholics. Then he makes a judgement. It allows a second-guess; an outside and an impartial look at the case as to whether or not this individual should stay in the institute or should come out.

I would remind the minister and the member for Scarborough Centre that people who are well off don’t get convicted under section 46. If they get intoxicated they get intoxicated at residences or in clubs or in private places and not in public places.

Mr. Drea: That is nonsense.

Mr. Cassidy: They are not the ones who come up in the drunk parade on Monday mornings. In order to come under this section you have to contravene subsection 3 of section 46 which says you mustn’t be done in a public place.

Mr. Drea: Maybe you should look at the occurrence lists.

Mr. Cassidy: This is therefore a piece of legislation which is essentially directed against people who are poor and people who are working class --

Mr. Drea: Nonsense.

Mr. Cassidy: -- people who earn modest incomes.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Don’t say that about people in condominiums. You’d better watch that.

Mr. Cassidy: What? The people who are living in condominiums might come under it as well? Okay.

Mr. Drea: That’s nonsense.

Mr. Cassidy: Essentially, they are working class in many cases too. They can’t afford an ordinary kind of house. In most cases, this is legislation directed against people who are on modest incomes or very, very low incomes because they are the ones who get caught up in the revolving door. They are the ones who get caught up with the whole kind of public alcoholic syndrome.

Middle class people of middle class incomes who are alcoholic come and serve in the Legislature. They go up to their offices. Eventually they may go up to some kind of a farm or someplace like that to dry out but it’s all done on a much more sedate, quiet kind of a way. They check in at ADARF, down here by the university, and they go into the process there, voluntarily, when they are ready to do it. If they decide they want to get out of the programme at that stage, they can get out because their presence at that point is voluntary rather than being compulsory.

I don’t want to say it loudly and stridently but it is a form of class legislation because it does deal mainly with one class and not with another. This is another reason why the civil liberties of a group which tends to get pushed around more by government ought to be respected. That is why I am suggesting this particular section be put forward.

The member for Scarborough Centre clearly doesn’t believe that judges can make reasonable judgements when they are faced with a superintendent saying “We’ve only had the guy or the woman for a couple of days -- and we don’t know yet;” or “The programme is working and we think they ought to stay here for a while longer.” Or, on the other hand, that a judge can’t judge when the person says, “I’ve been here for two months and nothing is happening. In the meantime my family is going to rat shit -- excuse me -- my family is going to pot and I really want to get out.” The judge may be better able to form that opinion than the superintendent who is so concerned about getting a cure that he may lose sight of the other factors involved in that particular case.

I hope the minister will agree to this. I won’t press it any further and we won’t call a vote on this particular section. But, if not, I hope the minister would consult with the ADARF about this, with the possibility of bringing in a similar kind of amendment some time over the next few months, if the minister is still in power.

Mr. Drea: Before the minister replies, I just want to say one thing. I have heard a lot of Marxist claptrap in my time but this one is really good. I will go over it with you privately because I don’t want to embarrass people. I will make it available to you and we can both get it together, because you used to be in the newspaper business. You could look at the occurrence sheets on drunkenness and you can look at the addresses. When you look at the addresses, if you can truthfully say to me in here that there is discrimination between the rich and the poor by virtue of their income or by virtue of the address, I would really like to see it.

Maybe we should go over those for about three or four months. I would suggest this to you very privately, because I don’t want to hold anybody up to ridicule. Don’t give me this stuff that somebody who is walking down the street or lying in a park, because he has a good suit or a good dress or money in his wallet, is taken to a private place and the ordinary person on skid row or the person in working clothes or who maybe needs a shave is taken somewhere else. I just don’t buy that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I just want to add my own categorical denial that there is any possibility whatsoever of this being class legislation.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Will the real minister please stand up?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The member said he didn’t want to say it stridently. He said it quietly and it’s on the record and I just want to deny it. We are as aware in this ministry, I think, as anybody anywhere in this country of the problem of affluent alcoholism. In fact, it is far more serious than is generally recognized.

I don’t know very many people on skid row. Your lender has called me a patrician but I must admit I don’t know many people on skid row. I do know people who are in an affluent state of society and who have required this treatment and have benefited from it.

It is my view, and it is the view of those people who are involved in alcohol addiction, if what we are talking about is a sickness, that the 90-day period is almost essential if we are going to have any kind of progress. We have permitted the judge to use his discretion to have the person detained for a lesser period. In my view, when those cases come before judges, I think they will almost universally declare the 90-day period to be mandatory. However, they do have the option of having it less. Again, in my view, I just want to repeat that the superintendents of these institutions have not abused this power; and it is a power.

I grant you that there is always the possibility of abuse where you have a decision based on opinion. But it would have to be in the opinion of someone who is qualified. Until such time as it is shown to me there is any abuse whatsoever of this kind of power, I would like to leave it in the hands of those people who are fully qualified to make the decision.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I must once again say I cannot accept the amendment.

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

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment defeated.

Section 38, as amended, agreed to.

Section 39 agreed to.

On section 40:

Mr. Renwick: I would like to just spend a few minutes on the question of the regulatory power to establish or designate institutions as reclamation centres for the purposes set out in the section which has just carried; and also designating public hospitals as detoxification centres.

I think my record is correct. I think we spoke about this on second reading that there are nine cities which have detoxification centres and the total number of beds available in the province is 245.

I have no idea whether or not the minister has any estimate of what the need is but the best information we can gather is there are at least 35 other localities which have requested detoxification centres or the designation of hospitals as detoxification centres; but the funding is not available through the minister’s colleague, the Minister of Health, for that purpose.

I don’t know why there is the double-barrelled responsibility. I really can’t understand why this minister is responsible for designating public hospitals as detoxification centres when the funding and any money which would be available to provide for that designation and provide that facility comes under the other ministry. I don’t understand that. Perhaps the minister can explain to me why, in this bill, we persist in making that provision.

It would seem to me that the sooner the minister got out of the business of the reclamation of alcoholics and spent his time on providing alcoholic beverages it would be better for everybody concerned, including those who needed reclamation.

As I take it, the minister, for practical purposes, can’t do anything except make the designation and pass the regulation. All the funds are with his colleague, the Minister of Health; all of the decisions have to be made there. I guess somehow or other he’s informed and he passes the regulation. I’m surprised this minister would allow himself to be used for that purpose.

I have no idea of what the need is in the province and I don’t pretend for a moment it’s the latest information, but certainly in 1973, Mr. Archibald, the executive director of the Alcohol and Drug Addiction Research Foundation, published a booklet which set out some of the indicators of the extent of alcoholism in Ontario. I think the record should show what the findings were because the number of dollars, in the global sense of the term, of the demand of alcoholism on the public sector of the economy is simply immense if these indicators are of any significance. The indicators he stated of alcoholism in Ontario were something as follows:

Ten per cent of the population are alcoholics by whatever definition you use. In 1969, which was the year to which he referred in his study, 22,600 people between the ages of 20 and 70 died. The involvement of alcohol in these deaths was much higher than was anticipated. Alcohol played a role in 38 per cent of the deaths caused by cirrhosis of the liver; 22 per cent of deaths caused by peptic ulcer; 18 per cent of deaths caused by suicide; 15 per cent of deaths caused by pneumonia; 16 per cent of deaths caused by cancer of the upper digestive and respiratory tract; five per cent of deaths caused by heart and artery ailments; 45 per cent of deaths caused by poisoning; 43 per cent of deaths caused by accidental fires; and 25 per cent of deaths caused by falls and other physical trauma.

Of the total deaths, 11 per cent were alcoholics; and alcoholics are twice as likely to die a premature death as are non-alcoholics.

Mr. Haggerty: That’s a good record, isn’t it?

Mr. Renwick: The health and social costs, as he estimated them in 1969, were 10 per cent of general public hospital expenditures; this percentage went for alcohol-related problems. Fifteen plus per cent of mental hospital expenditures went for alcohol-related problems. Approximately 20 per cent of the funds dispensed under the Family Benefits Act are because of alcohol-related problems; and about 30 per cent of the costs of the Children’s Aid Societies can be attributed to alcohol-related problems in the family.

On an absolute cost basis for illnesses related to alcohol, the following costs were incurred: A total of $89 million through OHIP; $17 million through the mental hospitals; $9 million through family benefits; and about $11 million through Children’s Aid.

These figures exclude municipal welfare costs; cost to business and industry through loss of manpower and productivity; and the cost of the 50 per cent of traffic accidents caused by alcohol or alcohol related.

In general, for every one alcoholic 14 other people are somehow affected the family, the employer, fellow employees, doctors, friends, ministers and others.

I am sure there may well be a more up-to-date study than that made by Mr. Archibald in 1973. I would suggest to the minister that perhaps he or his colleague, the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) should commission a further study. This would not be for the purpose of stating exactly what the figures are, but to give some comprehensive indication of the extent to which the costs of alcohol and alcohol-related problems are borne by the public through the taxation system.

I am not going to take the time to put on the record again the relationship between the profits made by the government in the liquor business and the number of dollars contributed for the purpose of what could be called the overall public demand for assistance of one kind or another to those suffering from alcoholism or alcohol-related problems and those who are caught within the net of persons who so suffer.

I just can’t conceive why, in the time during which the detoxification centre provision has been in the bill, we’ve had so few of them established. I really don’t think there’s very much of a commitment by the government to dealing with the problem of alcoholism. Certainly there is no indication, if there is, why our information indicates there appears to be no hope for some 35 other localities that would like to have a detoxification centre designated in their area. My colleague, the member for Cochrane South, was telling me that he believes Timmins is on the top of the list to have a designation, but that it’s been held up --

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Waiting since 1971.

Mr. Renwick: They have been waiting and waiting and waiting for it. One could go on, I presume, at great length about this kind of problem; but I would like the minister to respond and I would like, specifically, for him to say why he doesn’t chuck it and pass it all over to the Minister of Health and have him deal with it in the way it should be dealt with. And I’d like him to say why the funds aren’t available that are required in order to provide for the designation of either the reclamation centres or the detoxification centres.

Incidentally, I would like to know just exactly where the reclamation institutions are at the present time.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I’ll try to obtain the answer to that last question during the course of my answer to the remainder of the hon. member’s comments.

First of all, I would be the first one to agree -- and I have agreed in public and privately -- that the need for both detox centres and reclamation centres is much greater than the supply of them. It isn’t an easy question to answer why more aren’t made available.

Mr. Stokes: You are sure building a million dollar revenue by the sale of booze.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: This is a red herring, a chestnut, which is always brought up when the question of alcohol-related diseases is mentioned. There is no jurisdiction in the world that has been able to control this by legislation. There just is no way that it can be done. Alcohol is here --

Mr. Stokes: You can provide more funds by legislation though.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- it is here to stay and it is controlled in Ontario as well as it is in any jurisdiction in the world. The amount of revenue that derives to the government from alcohol, and I must say this over and over again, is not related to the cost of alcohol-related problems.

There seems to me, being fairly close to this for the past few months, to have been undue emphasis on the alcoholic. The alcoholic is obviously the most serious problem and the most visible problem. But there has been almost no emphasis at all -- until my colleague, the Minister of Health, started his recent education programme -- on the cumulative costs of social drinking. This is the kind of thing that really cannot be measured.

Mr. Renwick: Oh, a long time before he even thought of it the cumulative cost of social drinking was part and parcel of the problem --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: All of the hon. member’s comments concerned detox centres, reclamation centres which are designed for the very serious, current, alcoholic problem. But there are other alcohol-related costs which are not measurable. We can exchange excerpts from old speeches and old statistical data that we both have available to us. None of us will even come close to guessing the total cost of alcohol to our society in terms of both dollars and social costs, so I don’t want to engage in that kind of a debate, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Stokes: Would you agree that it is extremely large?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We agree that it is extremely large. We agree that the institutions that are now available to cope with the most serious and most evident problems are not sufficient. If I had the kind of funding that could be made available -- and I don’t have -- I might put this a little higher in my ministry’s priorities.

The hon. member said I was being imposed on by having this responsibility for designation. I suppose it goes along with the responsibility for enforcement of control which does rest under the two boards which report to the Legislature through use. Therefore, it seemed to be a natural evolution that this ministry be the one to designate institutions.

I am inclined to agree that it could just as easily be done by the Minister of Health, and perhaps some thought could be given to transferring the authority. I must tell the hon. member we both attend cabinet very regularly. When he makes a recommendation, it generally is accepted by my ministry without any comment or argument. As a matter of fact, I am always pleased when I am able to make this kind of designation, because it’s one of the constructive things that I can do. I am fully aware of the responsibility that rests on my shoulders as the purveyor of booze.

Mr. Stokes: Is it going to salve your conscience when you get $400 million from booze?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Having purveyed that terrible product which has to some extent caused the need for these detox centres, I think maybe my conscience is helped and salved a bit by being able to designate at least some areas and some centres for the treatment of the disease.

I suppose until such time as we come back with an amendment these two designation subsections will remain in the ministry. I still don’t have an answer to the number of reclamation centres, but I will certainly try to get you that before the debate ends.

Mr. Renwick: Can you give us a list of those localities in the Province of Ontario that have requested the designation of centres in their areas as detoxification centres and have not as yet had them so designated?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, whether that information would be immediately available, but I will try to have it available tonight if it is on record.

Mr. Renwick: Explain the procedure to me. Are you, in fact, the end of the road? The information doesn’t come to your ministry?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The initiative would be taken through the Ministry of Health. The application is to be made to the Ministry of Health. The designation of the centre, once the decision has been made for the actual funding of a detox centre, its setting up and its incorporation particularly into a public hospital, would be made by the Ministry of Health. The regulation would be signed by me, and really that’s what it amounts to.

Mr. Renwick: I can’t think of anything more ridiculous, I really can’t. We are being asked to pass the regulatory authority so that you can designate detoxification centres and you don’t know what they are. You don’t know which localities want them. It’s the Ministry of Health’s decision.

I can’t conceive that anyone would believe that you divided authority that way. There are no funds in your ministry of any kind, are there? You don’t know where or what the reclamation institutions are and yet we are being asked to grant you the authority to designate them.

Mr. Stokes: How do you do it; on the basis of consumption?

Mr. Renwick: I am speaking about you as the minister, not you as a person. I think it is just ridiculous in the sense of a responsible ministry to be involved simply in signing your name to a regulation which will appear in the Gazette and that’s the end of the matter. I don’t care how close you and the Minister of Health are. I disagree with the proposition that the extent and nature and degree of alcohol-related illnesses, social costs and social burdens are something the Minister of Health -- the present incumbent -- thought up and that nobody ever thought of before he did.

I think it’s most important, if there is any validity to the kind of study which Mr. Archibald made with the very limited resources available to him in 1973, related to the years 1969, 1970 and 1971, that if this government is serious it will commission such a study to find out the degree of social cost related to alcoholism, in its various aspects, borne by the public of the Province of Ontario. I think that until that is done people will simply say: “We know it is a very big problem” but nobody will analyse it.

Nobody will try to study it, nobody will try to deal with it. We will be subjected from time to time to advertising campaigns of one kind or another. We’ll find these very limited number of detoxification centres. We’ll find very few reclamation institutions designated. We’ll go through all of this ritual.

I am not suggesting for one single moment there is any conceivable way this ministry or this government or the Minister of Health is going to solve the problem; but at least the way in which you look at problems is to analyse what the extent and nature of the problem is -- all of its component parts -- and what the overall costs are. Then you say: “Is there something intelligent we can do about it?” -- other than simply having an advertising campaign with respect to the problems of alcoholism.

We have seen fractured studies of all kinds on various elements in the alcohol picture. Lately it has become fashionable to talk again about alcoholism at the workplace. I don’t know whether you have noticed that -- but there is really no serious attempt to deal with the problem. I am not saying there aren’t a lot of well-meaning people who are trying hard in specific situations and in specific organizations to cope with it, but these things come and go as fashions.

They are like the battered baby syndrome. Every couple of years there is another upsurge of publicity about that; and there is another upsurge of publicity about alcoholism and suicide; or there is another upturn on alcoholism at the workplace or alcoholism and the cost to the Children’s Aid. But that doesn’t solve anything.

When government feels the impact of it, it embarks on an advertising programme to tell people the obvious; whereas in our judgement it is a problem of the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Community and Social Services, and Ministry of Correctional Services. Those are the ministries which somehow or other have to deal with it. I think it is completely diversionary and non-productive for anyone to think this minister should be saddled with this kind of responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I want to concur with almost everything the member has said. The last serious study of alcohol-related diseases, I think, is about 20 years old. Certainly, in my view, it is time we updated our data on this very serious topic. I am not too sure this government should be embarking on it on its own. It’s a national problem, it’s probably an international problem.

This is really something on which the Minister of Health should take the initiative, and I quite agree with you that simply designating these institutions does not make my ministry in any way a contributor to the solution of the problems. It would probably be a housekeeping amendment if it was necessary. At the present time we are asking for the power because nobody else has it and I am sure you wouldn’t want the designations to cease.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I agree. I am not introducing an amendment to delete this provision. All we are trying to say -- and I think I would have the support of any number of people, including the minister himself -- is it’s just ridiculous.

Mr. Stokes: Put it someplace where it will have some relevance.

Mr. Renwick: The sooner you get it over to the Ministry of Health and fix him with responsibility for it, the sooner we may be able to get some kind of action for those localities which want this rudimentary institution at least to be available to them for the treatment of persons who are obviously addicted to alcohol.

Mr. Singer: They could bring Allan Lawrence back.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few comments on clause (j) of section 40 which has to do with advertising. Do you have it within your power, or do you have any inclination, to restrict the nature and the kind of advertising which is permissible? I am sure everybody is aware of the kind of advertising which goes on, particularly during the intermissions at sporting events, hockey games, things of that nature, where one brewery tries to create the impression that if you are going to be “with it; if you are going to be part of the swinging society, if you are going to be --

Mr. Fender: Popular?

Mr. Stokes: -- with the go-go crowd, that you have to consume their beverages, even if you are on a fishing trip -- which is illegal, according to certain sections of this Act. They show you out beside the fishing hole or out on the end of a dock; they show you in any number of situations where it is stylish, popular, the only way to go, to have a bottle of their particular product in your fist.

I am just wondering, since some of the scenes that are depicted in those ads, which extol the virtues of their product, are even in contravention of this very Act, particularly section 46, where it is a contravention to consume alcoholic beverages in a public place, doesn’t the minister think he has a responsibility to at least monitor the kinds of ads that are going over and seeing whether or not some of the statements that are made -- you know, I can go out fishing, I can go out and play baseball, I can go out and golf; I can go and do almost anything without having to have a bottle of beer either in my hand or close by in a cooler.

Mr. Reid: Speaking strictly for yourself.

Mr. Stokes: I think I am speaking for you too. If you didn’t have it, I think you could do quite well without it.

Mr. Breithaupt: Would you rather?

Mr. Stokes: I think it is offensive that people should be allowed to create the impression that if you are with it at all, you can only be with it if you use their product. As corny as it may sound, I think that advertising does have a very real and profound effect on the buying habits of people.

I think it does have a deleterious effect, particularly on our youth when they are at an impressionable age. I have youngsters of my own at home, and I tend to think they are swayed by this kind of persuasion. I think it is time the minister took a really good look at the kind and quality of advertising; and I think we could well do with a good deal less of it. I would like the minister to comment on it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, first of all, there is a section later on which makes advertising that is not in accordance with the regulation passed under this subsection an offence.

Mr. Stokes: We don’t have the regulations; that is the problem.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We do have existing standards which have the force of regulation. I must say, when the hon. member asks us to monitor the advertising, in fact it is pre-cleared at the present time with the Liquor Control Board, and in the future, it will be dune under this Act, by the Liquor Licence Board or a committee thereof. All of the advertising, which the member sees at half-time on television, I assume -- because it is not being done on the field -- is cleared with the board. They must comply with certain standards and guidelines which have been laid down.

The CRTC, under the Broadcasting Act, has and uses certain powers to control advertising; and the directives which have been issued by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario are in accordance with the regulations under the Broadcasting Act. I thought I just might read one of the sections which govern the standards. It deals with all advertisements: “All such advertisements, commercials and endorsements shall be -- “

Mr. Singer: What are you reading from?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I am reading from the “Directive on Advertising and Sales Promotion,” revised Dec. 1, 1974.

Mr. Singer: Published by whom?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Published by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. It says:

“All such advertisements, commercials and endorsements shall be directed towards and emphasize the nature and quality of the product being advertised and shall not imply directly or indirectly that social, personal or business success, recognition or achievement, may be acquired or result from the use of such product being advertised.”

Then it goes on to say, of course, that advertising should concentrate on the merits of the brand, rather than the product --

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): That doesn’t happen.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- and advertise the moderate and responsible use of the particular product.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): They just don’t do it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In the past year or so, media advertising, particularly electronic media advertising, has been reduced by approximately 40 per cent over what it was the previous year. We are continually negotiating with the industry.

These are revised approximately once a year. When they are put out there is response from the industry and they point out certain problems that may arise. There is a great lead time, as I am sure all members are aware, in the preparation of television advertising, and that is the reason you must give adequate notice. People have invested large amounts of money in television advertising and, therefore, we do give them long notice before these go into effect so that they are aware of them when they are preparing their advertising for the coming season.

So the total thrust of our advertising controls are to reduce advertising, to control the nature of advertising, to encourage brand emphasis in the advertising and to encourage moderation in the consumption of alcohol.

Mr. Stokes: Let me refer the minister to section 46, subsection 2: “No person shall consume liquor in any place other than a premises in respect of which a licence or a permit is issued or a residence.”

Now, just take a look at some of those beer ads; they are sitting out on the side of a river saying what great sons their fishermen are -- or what great fishermen their sons are --

Mr. Reid: Or something like that.

Mr. Stokes: -- or something like that.

Mr. Breithaupt: Take a look at the members’ lounge. That is not in either of those either.

Mr. Stokes: No, but take a look at that ad and see if it is not in contravention of your own bill.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, it is not in contravention of our bill because the tent is now considered a residence, and the environs of the tent are considered a residence.

Mr. Singer: How about painting sailboats?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: First of all, there isn’t anything being consumed. It’s in a glass, of course, as you know. We don’t permit it to be consumed.

Mr. Breithaupt: But I bet I know what’s in that glass.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I understand that one performer --

Mr. Reid: That is what they call simulation.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- that’s right -- one performer has threatened to consume some on the air, and fortunately --

Mr. Breithaupt: Shocking.

Mr. Singer: Oh, dear.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- all these ads are prepared on tape so they are edited.

Mr. Worton: As long as you are only looking at it you are okay, but if you drink it you are in trouble.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: But that particular ad you mention does meet the requirements and does fit. Now we all know that advertising people are very ingenious in developing advertising which will meet their clients’ interests.

Mr. Stokes: So all you have to do is carry a tent in one hand and a bottle of beer in the other and it is legal.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We have seen, for example, and I am sure the hon. member has seen the one, although he didn’t mention it, where a case is being handed from a boat to a group on a wharf and it is dropped in the water and it is picked up. But you never see the case being opened.

An hon. member: Oh, come on.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It’s within the regulations. It may very well be that we have to tighten up on the regulations, but as I say --

Mr. Stokes: Sid, you don’t believe that?

Mr. Cassidy: This is very specious.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well, the advertising people are very ingenious in meeting the requirements of the regulations and directives.

Mr. Stokes: Well then the regulations should be changed.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well obviously, but I am saying that we have changed them.

Mr. Singer: They are not even regulations, they are directives.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They have the force of regulations because it’s an offence --

Mr. Singer: You don’t need it, because you are the only customer. They will do exactly what you tell them.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Almost every month, violations of these directives take place and measures are taken against the violators.

Mr. Singer: Sure, you stop buying his beer.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No. We can deprive them of certain privileges which they are entitled to under the Act and we have, in fact, done so. So these directives are enforced. They have the force of regulations under the Act. They will have regulatory authority.

Mr. Breithaupt: You sure can.

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