The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.
FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT (CONCLUDED)
Mr. Chairman: When I left the chair at 6 o’clock, p.m., Bill 75 up to section 9 was carried, with one amendment that was stacked at that time.
Section 10 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: We now have one amendment, moved by Mr. Bounsall, that section 1(3)(c) be amended by adding thereto, “in the absence of extreme extenuating circumstances, the division of assets in property shall be 50-50 between the spouses. An evaluation period shall include one year immediately prior to the commencement of an action for a nullity or divorce.”
The committee divided on Mr. Bounsall’s amendment, which was negatived on the following vote:
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 9, the “nays” are 38.
Section 1 agreed to.
Bill 75 reported.
Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Could we say goodbye to the Attorney General (Mr. Clement)? We have seen too much of him in the last three months.
Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Surely he has another bill there?
LIQUOR LICENCE ACT
House in committee on Bill 45, the Liquor Licence Act, 1975.
Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Chairman, Bill 45 was reprinted for consideration by the committee and distributed to the members.
Mr. Renwick: We’d like to say goodbye to the Attorney General. Bye-bye. Nice to see you go.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: The reprinted bill was distributed to the members last Thursday and with the concurrence of the members of the committee I would request that we deal with the bill as reprinted without the necessity of making amendments on it, clause by clause.
Mr. Chairman: Shall the reprinted bill be considered by the committee?
Agreed.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments or amendments to any section of the bill?
On section 1:
Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment or two. Section 1, of course, pertains to definitions and I would like to say that I have received briefs from a number of groups. They have suggested that even though this bill was introduced two months ago they feel that probably with the draft code, which isn’t complete at the moment, there should be some consideration to holding it off for some time, although I know the minister wants to get ahead because the Liquor Control Act is already passed.
I would like to have a comment from the minister regarding the draft code. It is quite a change. There were a great many definitions in the previous Act and the definitions under section 1 are very limited. I am thinking of one in particular -- the definition of resort which is in the draft code. Does this mean that the riding of the chairman they have now will be considered a resort area if they have another ploughing match there in the near future?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, the member is quite correct in that we do wish to proceed so that we can translate the draft code into a final set of regulations. He is also quite correct in that we have received many representations from individuals and groups. Some of those representations have been incorporated in the reprinted bill we have before the committee tonight and others have been put into a new draft code.
Those items which are unresolved after all the representations are in -- many of them are conflicting -- will be put to the Liquor Advisory Committee which will be formed very shortly. Hopefully the members of that committee, who will represent all points of view on alcohol consumption and distribution in this province, will be able to come up with some kind of consensus to iron out the conflicting situations of the various groups. However, we would appreciate proceeding with the bill so that the regulations which, as the member has pointed out, contain many other definitions which are important to the bill, can be proceeded with and possibly proclaimed sometime this summer
Mr. Chairman: Any other inquiries on section 1 of the bill? Is section 1 carried?
Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): On section 1: Without an index, which is never provided in government legislation, I can’t establish exactly what the provisions are relating to Ontario wine. The definition of Ontario wine relates only to wine that is produced from grapes and other similar kinds of things which are grown in Ontario. It does not, for example, include wine which is “predominantly” produced from grapes or other fruits grown in Ontario. I wonder if the minister could elaborate a bit on that and whether there has been any to and fro between the Ontario vintners and the ministry about that subject?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, of course, there is no change in the definition as it is contained in this bill from the previous one. There was, as the member may recollect, a short-term one-year provision for the use of concentrates at a time when there was a shortage of Ontario grapes. That time has passed.
I have discussed it with the grapegrowers’ marketing agency and with the wineries and they are agreed that this definition shall remain.
Mr. Cassidy: In the debate a number of us, I think, were ambivalent. On the one hand, it makes sense to have a wine industry based on Ontario grapes, as long as the government allows any grape fruitland to survive in the Niagara Peninsula -- which isn’t very long at the rate you are going -- but on the other hand, concern has been expressed about the quality of the vast bulk of Ontario vine that is produced. It just simply doesn’t match up to wines from other countries, although there are a few recent vintages which appear to be more acceptable.
One of the ways of improving the quality is obviously to ameliorate it or cut it with concentrates from California, or Spain, or France or wherever. Should that flexibility not be there? Should you not say that as long as it’s 75 or 80 per cent made out of Ontario grapes it could qualify as an Ontario wine? What are the privileges which are given to Ontario wines which are restricted from others?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons why we do not permit the use of foreign concentrates is to encourage the very trend that the hon. member has noted, and that is, the increasing use of better quality grapes to produce better quality wines. It would seem to me that this definition as it now stands, with the arrangements between the wineries and the grape growers to guarantee markets for them, has led to an improvement in the quality of our wines to the point where I have been able to tell some of the representatives of foreign wineries, wine importers, that they must he prepared to face some Ontario wines on the international markets very shortly.
If we were to permit the wineries to use concentrates, then the incentive to produce better wines in Ontario from the use of Ontario grapes would simply be removed. That doesn’t mean that at some time in the future there couldn’t be an entire revamping of the whole wine policy, but I don’t think a simple unilateral provision for the use of foreign concentrates in Ontario wines would really be very constructive at this time.
Mr. Cassidy: Is there legislative sanction in this Act or somewhere else for the practice by which the markup on Ontario wines by the Liquor Control Board is a lot different from the markup on foreign vines, or what other privileges adhere to Ontario wines in this province?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the previous bill, of course. The Liquor Control Board of Ontario, which is covered by the Liquor Control Act, has the power to establish markups. It is empowered by this Legislature, under Bill 44 and its predecessors, to establish prices.
Mr. Cassidy: But what privileges are there in this Act for Ontario wines, if any?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, the only privilege that I can see is the definition of Ontario wine.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Welland South.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the comments the minister made about Ontario wines and I was just wondering what quality check do you make on imported wines coming in, say, perhaps from France? Last year there was quite a controversy in France in dealing with the wine industry there, where they were using the cheap wines and adding a few additives to them, changed them --
Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, this is the wrong Act; he is talking about the other Act. He is late, as usual. His party is always late.
Mr. Haggerty: Well, it is a good point. We are dealing with Ontario wines here. I think the interest here is that I want to protect the Ontario wine industry.
Mr. Renwick: I know you do, but you are late. You should have spoken on the last bill.
Mr. Haggerty: On the last bill? Well, I wasn’t here on the last bill, I was down in the other committee. But I was just wondering, what quality check do you do with it?
Mr. Renwick: That’s your problem. If you were always on time the way I am this wouldn’t happen.
Mr. Haggerty: Perhaps the minister wants to respond? Thank you, Jim.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): I think if the member for Riverdale would be quiet for a minute it would be better.
Mr. Haggerty: Yes. Go ahead and see if you can give me an answer.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I recognize the point of order that’s being made by the member for Riverdale, but just out of courtesy to the member who missed the previous debate, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario maintains a very elaborate laboratory setup with wine tasters, chemical analyses and they do all of the necessary testing to ensure that the quality of wine is suitable for the Ontario palate.
Mr. Renwick: The chairman used to be one of the tasters, but he is not any longer.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2:
Mr. Renwick: On section 2, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I am curious, just as a matter of technique, as to why the minister felt that the Liquor Licence Board should be established as a new board and not continued as a board, which was the case with the Liquor Control Board. I don’t know whether I am clear on what the minister is intending. Why is it necessary to establish a new board and then provide for the transfer of assets and the assumption of liabilities by this board, when, with the Liquor Control Board, the minister simply continued it as a board?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: I’m not too sure I can answer that. It was a question, I suppose, of drafting. There is a number of new responsibilities for the Liquor Licence Board and it was felt that it should be established by this Act. The Liquor Control Board, which was continued under the Liquor Control Act, really had no new powers but was in fact deprived of some of its powers which are transferred into this Act. It may very well be that the legislative draftsmen in rewording the Act felt that it was necessary to establish the Liquor Licence Board while continuing the Liquor Control Board. That’s the best explanation I can give you for it.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 2 carry?
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3:
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I’m quite certain that the wording of section 3 is apt for the purpose. But I would like the record to indicate very clearly that the responsibilities of the Liquor Licence Board in respect of its employees and the rights, obligations and duties and responsibilities of the employees are fully protected under the new board as it has been established by section 2. I have read the subsections of section 3, including the amendment proposed in subsection 3 of section 3, and it would appear to me that it does that. But I think the record should indicate that there is no indication whatsoever that by establishing a new board you would alter in any way the continuing relationships between the board and the employees who are the beneficiaries of the collective agreement under the Labour Relations Act.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to confirm for the member’s understanding that subsection 2 very deliberately binds the new board to any agreement or contract which is outstanding under the old board and, of course, the proposed amendment under subsection 3 is to continue the bargaining agent as it exists at present.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6:
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Section 6(1)(f) is referred to in section 8. What concerns me is the discretionary powers that are given to the issuer of licences under a special occasions permit. Section 1, subsection (1)(f), says:
“The premises and accommodation, equipment and facilities in respect of which the licence is issued do not comply with the provisions of this Act and the regulations applicable thereto.”
And, of course, that is sufficient reason for denying the issuance of a special occasions permit, as referred to in section 8. The thing that bothers me is that in a good many places in the north there are groups of people in small communities without any municipal organization where they don’t have any tightly closed organizations, such as a Lions Club or a Legion or any service organization that would normally operate a facility in a hall and allow people in small unorganized communities to hold a social event.
You get a community club or something like that getting the only hall, which is usually very poorly equipped but it’s the only thing they have. I can recall one instance, Mr. Chairman, where the local group made application for a special occasions permit, as they do maybe three or four times a year, once at New Year’s, maybe once at Hallowe’en, and maybe once for a wedding banquet or something of that nature. The inspector walked in and said they had to have modern up-to-date facilities, indoor plumbing and stainless steel at that.
You know the rigmarole they have to go through. There was no indoor plumbing at this particular facility. It was an outdoor facility. They suggested to the inspector that he should tell them in advance what the requirements would be for licensing. Of course, he said: “All right, if you get two 45-gal drums, sit them into the ground and put a two-hole privy on top of it, that will suffice.”
Everything was fine and dandy until he came up to make the inspection. He said: “No, that won’t do. You’ve got to remove the privy, take out the two 45-gal drums, put in 5 ft of good porous soil, then put the drums back and the privy on top of them again, and then we’ll pass it.”
They had asked in advance what the requirements were, they met the requirements and then he came along at the last minute and said, “No.” Well, their member intervened and they were able to go ahead with their social on the appointed date, but it just shows you how ludicrous some of these situations can be.
Another one was on an Indian reserve, where they never had indoor plumbing; they were denied a right to a special-occasion permit simply because somebody said, “Well, there just can’t be running water on a reserve.” They actually did have a tap with running water, but that was the reason they refused the application; they assumed, without any on-the-spot inspection, that there just couldn’t be running water on a reserve.
I want to know from the minister whether or not he is going to allow the people who are responsible for issuing these special-occasion permits to sit in an office several hundred miles away and make assumptions that are not even valid.
I want to speak about this in another section of the Act and to say that I don’t think it should be mandatory for every special-occasion permit application to come down to Toronto to be given the okay. I think section 45 in the bill says it will be possible to set up regional or district offices and people to administer the Act. I hope that’s the case, but when you d0 transfer this, I hope you don’t impose the same kind of restrictions and insist on the same kind of standards in some remote community in the north as you would have here at the corner of Bay and Bloor.
I see very little in clause 6(f) -- and, of course, this is the problem with all of these Acts; it’s so very difficult to spell out in the Act itself what you intend to do. But any time you have to refer to the regulations, there is always the possibility that somebody given the discretionary powers will just become a little bit ridiculous -- and the bureaucracy that these people have to wade through is just unbelievable.
I would like some kind of assurance from the minister that the same kind of standards won’t be imposed in northern communities as would be the case down here in Metropolitan Toronto and that the authority won’t be unduly withheld.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the hon. member is quite correct. The process of issuing special-occasion permits is to be decentralized. There is special provision for it in the Act. It certainly is the intention of the government to proceed with that post haste.
One of the advantages of the new system, I think, will be that there will be regulations which will not permit a great deal of discretionary power. The difficulty would come, of course, in the establishment of standards. I don’t know how you can do it on a geographic basis, because there may be many places that are not in the north but which are just as isolated and perhaps do not have the kinds of facilities that are available to larger cities or more urban areas in southern Ontario; they don’t necessarily have to be in northwestern Ontario.
What we will be doing, of course, is issuing the permits by designated officers in local communities, and presumably they will be able to suggest to us, in drafting the regulations, the kinds of minimum facilities that should be designated in the regulations. I would hesitate to say we should have one standard for the north and one for the south. What we should have are minimum standards of facilities which are province-wide in their application. I would hope they wouldn’t be so stringent that whole areas of the province would be barred from obtaining special-occasion permits because obviously that is not the purpose of the Act nor of the regulations.
Having the local officer issue the permit, first of all, I think will be very time-saving. I have no doubt whatsoever, with the short experience I have had in this, that there will he occasions when there will be problems and they will go to their member. The problems probably will be solved best by the appeal tribunal -- which we will be coming to later in the bill -- and there will be ample time, if a local officer turns down the application for a permit either on the grounds of the facilities not meeting the standards or some other reason, for the tribunal to be able to deal with it very quickly.
We propose that the tribunal will sit in panels in much the same way as the OMB does, moving around the province to hear appeals as quickly as possible. The time involved in appeal would not go by and the special occasion which was to be celebrated would not be removed by default simply because the appeal couldn’t be heard in time.
I hope we will be able to streamline the process to meet the points the member has raised.
Mr. Stokes: To add further to that: Within what time frame are you talking about? It has been my experience that when somebody wants to hold a social they usually apply about three weeks to a month in advance of the event to allow time for the application to come down for approval and back up. With the problems we have been having with the mail lately three weeks or sometimes even a month isn’t sufficient.
I can recall one occasion just recently when they were holding a winter carnival and they assumed they had made application within the normal time in advance and it didn’t happen. As a matter of fact, the board didn’t even have the application. We had to do some fancy footwork using the facilities of the Northern Affairs office and their Telex facilities in order to Telex the approval through so we wouldn’t have 500 disappointed people in the town of Terrace Bay.
The thing is, are you going to have to insist that people make application much in advance of that now you have this other tribunal which will sit in judgement? Or if the thing is turned down how soon could we expect a decision from the tribunal in the case of an appeal going forward?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: The time constraints are set out in other sections of the Act than the one we are now dealing with. However, just to set your mind at ease I should point out we have set down certain times within which decisions must he made. In other words, if an application is received by the board for a permit the decision either to grant the permit or to deny it must be made within a certain time period. The time for appeals is very short and presumably the three-month period you suggested would cover almost every case. They certainly wouldn’t have to apply that far in advance in order to be sure of the decision.
Mr. Chairman: Section 6; the member for Riverdale.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I consider section 6 to be one of the key sections in the bill if not the most important section in the bill. I know there is an immense number of minor irritations which crop up from time to time in the administration of the Liquor Licence Act.
I happen to feel that the choice by the government of the Province of Ontario of the present chairman of the Liquor Licence Board was not only an excellent choice but one which is essential, in my view, to the assurance to the people of the province that organized crime or syndicated crime will not gain an entry into the liquor trade in the province. I think it’s most important that it be said because the chairman of the board has been under the kind of marginal or peripheral attack that any chairman managing such a board is going to be under over a period of time, because there will always be strange anomalies and situations which can he held up as ridiculous and silly and so on.
I think the minister or certainly his predecessors know that I have been concerned for a long time about the adequacy of the provisions which protect the public as to who are applicants and to whom licences are granted. I am very pleased to see here that there is some effort being made in the provisions of section 6 to ensure that one goes behind the particular people who may be fronting for the applicant or the person who is the transferee making an application to have a licence transferred to that person.
I am not at all certain, and I am not saying this by way of criticism, that it is adequately expressed in the proposed amendment to item (c) of subsection 1 to cover the problem. I happen to believe that this is one of the areas where one doesn’t really deal in questions of 10 per cent or more and get involved in questions of who does or who does not control 10 per cent or more and the numbers game which is involved in it.
We tried, and we dealt with this at some length in the select committee report on the loan and trust corporations, because we were very concerned that the financial institutions of the province be not in any way subjected to a control by persons from whom the source of money could not be acceptably accepted in the province. I am certainly not going to propose any amendment because I have no indication whatsoever, and I think it’s fair to say that there has been no indication anywhere in the Province of Ontario, that laundered money or organized crime or syndicated crime, however you want to designate it, has achieved any control of any of the liquor and beer outlets in the Province of Ontario. I happen to be a person who believes it is absolutely essential that the bulwarks be impregnable and that we don’t want to find afterwards that it could have been avoided, had we in this Legislature legislated properly to effect it.
In the report on loan and trust corporations, which was tabled today, the select committee on company law went somewhat more broadly into the question of a registration of a trust company or the question of a transfer of ownership of a trust company or a renewal of registration of a trust company. It is an annual renewal of the licence. We tried to establish criteria, and I admit the difficulty of it. I simply want to say that the select committee spent a considerable amount of time trying to establish what the criteria were, not only for registration as a trust company, but what are the requirements that should be fulfilled at the time of a renewal of the licensing or the registration provision on an annual basis or on a biannual basis, as is the case.
For the minister’s consideration, because none of these Acts is perfect, I would refer him to that report, which I am sure he will be perusing in any event. On page 20 of that report in the summary of the recommendations with respect to incorporation, registration, renewal of registration or however you want to phrase it, whatever the time it is when the government reviews the situation it happens to indicate the criteria at the time of incorporation; but we refer elsewhere in the report that they apply equally well to the annual renewal of registration of such a trust company.
I want to point out that the criteria we established, bearing upon the matters which are of concern to me under section 6, are that the proposed management is fit, both as to character and as to competence, to manage a loan or trust company. I suggest, for the consideration of the minister, that I think in its own way perhaps section 6 says so; but I think our language is somewhat broader. Of course, I don’t know whether or not our recommendations will find their way into legislation. But certainly it is important from my point of view that the proposed management of any company, or partnership, or sole proprietorship is fit both as to character and as to competence to manage a liquor outlet for retail sale in the Province of Ontario -- if I could extrapolate the language of the other report.
The next one was extremely important to us; that the persons who on and are providing and control the funds put forward to finance the proposed company, are themselves responsible. Again, I’m suggesting we have used generalized language because of the difficulty of ever containing within a fixed formula, such as 10 per cent or more, or anything else, what happens in the corporate world.
I happen to think that we are engaged in trying to achieve the same objective; and I reiterate what I’ve said. I’m not proposing an amendment. I’m simply saying to the minister that I think it is absolutely essential that both on the initial application and on any transfer of any licence in the Province of Ontario and on any renewal of any licence, that because the persons have a lucrative business in most cases, and essentially one very much sought after, they be required to establish on those three situations that the management is fit, both as to character and as to competence to manage the enterprise, and that the persons who own and are providing and/or control the funds that are put forward to finance the proposed company, or partnership, or sole proprietorship, are themselves, or himself or herself, responsible people.
I think, particularly when the government is concerned about the attitude and responses of people to law and order and the problem of violence, and the problem of crime, that we have an immense responsibility to make certain that a section such as section 6 is very carefully watched from year to year -- and if there is a better way of expressing the intent, that the minister not hesitate to bring in those provisions. That’s my first point.
I simply want to re-emphasize and I simply want to say that so far as I personally am concerned, the present chairman of the Liquor License Board is not only an adequate chairman but a first class chairman from the point of view of making certain that that kind of intrusion doesn’t take place.
I do want to say to the minister that it may well be that he will want to add to the persons who examine the applications in the initial instance, but more importantly, the applications for transfer, persons skilled in his own profession, that is the accountancy profession, or persons skilled in the accountancy profession and in the police field, to make certain that under no circumstances is a licence issued in the Province of Ontario, or a transfer approved in the Province of Ontario, until the board is totally satisfied that the funds and the sources of the funds which come into that transfer, or application for transfer, or that application for a licence, are impeccable. I don’t think that anyone can fool around about that game.
I happen not to get uptight about whether or not the chairman of the board, or the board, can deal with the entertainment aspects of the liquor outlets. I think it is quite unreal to detach the two and to suggest, for one single moment, that the ultimate intrusion, if it cannot be accomplished by the ownership of licences or by obtaining the transfer of licences, can’t be obtained some other way through the entertainment world upon which many of these licence holders depend for the profit they make.
The nature of the entertainment, and the conjunction with entertainment and liquor, is not something which makes me uptight. I don’t have to take second place to anybody in the assembly on the question of civil liberties and my concern about liberties of people, nor do I have to take second place, if I may say so, in the enjoyment I receive both from the consumption of alcoholic beverages and from the entertainment which takes place in the places where it is provided. I have impeccable credentials to make the point that I don’t think that you should for one moment get fooled by curtailing unnecessarily the authority of the board with respect to the areas upon which I have touched in these remarks.
I think it is immensely serious. I don’t think one should foul around for one single moment, and I assume that the minister, the responsible minister, is in a position to give us a categorical assurance that no one in the Province of Ontario holds a licence, and no one in the future will obtain the transfer of a licence, and no licence will be renewed unless the most painstaking care is taken to make certain that there is no intrusion of crime into the liquor outlet business in the Province of Ontario. It’s one of the singular jewels in the Tory crown, and there aren’t very many of them left. But this one is an unflawed one.
Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Diamonds, Jim, all diamonds.
Mr. Renwick: I make that particular tribute because I don’t think you can fool around with it. I get a little bit concerned every now and then about umbrellas and marginal elements, and who has what umbrellas up and all the rest of it. We all get upset and I get upset when suddenly there’s an arbitrary cancellation of a special occasion permit, In all of those things, and I am quite prepared to deal with each of those, there is nothing more fundamental than this section 6 in the bill. I have gone on at great length but I felt it was important to me to make those statements.
The second part of my comments on section 6 is that I am concerned that the only public occasion for representations has been specifically limited to the original application. There is no further opportunity under subsections 3 and 4, as I read those subsections, to provide that if an application is made by an intending transferee to have the licence transferred to that person, regardless of the period of time which may take place, there is apparently, on the wording of the section, no opportunity for a further public hearing with respect to whether or not, in the language of item (g) of subsection 1, it is in the public interest, “having regard to the needs and wishes of the public in the municipality in which the premises is located.” There is no opportunity for a further hearing.
Again, on the question of renewal, I’m not suggesting there should be a public hearing every two years for the public to make representations when a licence is renewed, but I would say that whenever a transfer of that licence is proposed there certainly should he another public hearing about the transfer which is taking place, and the intending transferee should be aware in the law that that is so.
I would be inclined to think, one way or another, that on some arbitrary numbers operation, either on the fifth renewal, which we would say would be every 10 years, or some other arbitrarily selected number -- because, as I understand it, the renewal is to be every two years under the proposed Act -- but, at some stated interval the public again have an opportunity to make a representation as to whether or not that outlet is in the public interest in the particular municipality or area of the municipality where it exists.
Otherwise, it seems to me to be kind of ludicrous to say that for all time an applicant doesn’t have to meet the test. Once he’s overcome the initial hurdle, for the rest of the time that licence is extant there is no further public input as to whether or not the people in the area want it. Times change; circumstances change; neighbourhoods change. It may well be that every 10 years people should be given the opportunity to express their views again about a renewal.
We’re not talking about putting people out of business in the sense that suddenly they’re going to lose a lot of money. They will either already have made substantial amounts of money -- in which case it will not hurt them if the licence is not renewed after 10 years -- or they will be providing the kind of service within the community such that they would welcome and not be frightened by application at a public hearing to have the question of the renewability of their licence aired. It may well be that the public in the particular area aren’t really concerned about it and, therefore, no representations are made and the licence continues.
It seems to me the public has to be given an opportunity, other than simply upon the original application, to express its views. I’m sure there are reasonable ways in which that can be done.
I would appreciate the minister’s response to those two areas of concern which I have expressed.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to add my own remarks to the member’s concerning the performance of the board under its chairman. I think we all get annoyed from time to time at decisions which are made which affect people who are quite close to us. Looking at the over 175,000 to 180,000 licences which are issued every year, the number of difficulties which we encounter, even put all together and considered in one group, would be so small as to be almost negligible. I think you have to keep perspective.
I think there have been a number of comments made, not only by the media but by individual members and from time to time within the ministry itself. I want to add my own compliments to the chairman and to his board for the very small number of difficult situations which arise in light of the large number which are dealt with very smoothly, expeditiously and favourably.
I’m quite sure the select committee’s report is going to be very valuable to me and to the ministry and to the operation of this bill in the recommendations it has made. Of course, I haven’t had an opportunity -- I have been looking forward to that report, Mr. Chairman, your report, for quite some time now and I’m very happy to have had it tabled today. I can assure you I will have three copies; one in my office, one in my home in Toronto and one in my home in Ottawa where I’ll be able to read it whenever I have a moment’s leisure because I know it’s going to be very valuable to me.
I simply want to say to the member that the question of fit management is one we did discuss during the drafting stage of the bill. It was felt, because of the difficulty in interpretation by a quasi-judicial body such as the tribunal or in any further appeal to the courts, it might perhaps be covered by regulation. Certainly we would like to include the term fit management in the regulations as one of the terms and conditions of licensing.
The numbers game which is played, unfortunately but I think necessarily, in section 6, is simply a continuation of the usual 75-25, 90-10 type of rule we’ve been using in order to determine ownership, both at the federal level and at the provincial level. The 10 per cent is simply a continuation of that traditional number which we have taken to have some connotation of influence in the decision-making of the corporation.
Certainly somebody with 9.5 per cent in a widely-held corporation can control that, and we’re quite aware of that possibility. I want to assure the member we have no information either of any intrusion by crime, organized or unorganized, in the liquor outlets of the province, whether they be restaurants, hotels, clubs or any other form of liquor distribution. We certainly would want to keep Ontario’s system as clean as it has been.
I am very delighted with the complimentary comments of the hon. member on the cleanliness of our operation. We certainly are going to make every effort to keep it that way, and I will certainly take under advisement his suggestions of the skills which persons who are going to be involved in the operation of the new board should have. I quite agree that there is a history of the financial analysts being able to ascertain the source of funds when persons without those skills are unable to do so, and I think we should make every effort that we can to ensure that the source of funds is itself as clean as the operation we want to see in this province.
The question of entertainment has been brought up many, many times, and I have decided in my own mind that this is one of the first questions that I will put to the advisory council. I think I share with the member for Ottawa Centre some of the reservations about censorship that he has expressed, and yet I also see the need for it, and particularly in this kind of operation. However, I have decided not to allow my own personal feelings in this matter to influence the Act, and I think the question of entertainment standards in licensed premises will be one of the things I will be asking the advisory council to study and to report back to me with recommendations. Certainly as far as obscenity is concerned, that is the business of the police under the Criminal Code. I don’t think we want to put it in a regulatory Act such as this.
The question of the public’s involvement in both the licence issuing process and in the transfer and renewal of licences is also a matter that was discussed at great length during the drafting stage. The board has the power to issue or approve a transfer on the same grounds as the initial application. I would assume from this, by implication, since the original application includes a provision for public participation, that the board would have public representation on hearings for transfers or renewals.
At the same time, I must say that the public interest in the initial application, I would think, would be much greater than it would be in the case of the transfer or the renewal, simply because the public’s interest -- and I am probably anticipating -- probably would be based on the number of outlets in the area and the kind of area that the outlet is to be located in, rather than the people behind the licence. I think the board is the protector of the public interest in that case, and that it would certainly carry out its responsibility to protect the public interest to ensure that a transfer was not made to an undesirable group or that, in the face of unsatisfactory performance, a renewal would be granted. Certainly if a renewal is not going to be granted, then the public would be involved in the hearings and would have a right to be heard, as I understand the Act. Now it may very well be that we have not done that specifically enough. We think it is there by implication in section 11, but when we come to that perhaps we can look at it again.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 6 carry?
Mr. Renwick: No, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one minor point. I don’t happen to think that it is. I think there would be an argument, on the question of a transfer of a licence or the renewal of the licence, about whether or not there was an opportunity for the board by regulation to provide for the same public input at such times as they thought was the necessary ingredient. I am not going to pursue the point; I have made the point. I think the minister appreciates what I was saying, and it may very well be that on a subsequent occasion we’ll see an appropriate amendment if that is not so.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Perth.
Mr. Edighoffer: Yes, I just want to ask a question on section 6(1)(g), which states: “. . . the issuance of the licence is not in the public interest having regard to the needs” -- and I stress the word “needs” -- “and wishes of the public in the municipality in which the premises is located.”
I just want to ask the minister how this would be determined and by whom. I was also wondering, with that word “needs” in there -- the needs in the municipality -- is this possibly an opportunity for the board to try to licence premises only on a population basis? I have been asked by a number of people in that regard.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, not at all, Mr. Chairman. The board, of course, will make the decision and they will take into consideration the expressed needs and wishes of the public in that municipality, as expressed by the public in the municipality.
Now if the public wishes indicate that, first, there is no need for this particular outlet or the licence which is being applied for, then the board in its discretion could deny that licence on the basis of there being no public need. On the other hand, while there may be a demonstrated need, the public may say: “We do not wish this to be in our municipality or in our neighbourhood” -- and the board would have to take that into consideration in either granting or refusing the licence. If the licence was refused, those views would be carried forward in the hearings of the tribunal, and possibly to the courts at some later stage.
There has been, I suppose, an unwritten numerical rule of so many outlets to so many people -- on a per capita basis -- but certainly that is not one of the written rules or regulations. I think the board has to be allowed a certain degree of flexibility in this area.
Mr. Chairman: Does section 6 carry?
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of points to raise on section 6. I think this is the relevant time to raise them, and perhaps I could ask the House a bit later if I can come back to section 3. It took me about 45 minutes to get a revised copy of the bill -- which was not in my folder here -- and section 3 has some points I would like to raise.
Mr. Chairman: Section 3 is already carried.
Mr. Cassidy: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Chairman: Section 3 is already carried.
Mr. Cassidy: It was not carried with my being aware of the contents, Mr. Chairman. On a point of order, I searched in two or three of the folders here and I asked the pages. Eventually I had to get one from the clerk assistant before I was able to see a revised section, of which I was not aware at the time it was passed.
Mr. Chairman: To revert to section 3 we would have to have the full consent of the House.
Mr. Cassidy: Well, perhaps we can revert later. The point I want to raise --
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, we did at the outset receive the concurrence of the committee to proceed with the bill as we put it, and that section was discussed. It has been discussed by a member of the hon. member’s party. I simply feel that if we can go back to every section at the request of an individual member, we could be here forever.
Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if the minister wants to get pugnacious about this, I looked in my file here to find that even the old copy of the Act had been removed and that no new copy had been put in. The copy in my neighbour’s file was also the unrevised copy of the Act. The proper copy of the Act was not available. Since a major change was made there, I would like the possibility of discussing it. That’s all, and I don’t see why the minister should disagree with that.
Mr. Chairman: It is not within the chairman’s power to revert unless I have full consent, the full agreement of the House.
Mr. Cassidy: Well I am asking the minister for concurrence then. If he wants to get the bill through in a reasonable period.
Mr. Chairman: It isn’t a case of whether the minister concurs or not.
Mr. Cassidy: Well if the minister says in a general way that he concurs --
Mr. Chairman: Order, please.
Mr. Cassidy: If the minister says --
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Once a section has been carried, we proceed to the next section.
Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is a normal courtesy in the House --
Mr. Chairman: Order, order.
Mr. Cassidy: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: Would you please take your seat when I call order?
Mr. Cassidy: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: There is no way the chairman can revert back unless it is with the full agreement of every member of the Legislature who is present at the time I ask for consent.
Mr. Cassidy: Well I would ask then, after we pass section 6, whether it would be possible to go back for a couple of minutes to section 3.
Mr. Chairman: It would be possible with the agreement of the members of this Legislature. That’s the only way, total agreement.
Some hon. members: No way.
Mr. Cassidy: The Liberal Party is lining up with the government again.
Mr. Bounsall: In fact they are worse than the government.
Mr. Cassidy: If you guys would do your work around this place rather than waffling around we might get a better House, you know.
Mr. Chairman: We are on section 6. Does the member wish to speak to section 6?
Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Chairman, may I speak on the point of order raised by the member for Ottawa Centre? We are sick and tired of this. Last week we went through the same thing with the member for Riverdale, who came in here late, missed the passage of sections of the bill and wanted to revert. Now we graciously consented unanimously to go back for the member for Riverdale. Now do we have to do this day after day for NDP members who can’t be here to discuss a bill when it comes up?
Mr. Stokes: Speaking to the point of order, the new printing of the bill is not generally available to the members.
Mr. Good: It was put on your desk on Friday.
Mr. Stokes: It is not in my book and it’s not in my desk.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): It is not in my book.
Mr. Stokes: And it is not in my book.
Mr. Chairman: We have no point of order. The member for Ottawa Centre.
Mr. Stokes: What do you mean? The bill isn’t available to us and I don’t have a point of order?
Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think we should possibly consider the adjournment of the House until copies of the bill are available to all members. Do you have a copy of the bill?
Mr. Stokes: No, not the new one.
Mr. Cassidy: Not the new one?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, on that point of order --
Mr. Cassidy: I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, but this just doesn’t make --
Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- I mentioned specifically at the outset of the committee this evening that copies of the revised bill were distributed last Thursday after the 6 o’clock break. They were on everybody’s desk under the clip. I made sure of that. Therefore every member has had access to a reprinted copy of the bill.
Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, further to the point of order, the member for Riverdale, at the particular time tonight when the minister pointed out that this was a reprinted Act, nodded his head that his party was in agreement and they were supplied with the documents.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, looking inside my desk, I find there is a copy of the reprinted bill. For that I thank the minister but it is not in the normal place where one would expect to find it. I would expect it to be with the other material passed around in the normal procedures of the House and not passed around in this funny kind of way. It was under here --
Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre has a copy of the revised bill.
Mr. Cassidy: I am asking the minister --
Mr. Chairman: If you wish to proceed at this time --
Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, I am asking the minister whether he would agree to go back to section 3, now if he wishes --
Mr. Chairman: It is not within the minister’s power --
Mr. Cassidy: -- because of the fact that a number of us had difficulty getting the proper copy of the bill.
Mr. Chairman: There is no point of order. It is not within the minister’s power.
Mr. Cassidy: I am asking the House whether that would be possible. This is a ridiculous way of proceeding, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Drea: You are the ridiculous one.
Mr. Chairman: Are you asking the chairman to put it to the House?
Mr. Cassidy: I’m about to move the adjournment of the House, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of reverting to section 3 of the bill will please say “aye.”
All those opposed will please say “nay.” In my opinion, the “nays” have it.
Mr. Cassidy: Okay. On section 6, Mr. Chairman, I believe this is the point at which the draft code under the Liquor Licence Act can be raised. Would that be correct -- could the minister agree to that or not?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, the draft code is simply a document which has been issued for the information of members indicating some of the intentions of the government, once the bill has been passed, to promulgate certain regulations containing definitions and other matters under the Act.
As far as I am concerned, I see no place in this Act where the draft code as a document can be discussed in this committee. It is the Act which is before us not any other extraneous document, by whatever name it may go, which can be debated in the committee. There are sections of the Act before us.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, section 6(1)(e) states that the application can be refused if the applicant is carrying on activities that are or will be, if the applicant is licensed, in contravention of this Act or the regulations. There are no regulations under the Act but these are the draft regulations and surely this is the point at which the proposals of the minister could be discussed? Can he suggest some other way by which the Legislature can consider the regulations under the Act since the regulations are often as important as the Act itself?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know how you can discuss regulations which do not exist. There is no power to make regulations until the Act has been passed. I am quite prepared, if the member has some thoughts he wishes to express under the section he is referring to, to listen and perhaps comment on them. But really we can’t discuss regulations when there aren’t any.
Mr. Cassidy: I accept the minister’s offer, Mr. Chairman. I have just been looking through the draft regulations and there are a number of points raised here which I think, probably in a committee or somewhere else, ought to be gone into in more detail because of the difficulty of application that would appear to exist from the way in which these things are laid out.
For example, in the discretion of the Liquor Licence Board, there is the requirement that it decide whether or not an applicant for a licence, or a licensee, is complying with the regulation that he not encourage the consumption of liquor, or words to that effect. It’s very difficult to understand how somebody who is in the business of selling liquor, in a lounge or some other place, is not thereby encouraging it. If you provide chairs and tables and entertainment, and if the other major activity of the place is to drink, then one would expect that, if given the time and the opportunity and the place, drinking will in fact occur, and if it doesn’t occur then the guy is going to go out of business.
The second thing is that the question of community input in licensing and in renewals, which has already been raised by the member for Riverdale, is touched on within the regulations.
The third thing -- I just got some notes here -- is on the question of whether you can stand up in a lounge or a public house, which I would have thought was a matter of the capacity -- that is the number of licensed occupants on the premises -- and not a question of whether people stand or sit down. The view seems to he continued in the regulations, that if you sit down somehow you will drink in greater moderation than if you are standing up.
On the question of patio licences and outdoor facilities, which we have had in Ottawa in connection with the Sparks St. mall, the requirement right now is that the patio licence must be connected with an indoor facility. In the case of the mall and in the case of Confederation Square, both of which the minister will be familiar with, there have been quite reasonable applications for licences to allow the consumption of beer in the open air or under a shelter. These have been refused and the refusal would continue, despite the attractions to the tourist trade and the fairly reasonable nature of the requests that have been made but which could not be complied with under the draft regulations.
On the fact that special occasion permits may only be issued where there is “an adequate supply of food,” the difficulty is in defining that. I believe difficulties have arisen because of the fact that in many cases in the past there have been issuances of special occasion permits without food being available, and if that’s a change in regulations. then I think we should be aware of it and possibly discuss it.
The exemption under the regulations of theatres and of retail department stores from the requirement that separates a licensee from somebody who is indentured to a manufacturer, who represents a manufacturer or somebody who is mortgaged by a manufacturer of liquor, is something that I think deserves explanation.
Special occasion permits may be used for fundraising, for charitable, educational, religious or community objects, but it’s not clear whether they also may be used for fundraising for political objects.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Isn’t that community purposes?
Mr. Chairman: You are on section 6?
Mr. Cassidy: I am on section 6(1)(e).
Mr. Chairman: Subsection 1(e)?
Mr. Cassidy: Yes, which refers specifically to whether or not the applicant is conforming with the regulations.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might, on a point of order, just point out that the regulation-making powers of the Lieutenant Governor in Council are covered under section 40, and the hon. member is discussing things like classes of licences which are prescribed under section 40.
Mr. Chairman: They are sure not in section 6.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: They are not in section 6. Most of the regulations by the Lieutenant Governor in Council are provided for under section 40, particularly those things which covers the classes of licences and the terms and conditions under which licences may be refused etc. I wonder if the hon. member might hold the discussion, if there is to be any discussion at all on the draft code which I have questioned in my previous remarks. It might more properly be held under section 40 of the Act.
Mr. Cassidy: The minister has just agreed to the discussion. Most of the points I wanted to raise have been raised now, and perhaps his staff has been taking it out of them and we could come back to those points when we get to the question of regulations under section 40; that would give them a few minutes to reply.
I have a couple of other points. I may raise one more as a drinker than as a member of the Legislature -- the fact that it is not possible to have any kind of a happy hour; that is, as the minister would know, where drinks are sold at reduced prices at certain times.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: That is an encouragement to drinking.
Mr. Cassidy: That may be the encouragement of drinking, except the very existence of bars, pubs and lounges would seem to me equally an encouragement to drinking. Our standards are a bit hypocritical in that case.
Finally, the poor old Oktoberfest and the fact that once again the Liquor Licence Board is going to protect the public by restricting the use of the word beer in the Oktoberfest -- or at least it has got the power to so do.
I would like to raise another question which also relates to section 6, Mr. Chairman. This has been a particular problem which I have come up against in a couple of cases within my riding. We, as a country, say to people in other countries, “Come to Canada; establish yourself; live a North American standard of living. It is a great place to be.” We have an active immigration policy under which up to 200,000 or more people come to Canada every year.
For a number of reasons, some of which are difficult to defend, we don’t train enough people in Canada to satisfy the needs for people who can meet the public’s demand for fine restaurants. Therefore, many of the best chefs and cooks in Canada have been trained in France, Switzerland or in Greece or in other places. They have come from other countries or have worked in the restaurant trade in those countries, being nationals of third countries, and eventually have come to Canada. This is true also in the case of ethnic restaurants in Canada which cannot get people who know the ethnic cuisine without reaching back to their own home country.
We require that an applicant for licence must be a Canadian citizen -- I am sorry, or a landed immigrant. That has been changed; I beg your pardon. I was misreading the section. Until now we have required that he be a Canadian citizen. Now you are saying he can also be a landed immigrant. Is that correct? Did that change?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Landed immigrant. from the previous Act?
Mr. Cassidy: Could that have changed from the previous one?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Not that I know of.
Mr. Cassidy: Not that you know of. Then why have I had situations in which people who are immigrants to Canada but not yet citizens have been refused the right to have licences?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, the only way I can answer that question is to say I would have to look at each individual case. There may be reasons other than the fact they are landed immigrants. Certainly, one of the policies of this government, not only in this legislation but in others -- and we have been under some criticism for it -- has been that citizens and landed immigrants are residents and therefore entitled to all of the rights and privileges under the Act.
Mr. Cassidy: I am sorry; I misread the thing.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
On section 8:
Mr. Chairman: The member for Thunder Bay.
Mr. Stokes: One small clarification in subclause 3 of section 8. It says, “A permit may be issued by an officer of the board designated by the board for the purpose and such officer shall refer to the board every application for a permit or a renewal that he proposes to refuse.”
I look in the definition and there is no definition of an officer of the board. Will that be somebody at a regional or a district office who will be given the issuing authority?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, that is the section under which we propose to establish certain designated officers who will be located elsewhere than Toronto for the purpose of issuing permits on the spot.
Mr. Cassidy: On this section, Mr. Chairman, can the minister explain subsection 2 of -- sorry --
Mr. Stokes: Are you on section 8?
Mr. Cassidy: Yes, subsection 2 of section 8. It appears to say that on the one hand only clauses (d), (e) and (f) of subsection 1 of section 6 apply, but on the other hand the remaining clauses apply, other things being equal, mutatis mutandis. I am not sure which you are meant to follow.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t quite follow the member’s question. What we are saying here is that special-occasion permits must comply with the conditions under clauses (d), (e) or (f) of subsection 1 of section 6. Subsections 1 and 2 also apply but there are other subsections.
The other subclauses, I would assume, do not apply to special-occasion permits.
Mr. Cassidy: Could there be a clarification on that?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, we will try to get a clarification.
Mr. Cassidy: Thank you. If you wish to hold that one and get a clarification, I would be happy, but it does appear to be contradictory.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: I am prepared to come back to this one if I can get a clarification on it.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 9 carry?
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10:
Mr. Chairman: The member for Perth.
Mr. Edighoffer: I am just wondering if this section really gives too much power to the board. Under section 7 they can come back and review it every two years. I just wonder what new terms the board would impose under section 10 to change the reason for the permit.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, there may be a change, for example, in the entertainment policy of the licensee; and the change from the entertainment policy might require the board to establish a new term or condition of the continuation of the licence which was not included in the original terms and conditions granted to the licence holder. That’s just one example. There can be other changes take place.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 10 carry?
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, section 6 says that an applicant is entitled to a licence provided that, etc.; and that, as the minister explained earlier, is a fairly fundamental change in the law, because it says if you can meet these conditions you are entitled to have it.
Section 6 does not refer to specific terms and conditions that may be laid down by the Liquor Licence Board, but then section 10 comes along and implies that terms and conditions can be set out by the Liquor Licence Board in granting an original licence. Is there not a contradiction there?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, Mr. Chairman, because the terms and conditions can be included by regulation, and the applicant must meet all of the regulations in order to be entitled to a licence.
Mr. Cassidy: Does that mean that the terms and conditions for each applicant are to be put through in the form of a regulation which is approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, Mr. Chairman, there will be a set of regulations which will include terms and conditions for particular kinds of licences, and those must be met by the applicant in order to be entitled to a licence.
Mr. Cassidy: But section 10 suggests that an individual licence or permit may have individual terms and conditions attached, as opposed to a regulation that sets general terms and conditions for a class of licence or permits. Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, Mr. Chairman, an individual licence can have further terms and conditions attached to it; the terms and conditions primarily would be at the time of the initial issuance of the licence. However, there can be further terms and conditions attached to the holding of the licence, as explained to the hon. member who asked the previous question on this section.
While the terms and conditions will be outlined in the regulations, one that your colleague asked about, for example, being fit management, which lends itself to a wide interpretation -- and we recognize this -- could be one of the terms and conditions for the issuance of a licence. Then the terms and conditions could be changed for that particular licence holder when the time came either for a review, a renewal or a transfer of the licence.
There will be regulations setting out the terms and conditions for various types of licences, and we will be getting into those under section 40. Then the board, of course, can set special terms and conditions, as you have indicated, if the operations demand it. For example, there may be special hours of operation in a particular area of the province, depending on whether it’s a tourist area or a resort area -- a resort licence can have different terms and conditions than a dining lounge licence. There may be objections from the public in the area about particular aspects of the operation which the board might want to incorporate in the form of terms and conditions for that particular licensee. I think there always will be special terms and conditions for individual licensees.
Mr. Cassidy: I know now what has sort of been festering in the back of my mind, Mr. Chairman. There has been a practice in the past that if you wanted to get a liquor licence, you went to the local Tory lawyer or the designated lawyer --
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Ask the member for Scarborough Centre.
Mr. Drea: You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Mr. Cassidy: Three or four thousand dollars would be the traditional kind of payment for this kind of thing. I have checked it out --
Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): That is a charge you should withdraw.
Mr. Cassidy: If you’d wait until I’ve finished, I would finish.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Why make it?
Mr. Cassidy: Because a number of people are still duped into doing it, and of tea they get as bad service as they get good service. They’re told, “So-and-so handles these things and he can do a fine job for you; just pay your money and we’ll look after it all for you.”
Mr. Drea: You should report it to the Law Society.
Hon. Mr. Miller: It is not so.
Mr. Cassidy: It is not untrue. It has been true in the past.
Mr. Drea: I got mine through a Liberal lawyer.
Mr. Cassidy: You got yours through a Liberal lawyer? A number of people are now getting them on their own and finding that if they’re willing to put the time into it -- their time at $5 an hour, or whatever they value it -- before they open up for business, it is a lot cheaper than a lawyer’s time at $25 an hour.
When you have a discretionary power such as this one it creates problems for people and it puts more power in the hands of lawyers to say: “Look, we can handle it.” When there were difficulties in getting a licence, or when there are lengthy delays in getting a licence, that also puts more power, or apparent power, in the hands of people who say: “Look, we’ve been through the ropes; we can fix it all for you.”
My advice to anybody seeking a liquor licence is that, like it or not, if it’s a small businessman, they’re probably better to do it themselves, occasionally paying a lawyer for advice on what they should do, rather than putting it in the hands of a lawyer, because it will take twice as long and cost three times as much.
Mr. Drea: You’re an expert now on the Liquor Act, are you?
Mr. Cassidy: I’ve been through a few, in terms of advising people who have had difficulty with the Liquor Licence Board and difficulty with lawyers they hired to ostensibly help them.
What I would ask the minister is, what is the Liquor Licence Board, under the ministry’s direction, willing to do in order to give applicants a clear statement of all of the steps that they must go through and all of the requirements that they must meet in order to become entitled to a licence? What the minister is talking about in terms and conditions here, I don’t really disagree with. It’s more of a peg to raise this particular point. But in the cases that I’ve been involved with, one of the difficulties that the individuals have had is that they couldn’t get the information. It was like a holy grail. It was guarded jealously, and the people who seemed to be a repository of the secrets were lawyers who claimed to be able to pull political strings.
In my discussions with the Liquor Licence Board -- I’ll put this in the record too -- they say: “Look, we’ve been moving heaven and earth to make sure that there are no political strings,” and I’m inclined to accept those assurances that I’ve had from the present members of the Liquor Licence Board. But as far as the public is concerned they can be duped, and information will help them to get around that potential duping, and do it themselves, or monitor how well their lawyers are acting on their behalf.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I’m not too sure that even the suggestion should be dignified by denial. There never has been, in my experience, any suggestion made to me that certain people have more influence with the board than others. If the hon. member has any information to that effect -- particularly if he can name names -- I would certainly suggest that the Law Society would he very anxious to talk to him.
Mr. Cassidy: It is over the hill, but you have already mentioned one of the names. There has been a large scale concentration of business in those hands for some time, not recently.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Whether or not it’s over the hill, the things that the board has been working on and one of the things that we will be publishing almost immediately, simultaneously I think with the proclamation of these Acts, is an instruction guide to applicants outlining the various steps that they must take, one, two, three, as much as possible, and defining the classes of licences.
If you’re asking for a special occasion permit that will be one set of guidelines. If you’re looking for a dining lounge, that will be another, and so on, and we’ll try to put it in lay language. It will not be a legal document, so that anybody who wishes to go to the board and act for himself will be able to do so and will know the rules, will know the terms and conditions, will know the procedures of the board, and it’s not our intention that anybody in this day and age should have to hire counsel in appearing before a lay board.
On the other hand, in view of the very technical nature of the regulations, the terms and conditions, the possibility of appeals to the tribunal and the courts, I certainly don’t want to discourage anybody from having a lawyer, but it should be the lawyer of their choice. Nobody -- unless it happens to be a lawyer who has made a special effort to become acquainted with this aspect of the law -- will have any special skills in the area until they’ve made a complete study of the Act. I think those studies will be conducted by lawyers of all political affiliations.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, obviously that assurance from the minister that the guidelines will be published is welcome. Can the minister say why this hasn’t been done over the past 30 years? I mean, why now? I am glad you are doing it now, but why has it taken so long?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: As the hon. member is probably fully aware, up to now the board has been operating under policy rather than under a set of fixed regulations, and the whole purpose of the new revision of the Act is to codify all of the terms and conditions, the processes and procedures, into a form of regulation.
Why hasn’t it been done over the past 30 years? Certainly there has been a set of guidelines built up which people have become familiar with; and the hon. member is quite correct, probably some lawyers have become more familiar with it than others, probably through the process of experience, having learned at their clients’ expense in a number of cases; I think this is the way many people in the legal profession do acquire their skills, they keep learning as they go along.
But certainly I don’t think that has anything to do with political affiliation. I would just remind the hon. member that probably the most successful lawyer in Ottawa, the one with the most clients, is certainly not a member of the party I support, nor that he supports as a matter of fact.
Section 10 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could go back to section 8(2). I have a clarification which may or may not satisfy the member, and I did promise to go back to it.
Mr. Cassidy: Section what?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Section 8(2). I had promised, Mr. Chairman, that we would go back to this section and provide information to the member. It may very well be that it’s a confusing section. The purpose here, of course, is to provide for special occasion permits only, and to exclude the special occasion permit applicant from certain parts of section 6. I am advised that in fact that is what it does. It is a very confusing section but I am told that clauses (a), (b), and (c), for example, of 6(1) have no application on special occasion permits as a result of this section, so that only --
Mr. Stokes: Subclauses (d) (e) and (f).
Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- (d) (e) and (f) apply. I think this is the way it is read and meant to be read.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, on the straight technical drafting thing, it would seem to me that if only clauses (d) or (e) or (f) of subsection 1 of section 6 apply, then the following words should just say, “and subsection 2 of section 6 applies in respect of permits mutatis mutandis.” In others words, if the rest of subsection 1 does not apply, then you shouldn’t say that subsection 1 does apply mutatis mutandis. That’s awfully technical; but it is a very confusing section.
Mr. Stokes: With necessary changes.
Mr. Cassidy: Possibly your draftsman could redraft the section and bring it back before we get to 10:30.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, if the draftsmen feel that it requires redrafting, as suggested by the hon. member, I am quite sure that they will suggest it before we pass the bill.
Sections 11 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Any section before section 20?
Mr. Edighoffer: Yes, 14.
Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Perth.
On section 14:
Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Chairman, this sets up the liquor licence appeal tribunal, and I wondered if the minister could advise who he has in mind to appoint here, and whether he will probably include people such as those who have had experience in ARF; alcohol concerns and social agencies and this sort of thing.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member catches me unawares, because really I hadn’t given much thought as to who were going to be in certain positions. They are to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and presumably I can’t speak for that august body. Really, I want to say in all truthfulness that I had not given much thought to it, except that I felt perhaps the chairman should be a person with a legal background; that was the only thing I had really thought out in my own mind. There hasn’t been any thought given to the actual person to fill the job.
There has also been some thought, and I can share it with you, that perhaps the vice-chairman might be a permanent person, whereas the other members of the board could be more on a per diem. But we did feel that the chairman, specifically, should be somebody with either a legal or judicial background. That’s all the thought we have given to it.
Mr. Chairman: Is section 14 carried? Does any member wish to speak on any section before section 25 of the bill? Does any member wish to speak on any section of the bill before section 30?
Mr. Cassidy: Section 35.
Mr. Chairman: On section 35, the member for Ottawa Centre.
Sections 14 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 35:
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, this is the section that permits the board to interdict the sale of liquor. I believe up until now this has not been done by the board, but has been done more by an administrative action, LCBO blacklists and that kind of thing. Is that correct? Can the minster say how he expects this section is going to apply in future?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is correct that the liquor Control Board has been doing the interdiction. It’s now being transferred to the Liquor Licence Board.
I suppose really all I can say is that this is a continuation of the present provisions to the Liquor Control Act, except that we’re transferring them to the Liquor Licence Board. The process is one which will probably be administrative and on request of certain authorities and certain people. I doubt very much whether the administrative practices would change very much from those which now exist.
It’s my understanding that the list is certainly not a very large one, nor is it, to the best of my knowledge, abused by the board to act in an arbitrary fashion. There is, generally speaking, a very good reason for a person being on the interdicted list.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, this section and a later section allowing the incarceration for 90 days of somebody who has been through a detox centre raise some pretty substantial questions about civil liberties.
I’m sure the minister and his people have discussed it. On occasion I have, I’m sure, been guilty of misspending, wasting and lessening my estate, of injuring my health and of interrupting the peace and happiness of my family through some excessive tippling.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: I wouldn’t have thought that of you.
Mr. Cassidy: You wouldn’t have thought that? You’re very generous.
I’m sure there are a few other members of this Legislature who may have done that on occasion as well. We’re all potentially violators of this particular kind of cede. Notwithstanding the assurance of the minister that it won’t be used very often and notwithstanding the protection of the board and the tribunal, it still is a very broad power. I just wonder what are the civil liberties implications the government has thought through in coming to draft the sections in this particular way? What are the precedents in other jurisdictions for this kind of move?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, we quite recognize the very strong power given to the board here. The civil liberties of the individual involved are protected by the right of appeal.
The only thing I can say is that the powers given to the board here continue the existing powers which have not, to the best of my knowledge, been abused; and we are adding the right of appeal. It would seem to me the board would have to have very good evidence before this power was used, and that has been the case in the past.
Mr. Stokes: Might I just get a clarification?
Mr. Chairman: Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Stokes: This section says: “Where it is made to appear to the satisfaction of the board that a person” and so on. Where it’s made to appear; and by whom?
They have lists, I’m sure, everywhere right across the province. Some of them are enforceable in small towns where everybody knows his next door neighbour. It’s really of no consequence down here in Metropolitan Toronto. A person can be on the interdicted list and go, I’m sure, to any one of a thousand outlets where he could be in contravention and there’d be no way of enforcing this particular section of the Act. But in small communities generally throughout the province, I suppose, where everybody is known to everybody else, if you go into a retail establishment or if you go into a liquor store, I’m sure there are many areas of the province where it could be enforced.
I’d be interested to know, since Indian bands have put on the interdicted list literally dozens and dozens of their band members simply to try to bring some semblance of order and to cut down on the abuse of alcohol. But what do you mean by saying, “Where it is made to appear” and by whom? Who has the right to walk into an outlet and say, “I think that in the interests of society generally, for the benefit of the family, for the person’s own self-preservation he should be on the interdicted list and shouldn’t be allowed to consume alcohol”? Who has the power under this Act to make it appear that the conditions are such that he should be on that list?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I would have to assume that it would be probably either a member of the person’s immediate family who would have to satisfy the board of this, or, as the hon. member has mentioned, the council of the band who, having detailed knowledge of the person’s drinking habits and the effects that they could have on himself and on his family, have requested that he be placed on the list.
At the present time it is done, of course, either by request of the individual himself or through a judge’s ruling. So that while the board itself may make an order prohibiting the sale of liquor, it is my understanding that order can only be enforced through the courts and, of course, through the Liquor Control Board. Now what we have is the Liquor Licence Board making the order. The Liquor Control Board, which is responsible for the sale of packaged goods, would have to enforce the list.
But when you say “make it appear” -- l think you have to recognize the words “to the satisfaction of the board.” In other words a simple statement to the board would not be sufficient to result in interdiction. It would have to be to the satisfaction of the board, and I would have to assume that the board would only act on sufficient evidence to ensure the fact that the civil rights of the person were not being violated on simple hearsay evidence.
There can be a full hearing, so that the person can appear before the board to defend himself, if he doesn’t wish to be placed on the interdiction list. As you have stated, of course, this would only apply in areas where the person is very well known to the authorities; because in a city like Toronto, or Ottawa, or Windsor, it would be impossible to enforce that kind of thing.
I think I had mentioned that family or friends who are trying to protect themselves or the individual, can make a case for interdiction before the board. Evidence would be heard, the same as it would be heard in almost any other case. I think we have to give some judicial power to the board to make this kind of thing subject to the appeals which are now provided.
Mr. Stokes: Just to follow that up briefly, would it be possible to restrict the use of certain types of alcoholic beverages while allowing others? The reason I am asking this is that there has been considerable dialogue about whether or not fortified wines should be sold in a particular area just because it is cheaper to get. They can get drunker on a --
An hon. member: Block and tackle wine.
Mr. Stokes: -- lot less money and the effects are much faster. Is it possible to do that or would that be at the discretion of the Liquor Control Board?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t think it would be possible to do it on an individual basis. Certainly it is being done now on an area basis -- or in certain areas, certain products are simply not stored by the store itself. That doesn’t, of course, prevent a person from getting consumption in any licensed outlet -- for example, in a hotel or a restaurant where they might be carrying that. But the purchase of a very cheap, fortified, high-alcohol-content wine in certain areas, for example, can be controlled by the Liquor Control Board. We are getting away from this Act, but in fact it is being done now in certain areas of some of the larger cities. I am sure the board would be quite prepared to consider a request for it to be done elsewhere.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Scarborough Centre.
Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out on the question of the interdiction list that it still is, in certain areas, a very valuable tool. I suppose, hopefully in the years to come with the progress of the detoxification centre and various types of psychological rehabilitation programmes, that perhaps the interdiction list will not be needed. In this particular Act, the government was conducive to dropping the interdiction list altogether on the grounds, as the member for Thunder Bay has mentioned, that in certain areas of the province, such as Metropolitan Toronto, it just isn’t enforceable. But there were a large number of submissions from people who face a particular problem with the alcoholic or the disturbing alcoholic in a very remote area or in an area where the alternatives to this were extremely limited. They did request us to keep it in because it was a very valuable tool.
That is not to say that the province regards this as any more than a very temporary stopgap. In the long run the only answer to that kind of problem is the detoxification centre and the rehabilitation programme for the alcoholic.
Mr. Chairman: Is section 35 carried?
Sections 35 and 36 agreed to.
On section 37:
Mr. Stokes: Section 37 provides for detoxification centres. I am concerned about subsection 2 which says:
“Where a constable or other police officer finds a person in a public place apparently 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.”
That’s fine in Metropolitan Toronto or the city of Thunder Bay where you have an option, but people in many remote areas of the province have just as great a need for this kind of rehabilitation, this drying-out process; and there just aren’t funds and there aren’t facilities available.
If a policeman comes across somebody he is duty bound under this Act either to lock him up or take him to a detox centre. Where he doesn’t have an option, this guy just ends up in jail; there are no if, ands or buts.
Don’t you think this is discrimination simply because there aren’t sufficient facilities? One would think, reading subsection 2 of section 31 of this Act, that they were generally available right across the province. We all know that there are many sections of the province where, if you asked what a detoxification centre was they wouldn’t even know what it was.
I think this is discriminatory. We need those facilities in the north. As I say, I don’t expect you to make them available in every small hamlet right throughout the province, but if you are going to incorporate this kind of a provision within the Act, at least you should have something within driving distance so that people could have available to them that option rather than just being locked up and when they dry out being thrown out on the street again. This rehabilitative process just isn’t available to them.
What kind of representations are you making to your colleague, the Minister of Health, who is responsible for setting up these detox centres? Having read that subsection you would think that they are readily available almost anywhere in the province; and that just isn’t the case. I think this is a discriminatory section inasmuch as there is no option left open to the arresting officer. He has automatically got to incarcerate him and put him in jail or lay an information or do whatever is necessary under the Act.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am inclined to agree with the hon. member about the need for more detox centres. But, if he will notice the definition of a detoxification centre, it is a public hospital. A public hospital can be designated as a detoxification centre. Before you can have a detoxification centre, you have to have a public hospital available.
I would certainly not urge on my colleague the Minister of Health, particularly in his absence, that he start constructing more public hospitals across the province in view of his financial constraints. I do want to point out that we agree on the need for more of this type of facility. I don’t think there is any problem in principle. There certainly is a need for more money for this kind of facility.
But I want to point out that in the section to which you refer, the constable or police officer has the option of laying an information, because it says he may take this person into custody or he may escort the person to a detox centre; but he need not do either. What the alternatives are, I suppose, would have to be left to the discretion of the particular officer. It may very well be there is a place he knows of in the vicinity where the person can be kept safe. That is what we are really talking about. We are not trying to punish this person, we really want to have him from harm or injury to himself.
Mr. Stokes: You put him in jail.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, that is one of the options and it has been the traditional --
Mr. Stokes: It is the only option in my riding.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Not necessarily. There may very well be a private home where the family is quite prepared to accept him in the condition he is in. I don’t know all of the various options open to the police officer concerned but there is no compulsion on him to take the man to jail. That may very well be the best place for him which is available.
Obviously a detox centre would be better, but even where there are many detoxification centres at the present time -- only about 50 per cent of the beds are being reserved for people brought in by the police; in many cases those detox centres are full -- there simply is no space for them. The constable in Toronto or wherever has almost the same options as he has in Schreiber or Geraldton or any place of that nature where there may not be a place other than the local jail; and that may be the safest place.
I’m sure you have read some of the articles which have been published recently about many of the people who are in this unfortunate position saying they are better off getting a weekend of good square meals and a roof over their heads than dying or suffering from malnutrition while lying around not being looked after at all because the police have no place for them. Many of them feel they are better off with a few square meals over the weekend in the jail rather than being left out in the park where they can be mugged or hurt themselves in some other way.
I think the police officers have handled this with a great deal of sensitivity and will continue to do it. I would like to see the day -- I hope both of us see the day -- when there are sufficient detox centres for everyone.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 37 carry?
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Mr. Chairman, I would like to make some comments on subsection 2.
I am very much afraid of the word “apparently.” I don’t believe we should incarcerate people, either in a penal institution for their benefit, on the basis of appearance.
This type of statue leads to all type of difficulty. A peace officer’s normal obligation is to make a judgement. It’s not to rely on appearances. While we recognize the intent of this subsection is to benefit the person, I don’t think we should begin a new type of enterprise as far as activities of government and peace officers are concerned.
I think really the word “apparently” doesn’t suffice. Apparently is open too much to a subjective evaluation without evidence. As I say, I realize it’s important that these people, who are in these conditions at that time, be given some assistance for their own benefit. I don’t think we should pass laws which have any possibility of rendering anyone liable to an unduly subjective judgement without any interpretive qualification.
I think the word apparently is an example. I doubt if there are many people in this House who haven’t experienced it; who have seen people who are subjected to terrible frailties, physical and otherwise, and who would appear to be intoxicated. I know a great friend of mine whom I deal with almost weekly as I walk down one of our main streets in Sarnia. If a person didn’t know him, he would be apparently intoxicated because he has no control of any kind over his locomotion. It is only because of the universal knowledge -- in the sense of my community -- of that individual by people in Sarnia that he isn’t put into a jail or a detoxification centre every week. I’m sorry, my colleague from Scarborough Centre wants to say something.
Mr. Drea: I just want to point out to the hon. member that there is a big difference between a jail and a detoxification centre.
Mr. Bullbrook: The only thing that bothers me is, if you look at the words of the section, it says take into custody. It’s not the incarceration that is the bothersome thing. It’s almost an inherent understanding -- nay, that’s too slight -- it’s a right of a person not to be taken into custody. You don’t take people into custody without justification for taking them into custody. I want, therefore, to initiate a debate in this House on the question of whether we should take people into custody on the basis of their apparent condition.
I recognize this is very difficult for the enforcement officials. I sympathize with them, but I want to say to you without reservation. Mr. Chairman, if it comes down on balance, my choice has got to be that we can’t pass laws that permit peace officers, police constables or other police officers to take into custody a person who is apparently in contravention of section 46(3).
Section 46(3), which we should have a look at, says: “No person shall be in an intoxicated condition in a public place” or in any part of a residence that is used in common by persons occupying more than one dwelling therein. I don’t mean to exaggerate for the sake of clarity, but you can recognize fully that there may be persons who dwell within a residence with other persons who in their normal circumstances might exhibit physical deficiencies that might lend one to believe that they are intoxicated.
I think really what is happening now in society, if I may say to the minister and to the chairmen respectively of both boards, is somewhat of a revulsion on the part of society as a whole in connection with an unduly liberal attitude on the part of society with respect to the consumption of alcohol and other permissive aspects that will be debated, I am sure.
I think it is important for us that we recognize, notwithstanding what might seem a semantic equation, that we have an obligation to protect people. I, for one, do not want to be involved with the passing of a law which is dependent upon the appearances of people. I think it must be dependent upon a traditional, subjective evaluation. What must be put forward to a court eventually is the question of a reasonable and probable ground.
Mr. Bullbrook moves that section 37(2) be amended to remove the word “apparently” and replace that with the words, “who has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that he is in an intoxicated condition.”
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, I’m not going to burden you or my colleagues with the body of law that has developed in connection with what reasonable and probable grounds mean. It’s a body of law that, through the courts, has developed to protect society as a whole, realizing the need for a subjective evaluation but realizing also the need for the protection of the individual.
Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me there is a fundamental conflict here, because the argument that is put forward by the member for Sarnia is one of protecting. Surely in subsection 2, the object is the protection of the individual? I fail to see how when a person is apparently in an intoxicated condition -- and I am perfectly prepared to grant there is a great difference between apparently and with reasonable and probable cause; I understand the difference perhaps not as much as the member for Sarnia but I understand the difference -- surely the point here is that the person is going only to the detoxification centre. Surely, there has to be --
Mr. Haggerty: No, it doesn’t say so.
Mr. Drea: Yes, that’s very clearly the intent of this section. Instead of laying the information; instead of taking him -- the word arrest is never used; the word charge is never used -- he is taken into custody for purposes of going to the detoxification centre only. If you look at the explanatory note it says “taking to the detoxification centre in lieu of a charge.”
If you are going to get into reasonable and probable cause that, in its final analysis, can only be judged by the courts. There is no way to get from a detoxification centre to the courts. You have to be charged; whether you are physically incarcerated in a jail cell or whether you are let out on bail, nonetheless, you have to be charged to get before the courts.
There is no way of going to court from the detoxification centre after completing the programme, whether the programme is the short one of giving immediate relief to the particular problem the person has or whether it is a long-term arrangement which involves rehabilitation and a halfway house or a great number of the sophisticated methods which are now used to try to attack this problem. There is no way that can get before the court.
What you are saying is that unless the police officer is prepared to wait until he has almost absolute surety that this person is intoxicated --
Mr. Bullbrook: No, don’t do that to me, please. I didn’t ask that. Now, please, don’t do that to me. I didn’t ask absolute surety; I asked for reasonable and probable --
Mr. Drea: I said almost absolute surety and that is the difference between “apparently” and “with reasonable and probable cause.”
Mr. Bullbrook: No, it is not.
Mr. Drea: It is a big difference.
Mr. Bullbrook: Would you yield to me for a moment, please?
Mr. Drea: Yes, sure.
Mr. Bullbrook: Let me give you an example if I may. A person comes into a house where there is an epileptic. This is purely an example for the sake of legal clarity so you will understand it. Under the word “apparently,” if somebody says to him that that man has epilepsy it doesn’t make any difference under “apparently” because he appears to be intoxicated.
Mr. Drea: No.
Mr. Bullbrook: But if a person says to him, “I am sorry, my cousin has epilepsy” then he has no reasonable and probable grounds to believe.
I appreciate your yielding to me but I want you to understand it.
Mr. Drea: I understand it.
Mr. Bullbrook: It is not an absolute criterion. What it does in effect is, it protects the individual where there is some objective evidence and we don’t deal purely in appearance.
Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, through you, coming back to the point, I would be extremely concerned -- we are not just talking about the epileptic. We are talking about the person who not very frequently but certainly on a number of occasions gives us all concern. He is taking a particular type of medication for a kidney ailment or this type of thing and there is something of an odour about him and there is his appearance. All right.
If, under this section, the person was going to go to the cells I would agree with you, but in this case the person is going to a detoxification centre which must be under the auspices of a hospital. He is being taken to a hospital and if he is not intoxicated, if he has an ailment which has left him in such a condition that he couldn’t coherently explain to the police officer what his problem was, I suggest to the member for Sarnia in all fairness that the police officer is taking him to proper medical attention. While it may have been for the wrong reason really, in the long run, it is for the protection of the person. As I say, I would have different thoughts if he was going into the cells but he is not.
Let’s have another one. What happens to the police officer when he sees what appears to be a derelict sleeping in the park? There is some grave concern about this. First of all, the public, and I think with some right, does not want to be stepping around people who appear to be intoxicated and sleeping in public parks. They don’t like it in parkettes; they don’t like it on the street. All right. Now, then, if you are going to make it reasonable and probable cause, the police officer literally is going to have to stand there until that person awakes and then take him in.
Mr. Bullbrook: No.
Mr. Drea: Oh yes, he is.
Mr. Bullbrook: He is not.
Mr. Drea: Yes, he is. I yielded to you on this. Now under this section, provided there is a detoxification centre bed available, the person is apparently in contravention of section 46(3). All he has to do is take him to the detoxification centre. I wish we lived in an era where the police officer could tap the person on the shoulder and say, “You should go to a detoxification centre or its equivalent,” and the person would go -- but he won’t --
Mr. Bullbrook: Listen, if the fellow --
Mr. Drea: There has to be a vehicle to get them there.
Mr. Bullbrook: Well, if the fellow is asleep, he is not apparently intoxicated. This is something most of us go through about one third of our day; you must understand that. But my colleague from Kitchener wants to reply to you.
Mr. Drea: Do you sleep in the park one third of the day?
Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, if you have no place else to sleep, believe me. My colleague from Kitchener wants to reply. Give him an opportunity to reply. Well, you were finished; you were sitting down.
Mr. Stokes: Do you remember a time in Simcoe?
Mr. Drea: Yes, oh yes. Sure.
Mr. Chairman: The member for --
Mr. Drea: No, can I finish? I am just winding up.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, it is a good time to break off.
Mr. Drea: No, but as I say, Mr. Chairman, if this was for more than medical reasons, and the detoxification centre is where the medical attention is, whatever the effect of it may be, nonetheless the effect of subsection 2 is a means of conveying a person who is apparently intoxicated or quite intoxicated into the detoxification centre. That is all it is. You say take him into custody; there has to be a vehicle to get the person from the point where he is in the public place, or under that particular thing, into where he is going.
Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Well, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: This would be an excellent time to --
Mr. Breithaupt: No, I think it might be worthwhile if I could make a few comments. It may help to tie the thing together, at least from our point of view. I think the member for Scarborough East --
Mr. Drea: Centre! Why don’t you know anything?
Mr. Breithaupt: Scarborough Centre -- makes the point as he sees it with respect to the matter of apparent intoxication, but the point is surely that the constable involved has made a decision to take someone into custody. Now that person has been taken into custody, and in lieu of the information, in other words, in lieu of proceeding in one certain way, he proceeds in another way. But the point is surely that the constable has taken a person into custody.
I suggest that it is in the constable’s best interest to have the protection of this term “reasonable and probable grounds,” as well as it is for the protection of the individual who was taken into custody. The reason is that these words have a clear meaning in law and a tradition of being very carefully judged by the courts, should the occasion arise.
I think if we are to be consistent in legislation, it would be worthwhile to use that phrase, which has a meaning in law and protection for both sides, rather than to use the word “apparently,” which may develop a certain subjective problem that can only be resolved with some difficulty.
The suggestion that has been made is that this phrase, which my colleague has suggested, would benefit not only the individual who has been taken into custody, but also the police officer or constable who may be required to benefit from the historic and developed view of what that phrase means, as interpreted by the courts. We therefore think that it’s in the best interests of both parties if that word is changed for a word that has a meaning in the interpretation of law.
Now, there may be some other comments to make on this, Mr. Chairman, but I would suggest that the committee might rise and report at this time, and perhaps consideration could be given before we return to the bill tomorrow.
Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the committee rise and report.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill without amendment and progress on a second bill and asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we’ll proceed further with consideration of Bill 45 and then, as previously announced, Bill 106 and Bill 111, to be followed by Bill 77.
Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10:30 o’clock, p.m.