GREATER NIAGARA GENERAL HOSPITAL ACT
WALTHAM CREATIVE PRINTING LIMITED ACT
ATLAS HOTEL COMPANY LIMITED ACT
GEORGE R. GARDINER MUSEUM OF CERAMIC ART ACT
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers.
WINTARIO GRANTS
Mr. Speaker: Just before entering into the business for the day, I would like to take this opportunity to address all honourable members on the matter raised yesterday with respect to the release of information on Wintario grants.
Members were rising on what they considered to be matters of privilege, and I must say I found some difficulty in recognizing what privileges of the members had indeed been abused. At best there may be some disagreement with the method of the minister and his staff in distributing the information on these grants.
I was asked to refer the matter to the procedural affairs committee. At the time I had some reservations as to my authority to do so. However, after reviewing the terms of reference of that committee I find that I do indeed have that authority. I must inform the members, however, that I do not consider this to be a proper matter to be referred to the committee.
As I stated earlier, there seems to be disagreement with the way the minister and his staff have handled the distribution of the information on Wintario grants. I believe this matter should properly be brought before the committee considering the minister's estimates. Since they have been completed, I would suggest to the members that the concurrence debate on the minister's estimates is still on the Order Paper.
However, I think the minister is certainly now well aware of the dissatisfaction of the House towards this matter.
Thank you very much.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third reading on motion:
Bill 104, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act;
Bill 107, An Act to amend the Police Act;
Bill 136, An Act to amend the Milk Act;
Bill 162, An Act to amend the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations Act;
Bill 163, An Act to amend the Personal Property Security Act;
Bill 166, An Act to revise the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Act;
Bill 171, An Act respecting certain International Bridges;
Bill 176, An Act to amend the Co-operative Corporations Act.
GREATER NIAGARA GENERAL HOSPITAL ACT
Mr. Nixon, on behalf of Mr. Kerrio, moved second reading of Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the Greater Niagara General Hospital.
Motion agreed to.
Third reading also agreed to on motion.
WALTHAM CREATIVE PRINTING LIMITED ACT
Mr. McLean, on behalf of Mr. Mitchell, moved second reading of Bill Pr26, An Act to revive Waltham Creative Printing Limited.
Motion agreed to.
Third reading also agreed to on motion.
10:10 a.m.
EMMANUEL BIBLE COLLEGE ACT
Mr. Nixon, on behalf of Mr. Sweeney, moved second reading of Bill Pr38, An Act to incorporate Emmanuel Bible College.
Motion agreed to.
Third reading also agreed to on motion.
ATLAS HOTEL COMPANY LIMITED ACT
Mr. McLean, on behalf of Mr. Rotenberg, moved second reading of Bill Pr41, An Act to revive the Atlas Hotel Company Limited.
Third reading also agreed to on motion.
GEORGE R. GARDINER MUSEUM OF CERAMIC ART ACT
Hon. Mr. Baetz moved second reading of Bill 183, An Act to incorporate the George R. Gardiner Museum of Ceramic Art.
Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief statement.
It is with a great deal of pleasure that I present to this Legislature for second reading, Bill 183, An Act to incorporate the George R. Gardiner Museum of Ceramic Art.
As I indicated in my statement introducing this bill for first reading, it will facilitate making available to the public one of the world's most important private collections of ceramic art. This gift is all the more significant, however, given that Mr. Gardiner will be undertaking not only to donate the collection but also to build a museum in which to house it and then to provide for an endowment fund ensuring the maintenance and operation of the museum in future years.
The amount of government support available to create major new projects such as the proposed George R. Gardiner Museum, following the cultural explosion of the last two decades and given the necessity today of financial restraint in all sectors, is of course limited. It is therefore doubly significant that Mr. Gardiner has responded positively to the challenges and the benefits of contributing to the cultural life of this province. As I have often stated, the cultural life of the province is a shared responsibility, with the government in partnership with individuals and corporations throughout the province.
I want to emphasize that the museum will be an independent -- and I stress independent -- nonprofit corporation consisting of a 15-member board of trustees. Of the 15 members, the bill provides for five persons appointed by the board of regents of Victoria University and one person appointed by Toronto city council. These six persons shall hold office for two years. As well, nine persons will be appointed initially by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and thereafter they will elect their further replacements to the board.
Moreover, the bill prohibits the director of the museum from being a trustee of the museum. In other words, the situation in which the founder-director of a museum is in conflict with a small board appointed by the crown and responsible to the Legislature through the minister is totally absent from the bill. The board is independent and its finances are derived from an independent endowment fund, in exchange for which the government will facilitate the usual tax relief available to Mr. Gardiner.
What do the people of the province receive? The core of the gift is, of course, a ceramics collection that has been described as world class. This evaluation is impressive in itself, coming from internationally recognized experts in the field. This collection is conservatively valued at $10 million, with Mr. Gardiner committed to expanding the collection through new purchases as they become available. Second, the museum is to be constructed at an estimated cost to Mr. Gardiner of between $2.5 million and $3 million.
The property will be leased from Victoria University and the University of Toronto. In association with Victoria University, the museum will have an educational program concerning the design, history, technology and related aspects of the decorative arts and their relationship to the civilization of their day. In other words, arts and education will be very much linked in the program of the museum.
Finally, Mr. Gardiner is committed to establishing an endowment fund which will total approximately $4 million to $5 million over a number of years to operate the museum. In other words, the donation puts a unique cultural resource into the public domain with no ongoing financial burden for the province.
To summarize, as I indicated at first reading, this legislation has been introduced because the government believes there is a major public benefit to be gained from having this collection in a public place. This legislation is to facilitate this very worthwhile objective.
Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Speaker, I have very few comments to make on Bill 183. First, I want to thank the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) for sending the compendium at the introduction of the bill, which I have found very informative. It set out very clearly the proposed method of payment for the museum and the setting up of the endowment fund, which he referred to briefly just a moment ago. There will be enough funds there to sufficiently meet the obligation of the museum for quite a number of years.
It is interesting to note that the museum will be very beneficial to Ontario, and to visitors to Toronto in particular, because it will include a world-class collection of items from many parts of the world.
In looking over the legislation, and possibly to keep it out of committee, I would like to ask a question or two in my opening remarks. I was most interested in the section setting out the number of trustees. Certainly the figure of five appointed every two years by the board of regents of Victoria University is reasonable because the museum is situated on their land. One is to be appointed by the council of the corporation of the city of Toronto.
The nine persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council -- I hope I understand it correctly -- will be self-elected in years to come. One thing I hope has been done is that when the nine are initially appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, there will have been consultation with Mr. Gardiner.
Looking through the bill further, section 15 states there is a possibility, and gives the minister authority, to supply moneys to this museum in the future. The only question I have there is, what does the minister anticipate will be the province's responsibility in the future and how soon may that responsibility be expected?
In section 17, in case of dissolution of the museum, the question I have there is, why is the authority given to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to disband or give any remaining property to a museum, art gallery or educational institution at the request of the minister or Lieutenant Governor in Council, rather than have the board accept that responsibility?
I feel this legislation will provide a museum that will be beneficial to the province, as I said, and to the people of Ontario. I certainly want to support the legislation for a museum supported financially by Mr. Gardiner and, I hope, by a great number of so-called friends of the museum through their annual membership fee. This party will support the legislation, but I want to make certain the minister can assure me and the House that there is no other agreement signed between Mr. Gardiner and the government that was not included in the compendium.
10:20 a.m.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks on this bill. I may say at the outset we will support the bill on second reading. I do not think there is any need to send, or any point in sending, the bill to committee.
I have some reservations as usual about the ancient and outmoded form of directors' indemnity provision included in this bill. The rationale is always given that, since the members of the 9 board are volunteers, we do not need to have the strict form of protection for the public in the qualifications on indemnifications for directors that we do in private corporations. I do not accept that rationale, but we had a discussion earlier this session on this, and I leave that as a matter that is only one aspect of the remarks I want to make.
I may say that George Gardiner called me, because I have known him for about half a century, and talked with me about the background of the collection, his interest in the particular field of art, how it developed and the considerations he had given to the methods by which he could carry out his particular intention, which is based on a number of considerations.
I think it is appropriate to say that my remarks this morning do not fall into the category of looking a gift horse in the mouth. However, I want to indicate clearly what I said yesterday when by happenstance we had the bitterness of the issue of the McMichael Canadian Collection before us. Here today we have a new museum being incorporated. I made the point in the debate yesterday that the cultural policies of the government, as mirrored in this ministry and for which this minister is responsible, are now shown very clearly to be inadequate.
I was interested in the minister's statement in introducing the bill. The compendium of information was made available to our caucus. I had the opportunity, as I said, of talking for a few minutes with George Gardiner about this matter. It is quite clear, however, that there is no policy of the government to determine the considerations to be taken into account and the process by which the donee of the gift makes the decision to accept the gift.
In my judgement, for all institutions of a cultural nature there must be a policy for each particular institution so that, when a gift is offered, the process by which the gift is accepted is not left on an ad hoc basis. That is what has happened with this government, because it is devoid of policies with respect to the decision made about receiving the gift.
This museum is a charitable trust, and I want to make a couple of points about that. The first point is that the only members of this museum, in accordance with the terms of the bill, are the board of directors. My understanding is that the act simply states, "The museum shall consist of the members of the board." As my colleague who spoke for the Liberal Party has indicated, the Lieutenant Governor in Council appoints nine members of the board, two of whom shall be George Gardiner and Helen Gardiner; the council of the city of Toronto appoints one, and the board of regents of Victoria University appoints five.
There is no one to supervise the administration of this charitable trust except the board of directors. I want to make it very clear that this government has the responsibility, not only to this museum but to all other museums and galleries in this province, of holding those trustees accountable for the proper discharge of their business. I am not casting aspersions on any individual, but I think it is absolutely essential that people who accept positions on these boards understand that they are trustees.
I have said that a museum is a charitable trust. A trust is simply defined as a duty "the performance of which will accomplish a substantial amount of social benefit to the public or some reasonably large class thereof." We must add to that concept that all museums enjoy their charitable tax-exempt status by virtue of federal or provincial tax laws. Most museums, if not all, although privately endowed in the first instance, derive their continuing support from direct government subsidies -- my colleague has referred to the provision in the bill by which the government of Ontario may make funds available to the institution -- and also from indirect government subsidies such as tax deductibility for gifts, bequests and otherwise.
So with this kind of framework, the accountability of the board of directors to someone -- in this case it must be the Minister of Culture and Recreation -- is essential, because each of them has a fiduciary duty. In my view, that fiduciary duty must meet a much higher standard than that required of directors of private corporations. They must discharge that duty in strict compliance with trust principles.
It must be noted that, while directors of charitable corporations are exempt from personal liability for the debts, liabilities or obligations of the corporation, they are not immune from personal liability for their own fraud, bad faith, negligent acts or other breaches of fiduciary duty. Of course, that speaks directly to the inadequacy of the provision in the bill relating to the indemnification of the directors or the trustees of this particular charitable foundation.
These standards of accountability -- that is, the duty of loyalty; the avoidance of self-dealing and conflict of interest; the duty of care, which means managing the affairs in a prudent manner; the duty to preserve the trust property, and the duty to avoid tainted transactions -- can only be met if each of the directors and the minister recognize the ethical content of the trust concept in relation to these public trusts.
To say that a man is a fiduciary only begins the analysis; it gives direction for further inquiry. To whom is he a fiduciary? What obligations does he owe as a fiduciary? In what respect has he failed to discharge these obligations? Until this government establishes an overall policy with respect to cultural agencies in this province -- whether they are on a community basis, whether they are government supported or whether they are privately endowed as charitable institutions -- we have a long way to go in the evolution of the policies which are required for that purpose.
10:30 a.m.
The matter is one of immense concern to me in the light of the events surrounding the McMichael collection, and in the light of the information I am gradually gathering with respect to the position at the Royal Ontario Museum and at the Ontario College of Art with respect to the inadequacies of the two documents issued by the ministry, that is, Community Museums Policy for Ontario and Museum Notes for Community Museums in Ontario, to which I alluded yesterday.
We have to understand that there is, first of all, a very substantial tax benefit to the donor of this collection. Second, there is the incorporation we are asked to approve today of a trust for Ontario, for the people of the province. Third, we are allowing the control of that organization to be in the hands of a trustee group, which is not accountable to any outside body, other than through an annual report to be given to the minister and to be laid before this assembly.
I want to emphasize that we are obviously moving into a time in the 1980s when the public is going to have to look with care at benefactions that carry with them such a large tax benefit, because in a sense that is an immediate involvement of the government financially, by reason of that indirect benefit or contribution in the organization. This organization is not just a public form of private operation.
The same questions arise with the Art Gallery of Ontario. There is a tendency to think of these public galleries and public museums in the province as though they are the personal preserve of the particular board of directors. There is little, if any, public input; there is little, if any, public accountability with respect to them.
There will be other occasions to deal with this, but it seemed appropriate this morning, in the aftermath of the bitterness of yesterday, to indicate that this is a matter for the 1980s that has to be solved. The status of the boards of these organizations has to be understood to be one of immense responsibility, with respect to their own activities; with respect to all persons, employees or officers of these organizations, and with respect to all persons who volunteer their services in the operation of them. It is no excuse to say one is a volunteer when one is dealing with a public trust.
The public trust has to be protected and the only ultimate place where it can be protected is through the government and through this assembly. This assembly must demand of the government full, complete and adequate policies, guidelines and standards, evolved by the government about the operation of all these institutions.
I welcome this particular institution, simply on the basis of a long personal friendship with George Gardiner. I do not pretend to know all the questions as to its value, nor does this assembly have before it any evidence on which it can come to a conclusion as to its value.
I happen to know, in this case, that in all likelihood the figure the minister mentioned of about $10 million would be shown on examination to be the acquisition cost of the collection. That is as a good a standard as any. I also happen to know the government has given a substantial tax benefit to the donor and as a result of this gift is already financially involved in a significant amount in the work of the museum.
I do hope the directors and George and Helen Gardiner and the other members of the board of directors will read these few brief remarks. And we hope this museum, starting as it is from scratch, will develop the most up-to-date standards of ethics with respect to the operation, its accountability for the public trust and its access to the information for members of this assembly and of the government. This will make certain in the public's mind that the whole question of management, operation, and conflict of interest will not come to haunt this museum as it has come to haunt us about the McMichael collection.
I assume they will, but we must not stumble into the situation where a number of amateurs are sitting on a board without any real sense of the immensely high standard, the highest standard known in the land, of the obligations of trustees with respect to charitable trust.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill on behalf of our caucus. I welcome the contribution it is going to make to the province. I am delighted it has a close relationship both with the situation of the intended museum and with respect to the participation of one of the universities of the province, Victoria University, on the campus of the University of Toronto.
Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to express my appreciation and thanks to the members opposite for their support of this legislation. I am sure that Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner will share that feeling as well.
I have certainly noted the comments that have been made. We will observe them as we go along with this. I have especially noted the observations made by both members about the tax benefits which in a sense is an indirect public financial involvement in the establishment of this museum. It is something we sometimes tend to forget. We assume that as long as there are no direct public grants flowing to a foundation such as this there is actually no public financial involvement, which of course is not the case at all.
I think it is because of this recognition of indirect public support -- I stress indirect public support because certainly there are no direct grants envisaged -- we have taken the step to participate in the appointment of the initial board. I would certainly assume in making those appointments through the orders in council that we will be appointing people, in consultation and collaboration with Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner, who are cognizant of their responsibilities and their roles to direct the affairs of a museum like this. They will be setting the tone and setting the precedents for the corporation. They will be writing the bylaws, which describe the conditions under which the successors to the original Lieutenant Governor in Council appointments are chosen.
Given this fact, and the fact that the other six trustees all represent publicly accountable institutions, I feel it is clear the public interest will be properly served. I should also remind members opposite the corporation will have to make its annual report to government and will be publicly accountable in that way.
I think it was the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) who raised the question about grants of money as is noted in the bill. There is provision made for grants to the foundation but that is not with the idea in mind that we would be making direct cash gifts. That provision is in there simply to enable us to flow money to the museum, but it will simply be money that will offset the donation made to government. It is not a further grant.
10:40 a.m.
I think the letter in the compendium, dated December 1, 1981, from Mr. Gardiner to my deputy minister, Mr. Ward Cornell, very clearly spells it out that no direct government grants are expected other than those offsetting the donations. It is really quite clear on that.
In answer to the other question raised by the member for Perth about any other agreements in existence between Mr. Gardiner and the government, I can assure him there is no other agreement between the two. The information in the compendium is what exists.
The section on the dissolution of the museum, should that occur, I think is a normal provision in setting up a foundation such as this.
I think that pretty well covers the questions raised by the members opposite. As I said before, we very much appreciate the support they are giving to this measure. That is about all we have to say at this time.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for third reading.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. MacQuarrie, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 178, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.
Mr. MacQuarrie: Mr. Speaker, these amendments to the Highway Traffic Act in effect validate the RIDE program, the reduce impaired driving everywhere program, which has achieved some measure of success in the past. It also provides penalties for people or drivers who leave the scene or fail to stop at the request of police officers. I think the amendments proposed are eminently reasonable and will contribute greatly to the safety of our highways and the users of our highways. I would hope the bill will receive general support.
Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this bill, because I think it has many more ramifications than the honourable member has pointed out to us. I do not think it is something that can be glossed over so quickly without dealing with several of the principles which this bill affects. In fact, it changes the very principles upon which some of our legislation and our laws are based.
I just want to make a general comment on the bill to begin with. I have seen this before, the type of approach that has been used by the government to implement pieces of legislation that deal with matters that have received a great deal of airing and have gained a great deal of public sympathy for dealing with problems.
As an example I point to the Toronto East General Hospital situation, which ended up with an amendment to the Public Hospitals Act that gives the Ontario government an opportunity at any time they choose, really, to go into any hospital where they see problems developing. The government can go in where there may be a difficulty with what is being done by the local board vis-à-vis the policy decisions of the Health ministry.
This is another bill of the type that deals with very important principles regarding the personal freedoms of the people of Ontario but on the face of it appears to be of very little significance to those important rights.
I want to set out exactly what this bill is and why I oppose giving it approval in principle on second reading. It is actually an omnibus bill; it combines a good number of things in one package designed to meet some of the issues of the day that have been heavily reported in newspapers throughout the province.
First, it deals with the issue of controlling the drinking driver. We know for sure that none of us in the Legislature can tolerate the high toll of death and injury and the financial cost the people of Ontario must bear because of the very serious problem we face on our highways, particularly at this time of year.
Second, it deals with the problem of police chases. That also has been a situation the Liberal Party has dealt with on an ongoing basis for many years. It is a very serious matter. We have urged the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) to take steps to deal with that very serious problem, and we admit that in one way this bill does deal with it, as the Solicitor General suggests. However we are very greatly concerned that perhaps the Solicitor General's attempts at dealing with this problem are misplaced and should not in principle pass second reading without having very serious deliberations on the matters he is proposing to put into law.
The third part of the bill is the reaction of the government and the Solicitor General to a recent court case, which, as explanatory notes say, was Regina versus Dedman. This one very small section in the bill, which I think is section 2 and is entitled section 189(a) as it will be referred to in the amended version of the Highway Traffic Act, broadens the powers of police officers very considerably. I do not think we in this province can gloss over the expansion of those powers when we feel there are a goodly number of powers available to the police in this province to deal with very many areas.
The fourth part of the bill is a section that almost creates another offence. That is the offence of almost being drunk. A police officer may -- and I stress the word "may" -- in certain situations decide to suspend the licence of a driver on the roads in Ontario. That gives this police officer wide discretion. He is the enforcer and he is also the person who administers the test: he makes the decision. Once there is a clause in the bill that says "may," discretion is built in to it as to whether the officer will follow the provisions of this piece of legislation.
10:50 a.m.
Those are the four segments of the bill, and I just want to go through those steps one by one to indicate why we feel we should have a great deal of study on this bill and why we think it ought not be glossed over and quickly dealt with. In so far as this bill has such wide ramifications, the Solicitor General himself ought really to be here because it is a very serious thing we are getting into.
First of all I would like to refer to the matter of the drinking driver. We on this side of the House are very concerned, as everyone is, with the great loss of life and damage to personal property and the dislocations that are created by this. However, we think the manner in which it is being dealt with, imposing a near offence, that of having 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, should be done by effecting a change to the criminal law.
We admit the Solicitor General himself cannot do that. He would have to do it under the auspices of the Criminal Code of this great nation of ours. We really think if there is material available that would suggest there is an impairment in the person at this level, it ought really to be dealt with under the Criminal Code. Despite the suggestions placed before the House by the Solicitor General, there are possibly more serious punishments being meted out by police officers on the side of the street -- any street in Metro Toronto or any place where the RIDE program is put into effect -- than what may be meted out to a person who is ultimately charged with a 0.08 offence under the Criminal Code.
There is no opportunity for a driver in this province, when he once registers on that machine, to make any representations to anybody except the police officer involved. The police officer sees the reading, makes his decision and then suspends the licence for 12 hours and that may mean two or three things. First of all, the person who is going home may be forced to incur increased costs to get there. If he is a person from a long distance he may be unable to attend his place of work. He then also has to pay whatever costs there are for transporting his vehicle from whatever site to an impounding yard.
Those sorts of punishment are there for a situation that has not been recognized as an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. And I think that is one reason we must be very careful about going any further ahead and implementing these quasi-criminal situations in any piece of legislation, especially when this bill is introduced offhandedly and in the absence of the very person who should be here to take responsibility and to address the very serious concerns of the people of this province.
I think that is what makes this a piece of legislation we cannot support at this point, even though we do support efforts to deal with the drunken driver, that goes without saying. I have had the opportunity to test out the new ALERT devices, alcohol level evaluation roadside testers, that will be used by the police in their roadside checks and I am sure of their accuracy. The demonstration given here by one of the Solicitor General's people yesterday was a worthwhile exercise in determining how the whole thing is going to be presented.
Mr. Nixon: Did they test Santa Claus last night?
Mr. Elston: I believe Santa Claus was tested yesterday afternoon.
Mr. Nixon: And found wanting.
Mr. T. P. Reid: He ruined the machine.
Mr. Elston: Anyway, it is because of these types of things, Mr. Speaker, everything else aside, that we must be much more careful in dealing with this piece of legislation.
I want to deal now with the police chase. I again suggest to the members that this is an extremely serious matter that we cannot afford to deal with lightly. We cannot offhandedly go into this type of legislation, merely saying it will deal with several problems. The situation of the police chase is one we have been concerned about for many years. In fact, it predates my existence here. There are several areas we have urged the Solicitor General to deal with.
We have noted with a great deal of enthusiasm the support for some of our suggestions that has come from various members of the police enforcement group, particularly for setting up rigorous guidelines for chases and for having police officers go through a course of training if they are going to be participating in chases. Other jurisdictions have dealt in other ways with the police chase issue, if I may use that term, to the benefit of society.
It seems to me we have here the implementation of a three-year suspension of a licence for the person who gets caught. He is the person who will be pursued and he will lose his licence for three years. If a person is caught as a result of a police chase at this time there are several things which may be done to him. He may be charged with speeding, careless driving or dangerous driving, all of which can add up to suspensions. Dangerous driving is a situation where a punishment much more severe than just a suspension can be brought.
What I am basically saying is this three-year suspension under the Highway Traffic Act is really something in addition to what we already have in hand. It approaches the problem of police chases from one side of the spectrum. I think the Solicitor General ought not to feel, because he is approaching the problem from this perspective, that he has solved the problem of police chases. In one way or another, what we are doing is adding to the ante for the person who chooses to run from police. I do not think there is any question about that.
I support every effort being made to try to control the police chase problem so that we can eliminate the needless death and injury that has occurred and that has plagued us so often in the past few months. The grief and the dislocation of families caused by the problems that result from high-speed chases are tearing communities apart. I do not think we can offhandedly deal with this legislation without looking at it in serious detail.
Passing on to the third point which I mentioned earlier, the question of increasing the powers of the police: there are people in this province who understand that holding a driver's licence is a privilege for people and I support that concept. When a person holding a licence is driving along without having done anything wrong at all, without having breached any sort of statute, under this legislation he can all of a sudden be called over and stopped by a police officer.
There are those who would say that is okay, that if one has a privilege, one ought to avail oneself of being checked at any time and for whatever reason. But I think it is serious in nature when one considers this is akin to coming up to any individual on the street, stopping him and conducting an investigation without reasonable cause.
We have material in our jurisprudence and throughout our legal system which developed the whole idea that a citizen ought to be able to go his own way unless there is reasonable cause to believe he is in some fashion or another conducting himself in a manner detrimental to society.
Because of the inclusion of this section, which is only a small part of this whole bill, I must emphasize that we must seriously consider the ramifications of this. I know this is the response of the Solicitor General to the decision which is noted in the bill itself.
I can appreciate that the RIDE program is very successful. I say to the members of this House that we support the efforts to try to deal with the problems of the drinking driver. I have no concerns about that at all, except that I want to be very sure that this whole amendment is treated seriously. I cannot help but say that when I count four members of the governing party, without the Solicitor General being here, that this whole thing is being --
Mr. Nixon: Not a single cabinet minister.
Mr. Elston: There is not a single cabinet minister here, in a situation when we have serious, serious --
Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, please: I do not see a quorum. Would you check please?
Mr. Speaker called for the quorum bells.
11:04 a.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): We have a quorum.
Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see the extra members come in for this very important bill. I have a feeling that a good number of the members may not have conducted a thorough study of this piece of legislation and what it means to the people of Ontario, or I think they would have been here to listen to the opening remarks and to listen to the remarks of the members who wish to speak on it. In fact, they may even want to --
Mr. Eaton: There happens to be a committee operating as well.
Mr. Elston: There is one member who obviously is not concerned with what happens in Ontario. He would far sooner interject.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: There happens to be a committee going downstairs as well, and some of us are serving on that committee.
Mr. Foulds: You guys came back here before when we asked you on Thanksgiving Day.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Huron-Bruce will speak to the bill.
Mr. Elston: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Maybe it is a bill that very well should be spoken to briefly, but there are so many areas that have to be dealt with that each one has to be spoken to briefly indeed.
I will not continue very much longer, but I do want to make another couple of comments. One or two of them have come from various sources. One is from an editorial in the Windsor Star, which talks about what it describes as "McMurtry's law." They have entitled their editorial of Tuesday, December 1, "Almost guilty is not enough." I think that probably in many ways capsulizes the feeling of a good number of the people on this side of the House.
I had mentioned three points, but since the Solicitor General has come in, I will recap. I mentioned that I thought his determination to deal with the drinking driver on the roads was a good one, but that the creation of an "almost" offence was something that should very seriously be considered. I want to tell the Solicitor General I thought he ought to be here because of the important nature of this particular piece of legislation.
It has come to my attention that he has written a letter to the Globe and Mail indicating there is no sort of discretionary penalty put in place, but I want to point out to the Solicitor General, now that he is here, the pieces in the bill that give that discretion to the police. He will see that under section 1 of this amendment act, in the revised or amended Highway Traffic Act, section 30a(1), provides, "A police officer may request the person to surrender his driver's licence." In subsection 2 of that section it says, "A police officer may request the person to surrender his driver's licence." Subsection 3 again says, "A police officer may request the person to surrender his driver's licence."
There is certainly a great deal of discretion in those sections. They ought to be looked at very carefully because the police officer is in a position, as the person who is conducting the test and who is enforcing the law, of making the judicial decision as to whether to suspend or not. They are very dangerous areas. That is on top of the whole issue of whether or not we should be setting a new standard apart from the Criminal Code of Canada.
I think I have spoken at length on this. I set out in some detail the reasons we cannot support this particular piece of legislation in principle. I would urge all members to consider the ramifications of this bill in much more serious detail than obviously has been the case before for a number of them, and ask that this matter be not approved of on second reading.
Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate support for Bill 178 from our caucus. I want to make a few observations that I think have some bearing on it. I am not going to go into the individual clauses. Some of them cause us some small concern, but those will be dealt with by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) or the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) in their remarks on the bill.
11:10 a.m.
First, I want to make it clear that I think at least the origin of the recommendation contained in this bill is my ex-colleague in the House, the former member for Yorkview, Mr. Young. I do not know of anybody in any party who deserves more credit for a lifelong crusade in terms of highway safety, problems of drinking drivers, the rest of it --
Mr. Riddell: He had a good committee working with him on it.
Mr. Mackenzie: Yes, and the honourable member served on it and supported recommendations just like this bill. I do not know how he can now reverse his position.
I think Fred Young should be remembered for his intense crusade, which came from the heart, for safety on our highways and safety in terms of having one's right to the road not be abused by those who drink and do not have control of their faculties.
When one takes a look at the final report of the select committee on highway safety, the first committee I served on in this House and I think probably one of the more hardworking and best in terms of all committee members' commitment, we had a number of things brought to our attention. We were trying to deal with a number of points early in the committee.
I am looking at the terms as set out in Fred's own thinking. He made plain and clear the need to improve road safety in Ontario. It was obvious to anybody who wanted to take a serious look at it. He pointed out that in a normal year, more than 200,000 reported accidents occur on the province's roads, involving more than 10 per cent of all registered motor vehicles in Ontario. That has probably increased since.
In any given year, as many as one family in 20 will have a member injured on the road. One family in 1,000 in Ontario will have a member killed on the road. In 1976, for example, 83,736 persons were injured in 58,028 accidents on the province's roads. Another 1,511 died in 1,265 fatal accidents. At that time, road accidents were the fourth leading killer in the province.
This is the background of our concern for the need for tougher enforcement and the opportunity for provincial authorities to deal quicker and tougher with drinking drivers.
One thing pointed out in the section on the impaired driver -- and I think the magnitude of the problem has to be understood in Ontario -- is simply that in 1975, alcohol was involved, for example, in 12 per cent of all property damage accidents, 19 per cent of all nonfatal injury accidents. But get this, Mr. Speaker: 26.5 per cent of all fatal accidents on our highway had alcohol involved; 51.8 per cent of all driver deaths in accidents on the highways of Ontario involved alcohol.
Those figures are so overwhelming that I do not see, even with admitted reservations of some of the sections, how anybody can really make a case for a civil-libertarian issue in this legislation. It is a straight issue of whether we are going to talk forever about how all of us are against impaired and drinking drivers on the highways -- words do not mean much -- or whether, somewhere down the pike we are going to decide finally that we have to do something that may have some effect on it.
I think the evidence before our committee was that some measures proposed in this bill can have some effect, in terms of what amounts to nothing less than carnage on our highways when it comes to drinking drivers.
There are a number of problems. The committee found that increased apprehension and severe penalties worked rather well in jurisdictions where they have been tried, especially if coupled with a fair advertising campaign of the kind of actions that were going to be taken.
Evidence also indicated that after a period of two or three years there was a tendency to fall back on the level of enforcement. I guess that is one of the problems we are always going to have to live with down the road. What do we do to follow up? Is it a periodic major campaign? I am not sure of the answers to those questions, but the evidence is that initially it can work and work rather substantially. In jurisdictions where it was coupled with an effective advertising campaign, we found the results much more dramatic.
The report also showed that relatively few impaired drivers, and this is one of our problems in terms of the numbers that are involved and the need for some specific actions, are being apprehended at current enforcement levels. A roadside survey conducted by Statistics Canada, part of our report in section 4-3, revealed that on Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings about 6.4 per cent of all the drivers on the road were legally impaired.
It has been estimated by an official of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications that impaired drivers could drive 26,000 kilometres in this province before being apprehended. That is probably equal to, or more than, a year's driving for the average driver. Another estimate was that a fully impaired driver probably had less than one chance in 2,000 of being apprehended on the road. Therein also is part of the reason for the need for the kind of legislation we have before us in this bill.
Some way has to be found to persuade a significant portion of potential offenders in the province to refrain from driving while impaired. I do not think this bill is going to add a tremendous amount to it, but it is another step. I think that is why there probably has to be an ongoing publicity campaign involved with it.
There is another element to this proposed bill that makes it imperative that we take some action, even with the few weaknesses that may be there. Apart from the tremendous toll in terms of drinking drivers on the road, the only other group that had anywhere near as bad a record were the young drivers, the new drivers in the 18- to 23-year-old group.
While they could, in individual tests, be among the best drivers with the quickest reactions, as we found in the select committee on highway safety, we also found that whether it was the new freedom, the speed or whatever, they were involved in a tremendous number of accidents. Young people like to experiment and are going to go out to parties and have a few drinks. What really threw the committee was the fact that when one melded the young driver with the drinking driver, one had an accident and death toll that was almost unbelievable.
We are cutting off an awful lot of people who are in the prime of life if we are not making efforts to stop them. I do not want to take a lot of time on this, but I have not gone into the social costs that are a result. I have dealt with one, two or three cases, I guess, since I was elected, some of them for other reasons such as a swimming accident, but a couple were car accidents with quadriplegics, young people with families in my constituency.
In one or two cases, alcohol was involved and I know what has now happened to that person and that family. I know the agencies in our communities and the kind of support services one is fighting for all the time, to get some little assistance in the way of life they are now subjected to.
We simply have to deal with the problem facing us, even with the reservations we have. Some recommendations have been made as a result of the report that came out in 1977-78, but nowhere near enough. Lifestyle advertising in terms of alcohol, for example, is not dealt with in this so I will not get into it, but we have not been anywhere near tough enough in terms of that recommendation, which was also made by this select committee.
One of the things we said clearly in that report, signed by the Liberal members as well, was, "While the preventative measures recommended above will, when implemented, deter some drivers from combining drinking and driving, police apprehension of drinking drivers must be upgraded, and appropriate legal sanctions must be applied to those who continue to endanger public safety on Ontario roads."
Mr. T. P. Reid: That is "appropriate." That does not mean a Fascist state.
Mr. Mackenzie: Fascist? I have never heard anything more ridiculous from the honourable member. I dealt with the civil-libertarian deal. Anybody who says that somehow or other one has to be a Fascist because one is trying to stop the kind of carnage and deaths we have on our highways is a fool.
The Acting Speaker: Speak to the bill, please.
Mr. Mackenzie: In some progressive jurisdictions, one of them Sweden, there are jail terms in conjunction with one's licence being lifted for drinking driving. I am not sure that should not be one of the things we should look at seriously as well. We need a comprehensive program, but we have to come up with more answers than are in this bill. That we are going to have to have ongoing vigilance is obvious.
Let me once again, slowly but carefully, go through the kind of statistics we were faced with in this particular committee. Of drivers killed in fatal collisions, 33.6 per cent were impaired. When one added those who had been drinking, and that is up to the 0.08 legal limit we currently have, it was 51.8 per cent. As to pedestrians killed -- and they do not have much option in terms of whether they have any defence against the drinking driver -- 13.9 per cent of all pedestrians killed died as a result of impaired drivers in Ontario. When one added to that pedestrians killed as a result of drinking but not impairment, it rises to 22.1 per cent.
Where are their civil rights? What kind of a Fascist measure do we have that might help to stop these people being killed?
11:20 a.m.
I have no hesitation at all. We might have liked to see one or two of these things expanded. I think my colleagues may go into the fact that there is not going to be justice in terms of whether one can get home or can get a ride, depending upon the kind of transportation available in different areas of the province.
There are a number of individual points that did concern us, but we did not see this as a civil-libertarian issue. We did see it as one of the first concrete, positive steps in response to a recommendation of a select committee that clearly pointed out a need to act in an area that was having tremendous personal, financial and social costs in the province, and we welcome the introduction of the bill.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I am always fascinated by the approach of the New Democratic Party on matters like this. I wonder where the member for Riverdale was in the caucus. I find it difficult to believe that a civil libertarian, or one who considers himself to be such, would be prepared to support this kind of legislation.
Since the election, a strange mood has pervaded the opposite side of the House, an authoritarianism creeping back into the province that is reminiscent of the infamous police bill of a few years ago, which led to the demise of the then minister of justice. Let us just go over what is happening here, that completely anti-democratic attitude over there, now that they have the authority to do whatever they like, aided and abetted and paid for by the 30 New Democratic Party members.
They took the attitude in the human rights bill that they were prepared to give people who have no judicial authority the right to enter premises and take books and investigate. Now there is this bill, saying if you are stopped by a policeman on the highway and you show 0.05 alcohol/blood percentage, that policeman is then going to be able to take your licence for 12 hours. We have allowed or will allow the policeman to be judge and jury and to mete out punishment all in one bold stroke. What kind of an attitude are we fostering in this province when we, as a Legislature, are prepared to allow this?
There are other remedies. I agree with my friend the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) that the carnage on the highway has to be stopped. But is it supposed to be at the expense of the civil rights of the people of Ontario and by this method that we do it?
We are all concerned. We had a select committee. We all have personal experiences of these things happening. If so, one of the remedies is to go to Ottawa and say 0.08 alcohol/blood level is too high, that they should make it 0.05 and put it at that. But to put the individual and the police officer in the situation that is recommended in the first section of this bill is completely contrary to all aspects of civil liberties in this country.
I am surprised, quite frankly, that the Solicitor General, who has this aura about him and all the media hype about being a great civil libertarian, would be prepared to bring in a bill like this. Surely the Attorney General and Solicitor General knows there are remedies other than this section of the bill in this regard. I would like to hear him answer when he does speak on the bill.
I can tell him it was a travesty in this House when his parliamentary assistant got up and said, "Well, this is an innocuous bill and I really do not have much to say about it." There are some very important principles in this bill. Surely the Solicitor General had a range of options and means of dealing with what we all say is a serious problem, other than by putting this kind of insidious bill before us.
If we are prepared as a Legislature to accept and condone the theory that a police officer can stop somebody, can mete out a penalty, can become the judge and jury on the spot in this particular instance, it is not very many steps down the road before we are going to allow other encroachments on the legal and justice system in this province and on the civil liberties of the people. That is in fact what we are doing; we are allowing the police officer to be judge and jury and to mete out punishment all in the space of five minutes.
Surely there are other ways in which the Solicitor General can deal with this problem. If he feels that 0.08 is too high, that it is a danger to the rest of the public, he can go to Ottawa and say, "Look, Ontario does not accept this; we want it to be 0.05." Then we follow the usual course of events: the person is charged and taken to the police station, he has his day in court and the court decides. This is according to the theory on which justice in western democracy has been based.
The Solicitor General, in one fell swoop, wants to do away with the entire system of justice, or the theory on which the justice system has been based, by allowing this.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Have you talked to your former leader? It was the member for Huron- Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) who signed this recommendation in 1977. Don't be such a bloody hypocrite.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Rainy River has the floor.
Mr. T. P. Reid: They can sign whatever they like. I am speaking as an individual in this Legislature, and I am telling the Solicitor General that I am concerned --
Interjection.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I am not being hypocritical. I did not sign any such report, and I am giving the minister my personal views, to which I am entitled. If the minister had his way, nobody else would be entitled to criticize or oppose him in this Legislature. That is part of the attitude he has adopted since March 19. It is beyond belief. I can tell the Solicitor General that the great aura of civil libertarianism with which he has been walking around the province, and going to Israel with, and which he has been wearing like a cape, is going to be destroyed by this kind of action.
When people find out what is going on and what the Solicitor General has done fundamentally to the justice system in this province, his name is not going to be held in very high repute. I find it hypocritical -- the Solicitor General talks about hypocrisy -- that he should go around speaking on civil liberties and then with this Bill 178 attack the very civil liberties that he holds, or says he holds, in such high regard. This is the most anti-civil-liberty bill there has been since the infamous case a few years ago when the minister of justice was thrown out because of it. It is almost as bad as what the minister put in the human rights code.
If there is any hypocrisy involved it is on the part of the Solicitor General to bring in a bill like this. It is unfortunate that we have to pass legislation with a handful of people in the House, particularly when such an important issue as this is involved. For my part I do not intend to participate in attacking or undermining the civil liberties and the justice system in this province. I find it incomprehensible that the Solicitor General is prepared to do so.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Solicitor General is here. I was a little bit concerned at the beginning, not out of any disrespect for the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, but because this bill is the most important amendment to the Highway Traffic Act that has come before us in a long time, and I think it deserves very close scrutiny and attention.
I may say right at the beginning that I had recommended to our caucus that we do support the bill -- after a considerable amount of thought and, I believe, study, particularly of the judgement in the case of Regina versus Dedman, to which I want to refer a little bit later on.
11:30 a.m.
We had a thorough discussion in the caucus of the questions that have already been raised by my colleagues in the Liberal Party and my colleague from Hamilton East. We came to the conclusion that we should support the bill in its entirety.
I have one matter that I want to raise on a particular point, which I trust the Solicitor General will respond to and suggest to me whether it is possible to meet the concern I want to express. I want to deal with the first section, that is the question to which the member for Rainy River directed his major attack on the bill. I want to leave that until the last. I want to deal with the second and third sections of the bill first of all.
First of all, I would like to pay my personal tribute to Robert Bairn Dedman, who precipitated this whole discussion and should go down in history for the events of the evening of February 4, 1980, at about 9:01 p.m., when Police Constable Feeney, who was operating a RIDE spot check, signalled the defendant, who was driving a motor vehicle, to stop.
The defendant voluntarily complied. Constable Feeney asked the defendant for his driver's licence, and while they were speaking, he smelled the odour of alcohol on the breath of the defendant. The officer then had reasonable cause to suspect that the defendant had alcohol in his body, so he demanded the defendant supply him with a sample of his breath in an approved roadside screening device, pursuant to section 234.1 of the Criminal Code.
I want to emphasize that throughout the whole of the court proceedings it was agreed and understood and admitted by everyone concerned that the officer had no reason to believe that the defendant had committed, or was committing, an offence under the Criminal Code, the Highway Traffic Act or any other statute or enactment. I think it is very clear that we must understand just what the point was that was raised. This was what has become known as a random stop.
In other words, there is no question that a police officer, under the Highway Traffic Act -- as it has been for a long time; section 19(1) at the present time -- can ask a driver of a motor vehicle to produce his driver's licence. That has been part of our law for a long time. The vexed question that was precipitated was whether or not the police officer could request the car to stop and, if the driver had to comply with the request, whether the police officer then could ask for the licence. In other words, was it an ancillary power of the police officer, since the Highway Traffic Act said that the moment he was in contact with the driver he could ask the driver for the licence?
The question then became, could he stop a car in order to ask for the licence? Could he stop it not only under the particular section to which I referred, but under section 114 dealing with the general power of a constable with respect to traffic, or for any of the other purposes?
It was quite interesting to note, of course, that the judgements of the court, to which I refer very briefly in the course of my comments, very clearly said that was not the case that was before the court, but since it had been raised, the court should deal with the question, because in this case Mr. Dedman had voluntarily stopped. He had complied with the request, so it was not any question of whether or not the police officer was authorized or otherwise. In other words, Mr. Dedman did not try to escape, or did not try to refuse the request.
In the course of the court judgement, it got a little bit confused and was finally straightened out. I want to say that anybody who wants to talk about this topic is under an obligation, in my view, lawyer or non-lawyer, to read the judgement of His Honour Provincial Court Judge Charles in the original case which came before him, then to read the judgement of Mr. Justice Maloney in the Supreme Court of Ontario when the appeal was taken by the crown on a stated case against the dismissal of the charge against Mr. Dedman, and then to read the unanimous decision of probably the most powerful court in Ontario, if not in Canada, presided over by the Chief Justice.
The other judges who were sitting on that appeal were Justices Brooke, Martin, Lacourciere and Weatherston. Mr. Justice Martin, who is probably the ablest criminal lawyer sitting on the Court of Appeal as a judge at this time, gave the unanimous decision of the court. It is an intensely interesting review of the problems involved in the relationship between a police officer, an automobile, and the driver.
Anybody who thinks they are not complex questions that are involved has no conception of the care and attention which the judges give to the citizen's rights in this kind of a situation to try to sort out what the balances are in relation to it. It is sufficient to say that Mr. Justice Martin, the justice in appeal who is dealing with this case, said in his judgement:
"Since the respondent complied with the officer's signal to stop, I am not required to decide whether in the circumstances the officer, in giving a signal to stop, was validly exercising an implied power under what was then section 14 of the Highway Traffic Act, now section 19, or was validly exercising a power ancillary to his general duties to protect persons and property and to detect crime, thus rendering the respondent, had he not stopped, liable to arrest for wilfully obstructing a peace officer in the execution of his duties.
"Those are questions of some difficulty requiring careful consideration which should be reserved and decided on the facts of a particular case, if and when it becomes necessary to do so. It is, of course, within the competence of the Legislature and Parliament to place the matter beyond question."
The first point which I think members of the assembly have to be very clear in their own minds about is that section 2 now answers that question, I believe, for ever, or as one of the English judges in the case said, "willy-nilly," because it states, "A police officer may require the driver of a motor vehicle to stop and the driver of a motor vehicle, when signalled or requested to stop by a police officer who is readily identifiable as such, shall immediately come to a safe stop."
It is obvious the draftsmen of the bill in the ministries involved, and the legislative counsel, have done everything that is possible by language to indicate that there is no loophole in it, that it is "willy-nilly." One must stop. It solves even the open question which, as I understand it, remains open in England, where part of this section is in force.
This simply states that one must now stop. The officer does not have to have any reason for stopping you, he does not have to give you any reason for stopping, he does not have to stop you because he wants to check whether your vehicle is mechanically fit, he does not have to justify stopping you because he wants to ask you whether you have got your driver's licence, although that was the question which was precipitated, as I tried to indicate.
This is the point I want the Solicitor General to answer. It is the sole concern which I have on the bill. Everybody has been talking about a random stop. A random stop, in my limited knowledge, and I want to make it very clear, would be where the police officer has no indication whatsoever that any offence of any kind is being contemplated or committed. I want to make it quite clear that what has generated all of this talk is the random stopping. I question whether or not the bill is sufficiently clear whether the power we are giving to the police officer is to be exercised randomly or arbitrarily.
11:40 a.m.
I trust I can make the distinction. The right we are giving the police officer here, if exercised at random, would mean, in my view, that he would stop every tenth vehicle; in other words, it would mean there was no indication that this power was simply an arbitrary power as distinct from a random power. I say this because I realize that one way or another a bill like this has got to have about it a sense of goodwill and co-operation between the citizenry and the police force. I want to be able to give the police the full benefit of good faith in the whole operation.
I would be concerned if, in one of the unprovable kinds of situations that may arise, a pattern of conduct were to develop for any number of reasons; for example -- I say this very advisedly, and I am not making a scare comment -- if it were used as an instrument for harassing, say, young people who were driving, people who happened to appear to be young or who happened to appear to be black.
I want to emphasize that this is my sole concern about the bill. We have all been thinking about it, ever since the question arose of the Christmas-period random stopping by the police -- the questions that arose in the reduce impaired driving everywhere program, the questions that arose over in the peninsula; all matters that were the subject of debate until the final judgement of the Ontario Court of Appeal on the issue. Now we are trying to do that.
I think if one was to tell the public what we are talking about they would choose the random stop, not the arbitrary stop. That is my one serious concern, and I say this because I now want to refer very briefly to the RIDE program as it relates to this matter. It was very carefully understood that the RIDE program was a program, and the program is described in the judgements. In other words, it was a program specifically devised by a particular police force in a particular area, according to which they would go to certain places and intercept persons coming from those places at random in order to try to curtail this problem of impaired driving. That is the way it was done.
This does not talk about any program; it does not talk about randomness. It talks about this other question. Again, I emphasize it is only coincidentally that one of the items might or might not have to do with the drinking question. It could be any case. That is my single concern about that problem.
The second part to which the member for Huron-Bruce has referred is the linking of that power in the police officer with the police chase. It states -- not in my language, not in this case -- that if failure to comply with a request to stop one's vehicle precipitates pursuit by the police, which could be a police chase, then in addition to any other fine or imposition that can be made on the person or any other punishment that can be meted out, he can have his licence suspended for up to three years.
I believe, in reading it, I am satisfied with the way in which it is drafted and I believe I understand it is a useful adjunct to the whole range of things which have to be dealt with in the question of police chases. We have been dealing with them in various aspects for some time.
I do not happen to be as convinced as the Attorney General and Solicitor General is that we have the best police chase rules and guidelines anywhere in North America. That, of course, is an unprovable proposition. If that happens to be the case, there are still some problems with them. This is not going to solve the whole thing, but I have no objection to it in principle.
Suppose I am driving and, for example, taking a very ill person to the hospital or had some good reason for not abiding by the request. I am driving and I am not being foolhardy. I am driving as prudently as I can, given the circumstances, but I have to make a choice as to whether I am going to disobey the police officer because I believe I have to get the person to the hospital.
I would like to be well satisfied that a person would be able to justify both the failure to respond and the larger penalty which could be imposed if the failure to respond precipitated pursuit by the police. That is a concern I have and I hope the Solicitor General and Attorney General will speak to it later on in the bill.
The other question which I think has to be emphasized is that for the first time, if a person contravenes a signal by a police officer to stop the vehicle, we are making that an arrestable offence without a warrant. I think it is very clear that is what we are doing. Until the present time, the provision which said that one had to produce, on request, one's driver's licence did not of itself constitute an arrestable offence without a warrant.
Here we are going further and we are making it that a person can be arrested without a warrant if he fails to obey the signal, fails to stop and is then apprehended. The person can be subjected to arrest immediately without a warrant. That is detached entirely from the production of the licence question, but in the simple situation which I posed is the basis on which this whole section has been drafted.
I think we are satisfied with the extension of that power in this instance but I do not think it should go unremarked in this House that it is a significant additional extension of the basic principle we are talking about in introducing into the code what will become known as section 189(a) of the act, which is the provision in section 2 of the bill before us.
I can say without trying to categorize the principle on which I have come to that conclusion that section 2 of the bill has assisted me greatly in resolving what has been raised as a civil libertarian issue. I do not happen now in my thinking, if I ever did, to see in civil libertarian terms something called the relationship between a vehicle, a driver, the highway and a police officer in a highway traffic sense.
I do not really see in civil libertarian terms the safety of the public to be ensured by the person who is driving what is at least potentially a dangerous vehicle. I think any civil libertarian aspects of that matter will be dealt with well in the courts if this power we are now giving under the Highway Traffic Act should result, for example, in an unreasonable search or seizure.
11:50 a.m.
I would think the courts would be very alert, certainly at the higher levels, to protect the citizen. I think we have to be certain that a Highway Traffic Act, regardless of what the words in it say, has a relationship with the control of traffic on the highway.
Again I emphasize, if one reads very carefully the judgement of Mr. Justice Martin in appeal on the whole question of the relationship between a subject of the crown and a police officer with respect to stopping and questioning in that kind of event, one will understand that, even with these words in this bill, that does not mean suddenly the police become entitled to exercise some arbitrary decision of their own in these matters.
The member for Rainy River is making a noise. I was trying to say this kindly to him: I wish, even in the time left, he would read every line of the judgement of Provincial Court Judge Charles, Supreme Court Judge Maloney, and the unanimous decision of Mr. Justice Martin in appeal for the five judges who heard that appeal.
The questions are not simple. The question of liberty of the subject does not simply go by the board because a police officer is given, in five lines of a statute, that kind of authority. The judgement goes exhaustively into those kinds of questions, and indicates those that are answered and those that are not. I think one has to understand the nature of this specific problem, so I do not have any particular problem on section 2.
On section 1, the issue is a very narrow one. Of course, it refers to the Criminal Code. One can be stopped under the Criminal Code at the present time for a roadside test both with respect to the roadside test and with respect to the breathalyser test. So the very narrow issue involved in what the government has introduced in this bill is the question of what to do where the available evidence indicates that about 0.05, impairment of the ability to drive a motor vehicle begins to have an effect on the normal citizen in society.
Certainly we have the standard that brings down the sanctions of the Criminal Code at 0.08. Nobody disputes that. It may well be that somewhere down the line, society in Canada will decide that should be 0.05. I do not think we can have the luxury of subjecting people to danger in society simply by saying that until that day comes we can do nothing about it. I give credibility to the studies that have been made. I give credibility to the unanimous report of the select committee on highway traffic safety.
I have always respected the interest and the sanity and the judgement of the former member for Yorkview, who was chairman of that committee, in all matters related to this field. I pay tribute to my colleague the member for Hamilton East and my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), as well as my former colleague for Windsor-Sandwich who sat on that committee for this party.
To read that report -- and my colleague from Hamilton East dealt superbly with the report this morning -- one cannot come to the conclusion that an individual can claim, as a civil liberty right as against the danger he may cause to others, to be exempt from this kind of provision. It is not, in my judgement, an interference with something called the civil liberty of the subject. I took that test yesterday. I must be remarkably average, because it worked out about exactly as it said it would.
Given that I weigh 180, give or take a few pounds, they said if I had three glasses of wine in an hour I would be at about 0.05. I did not pursue it to the ultimate; I simply had one glass of wine. After about 10 minutes, I took the test on the machine and I was at 0.017. Therefore, in the nature of the case, it indicated to me that after three drinks in an hour, I was at a point where I would not mind being told, "Jim, it would be a good thing if you did not drive." Even though on occasion -- I say this advisedly -- I have not heeded my own inner voice, I would not mind someone telling me it was about time I considered taking a cab or walking rather than driving an automobile.
We considered the Solicitor General acceded to the suggestion quite readily that he provide an opportunity, in the environs of the building, to have the test carried out. I was able to talk to the director from the forensic centre in this field. He explained to us how the equipment works. I think that deserves a word. I would hope the Solicitor General would comment about it. It is only one unit being used at the present time throughout Canada and it is manufactured solely at Mississauga.
It certainly requires us to have confidence in the police that they will calibrate it properly, in accordance with the law, as provided in section 1(7) of the bill, which says that for the purposes of this request to surrender, request to take the roadside breathalyser, "the roadside screening device shall not be calibrated to register 'Warn' when the proportion of alcohol in the blood of the person whose breath is being analysed is less than 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood."
I am certainly prepared to accept that in good faith, as I do now with the breathalyser. There were difficulties and technical objections for a long time in the calibrating of the breathalyser. I trust the Ontario Police Commission will advise all police forces of the extreme necessity of good faith on the part of the police forces about the accuracy of that calibration. It cannot be something that could be subject to some form of negligence with respect to the adequacy of that instrument.
We are relying -- I am saying that for our caucus -- on the objectivity of that test, so that it is not an arbitrary decision of a police officer. We are relying upon the accuracy of the instrument, within the limits that it is supposed to achieve, that it will be calibrated properly. It can be calibrated and function only if it is a first-class instrument and if it is calibrated by persons skilled in the calibration. Not everybody can calibrate a machine accurately.
The first point I want to make -- I trust that members of the Liberal Party will understand it clearly -- is that from what I could see yesterday, I am prepared to accept both the capacity and the quality of the instrument, and I am prepared to accept the good faith of the police officer that it will be calibrated properly and administered properly.
On that basis, I have no difficulty resolving the question of civil liberties if a person is stopped legitimately, in accordance with the demand by a police officer, made under section 234.1 of the Criminal Code. That is the safeguard. The demand is not made under the Highway Traffic Act. A police officer must be acting under The Criminal Code in both instances.
When he is acting under the Criminal Code, the person must supply a sample of his breath, which on analysis would produce so and so, then, if it is not at 0.08 but it is over 0.05, the police officer can say, "I am going to request your licence." That triggers the rest of the operative part of the section, which is a 12-hour suspension, and whatever the consequences of that may be, which I could come back to.
12 noon
I understand clearly that in that situation, if I do not agree with whatever the reading on that machine may be, I could request, and the officer would be under an obligation to take me to the nearest station where there was a breathalyser machine, and I could have the objectivity of the first test checked at the second location. I understand that is the way it happens.
The question simply boils down to the request for the licence in order that it be suspended for 12 hours and the consequences of it. What are the consequences? Presumably, it depends ultimately on a lot of co-operation and a lot of good faith and understanding which I am prepared to extend in this kind of situation to the police officer.
That is, if it is possible to get the vehicle to some place, to the person's home, or to some other place, because there is somebody else there or there is some convenient way of doing it, or to some place where it does not cost any money to keep it, presumably the police officers will do it. In Metropolitan Toronto there is a tendency to put them in the pound, and that begins to cost money.
I do not know how much it is. It has been a couple of years since I have had occasion to have any knowledge of pound charges, but I think that an overnight charge is about $40 or $50 at the present time in Toronto. I do not know what it is elsewhere in the province. In other parts of the province they may not have pounds. There is also the element of inconvenience.
It seems to me that when we balance all of that off, in the light of the evidence, I have no sense that in the situation which is provided for in section 1 of the bill, which will become section 30a of the Highway Traffic Act, that I, who am as jealous of my particular civil liberties as -- at least I would match it with anyone in the chamber, and am probably more jealous or sensitive about them than many people are -- I have no sense in any way that I would feel my civil liberties or some fundamental principles have been overridden in the care which has been taken in this section of the bill.
We are, as I say, supporting the bill. I want to reiterate the two concerns I have, which basically relate to section 2 but have a bearing on section 1, and that is that this is now not random, this can be arbitrary. On the question of the police officer requesting someone to stop, I personally believe that power, under subsection 1 of what will be section 189a of the act, which is in section 2 of the bill, should be a power which is clearly limited to what I believe everyone in the province has associated with this particular aspect of the problem as it arose, and that is that this was in its nature random.
I am quite a bit concerned about that distinction. I am not speaking for Alan Borovoy or for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, but I had an opportunity to have a brief discussion with him about it. He has that concern. I think it is fair to say that he takes no serious objection to the balance of the bill. I leave that for him to make whatever formal statement he may wish to make about the bill, if called upon. I hope he would, because I think it would go a long way to allay concerns people may have about this matter.
The second matter is the question of precipitating a police pursuit by failure to obey the signal of the officer where there are reasonable grounds for doing so, or extenuating circumstances, and whether or not that protection is inherent in the bill.
I want to make one last comment about my being able to accept a bill such as this in the face of attempts that have been made to translate it into a civil libertarian issue. The last time I spoke on this issue, and I still feel as equally strongly now as I did then, was the requirement with respect to photographs on driver's licences. I felt very strongly about that issue because to me that is a civil libertarian issue divorced from automobiles.
That simply meant it was one very long stride towards a compulsory identification card for the citizen. That was my serious concern at that time, because once you put a picture on the driver's licence, in one stride you require a large number of people to carry an identification card. I still stand by my criticism of that. I think that is truly a civil libertarian question. This is not.
I would like to have had the opportunity to have studied all the information and statistics my colleague referred to. I know the depth of feeling this question engenders, but on balance I believe our caucus has taken the proper approach to this difficult question in agreeing to support the bill on second reading. I await with interest the comments of the Solicitor General.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly to what I consider is an important bill. In a preliminary way I want to make a couple of comments because 10 days ago, upon first really hearing of what Bill 178 involves, my initial disposition was very much to support it. I want to say two or three things about how this impacts upon me personally. I drive an awful lot, probably as much or more than most members in this House.
I do not drink, not that this is an important question, and within the last year my best friend was killed on the highways of Ontario. I have had some personal experience with the carnage aspect that I think moves us all. I do not think there can be any dispute anywhere about the public concern and the efficacy of the public concern with respect to the whole question of drinking and driving, the hazard and the carnage that is represented by that most heinous of realities.
I would hope there would be unanimous consent about support for public policy which seeks to alleviate that burden under which we all labour. It is an important and desirable objective, one I happily and entirely support.
I have done some background work on this, although not really as much as my colleague from Hamilton East and others who have had some experience with the select committee in this Legislature about four years ago and not as much as the member for Riverdale, who has indicated he has read completely the various decisions to which he made some reference. However, I believe my objection is fairly straightfoward. I think Bill 178 is bad law.
If I am being told that 0.08 is insufficient to protect the public good then I want to tell the Solicitor General he will find no one in this chamber more anxious than I to deal with that problem.
12:10 p.m.
I want to deal with it in what I believe to be a right way. I do not think the double standard involved in Bill 178 is an appropriate way. I know my friend and colleague the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) is perhaps going to deal with this more than I but I am want to remind the Solicitor General that some of us represent border constituencies. We are going to be faced, it seems to me, with a very real application of a double standard with respect to the whole question of drinking and driving.
I have yet to have anyone tell me why we must deal with the problem, if it is a problem, only in this way. Yesterday or a couple of days ago I asked some of the lawyers in my caucus why, if 0.08 is so terrible, we do not just make it 0.02 or 0.01. I do not know, but let us err on the side of caution.
The only answer I have heard is, "You must understand that is a matter for the Criminal Code and the Criminal Code is amended rarely and only with the greatest difficulty." I do not know if that is an accurate representation of the problem, but if that is the case, that is still not enough for me.
I cannot accept the principle there ought to be two levels for drinking and driving in this province. I listened with great care to the arguments made by the member for Riverdale who, I thought, deviated somewhat from his traditional pattern of argumentation which is generally characterized, for me at least, by a piercing, logical presentation of a generally powerful case.
With all due respect, listening to the member for Riverdale was like reading a Papal encyclical. Some of the distinctions about civil liberties and other related matters, I say with some sorrow, escaped me entirely. I personally see this as something of a significant civil liberties issue. I admit I have more background reading to do, but I was not persuaded in any way by the member for Riverdale in his summary of the case.
If it is the case that 0.08 is inappropriate -- I am not so sure that has been established, but I am quite prepared to say to the Solicitor General it may well be -- why are we faced with a situation where we now come with this sort of second stage?
I am altogether in favour of joining with him and everyone else in establishing a fixed and firm standard that applies equally to everyone across the entirety of this province. I have some of the same reservations about the matter the member for Riverdale mentioned about the application. Perhaps I have more concerns.
I am a little worried that making the officer the judge and jury is going to create a real roadside problem for many young people in particular. My objection which is a basic and, I believe, real one has to do with the entrenchment through this legislation of a double standard. I want to know why we need this kind of situation confirmed by law whereby, under some conditions, it is 0.08 and on others it is 0.05.
It is somewhat paradoxical to me that it ought to be this Solicitor General in this particular week who is coming forward in such an aggressive way with this bill. When I hear the rather aggressive position taken by members of the government on the problems of drinking and driving in this province I am tempted to recall some of the historical platform of this party and to suggest that perhaps much of the problem relates to the ever-increasing profiteering of that government monopoly, the liquor business. As I see it, and as some of my constituents would certainly argue, it bears its share of responsibility for the carnage that upsets us all.
The Solicitor General might want to go back and read the speeches of former Attorneys General such as W. F. Nickle and leading jurists such as Newton Rowell to see how social problems of this kind might be dealt with. I do not want to bore him with that kind of antiquarian matter. I just want to say again --
Hon. Mr. Elgie: National crisis.
Mr. Conway: I am glad to see the member for York East here.
I am concerned about this not because I have any difficulty with the objective; it is an absolutely first-order concern of all of us. But it was like the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) coming to the House a couple of months ago and saying, "We have a very serious problem in one hospital and we need some legislation to deal with it." For the one specific problem he rides in here with omnibus legislation. To that I say "Bad law." He has not made a case for that kind of omnibus intervention.
To the Solicitor General in this case I say only that if 0.08 is a problem, and there is no question in my mind he feels it is, let us deal straightforwardly with the matter. I am altogether in favour of establishing a 0.05 level. I am altogether in favour of accepting a 0.01 per cent level, because I quite frankly feel much more immune from those injunctions than many other people. My jeopardy is to that degree, and for some of the other reasons cited earlier, probably much greater; but let us do it the right way.
I cannot accept this kind of legislation on the grounds that -- and I have been hearing it today and before I got here today -- "Listen, Conway, this very important end justifies these means." As a small-l liberal -- not as a Reaganite, not as a fascist -- I was somewhat concerned that the Solicitor General would feel the need to use this kind of language, with respect to me at least. I do not feel my objections are fascistic or Reaganite, though I do not know what the latter really means.
Let us do it the right way. Let us recognize that passing law on the basis that the end justifies the means may not be a very appropriate way to legislate for the peace, order and good government of the people of Ontario. I have yet to be persuaded that we need this peculiar kind of legislation entrenching the double standard. It seems to me that if 0.08 per cent is a problem let the Criminal Code of Canada be amended to establish a new, more cautious, more conservative standard that would satisfy the concerns of all honourable members. I feel they share entirely the very important, laudable objective of reducing and, we hope, eliminating the carnage on the highways of Ontario as a result of drinking and driving.
Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill, I must confess, with a certain ambivalence. As the member for Riverdale outlined, we had a very lengthy and informative discussion in caucus on the position we would take. I did read the report of the select committee on the topic, and I recognize that they have done a great deal of study on the subject. I do recognize there is a problem in terms of drinking on our highways and there is a considerable amount of public concern. I do support the basic principle of the right of the police to stop a vehicle if they have any questions as to impairment, or anything else. I believe that is within their legal jurisdiction. I accept the idea that a citizen must obey any request from the police to stop or to examine the contents of the car or the physical condition of the person driving the car.
12:20 p.m.
I can accept the idea of adding a further suspension for those who refuse to accept the authority of the police, whether it be for testing or for stopping, and for those who create the situation that produces the police chase. I accept the principle that we must be tougher with those people. I am not convinced this provision will serve as a deterrent, but I am willing to try it and see if it has any effect. But I must confess I have severe reservations about this bill -- in fact, severe enough to dissent from the members of my caucus and party on this. I am not convinced by the previous speaker's outline that the end justifies some of the means contained within this bill.
I was rather struck last week by the fact this bill has been able to get the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Sun, an unlikely trinity of journalistic aggregations, all into the same bed opposing this legislation. That made me think the Solicitor General has a rather unique achievement in Ontario politics, since I have been here, by creating that degree of unanimity. This made me think about some of the arguments they outlined and when I went home last weekend I talked to some of my constituents about the idea as well, just to sound them out. I also had my own gut reaction, which was, quite frankly, negative.
My basic reservations have already been alluded to. First of all, I think this bill does create a two-tier level of enforcement or law in Ontario, if not a double standard. The Criminal Code of Canada sets a certain standard defining impairment, which has been established and accepted. I think the citizenry of Canada support it. This bill will create another standard now, and yet we still have the situation that if you violate one standard in one province, you are not violating it in another. I fully accept the argument that if the Solicitor General wants to change the definition or the standard of impairment, it should be changed in the Criminal Code so we have one basic, common standard across this province, if not across this country.
I read with interest this morning the Solicitor General's letter to the editor in the Globe and Mail and I was rather interested in the advice he got from the director of the Centre of Forensic Sciences on what constitutes impairment. I was rather curious, so I called up the Addiction Research Foundation because the Solicitor General in his letter said if the average person consumed four to five drinks over a three-hour period, he would probably not exceed the 0.05 per cent level.
I found that if the average person consumed slightly more than two beers within the space of one hour, he would register 0.05 and could fall within the scope of this legislation. It is my experience in my community -- an industrial town, a beer-drinking town -- that people essentially pop in for a few pints and leave. Those basically law-abiding people would come under the scope of this bill. They would be subject to a 12-hour licence suspension and possible impounding of their cars. Yet they would not have broken the Criminal Code of Canada. They would have gone beyond the realms established by this bill but not beyond the law of Canada. I do not think that makes sense.
Allusions have been made to the cost of impounding a car, which I notice the Solicitor General disputes in his letter. I understand that here in Toronto the cost can run as high as $100 to $150 if your car is impounded. Beyond that you would have to add the cost of a cab or other costs for getting home, getting to work the next day; plus the arrangements you would have to make to retrieve the car the next day, whether it is impounded or whether you have to get it moved by someone else.
In eastern Ontario there are specific problems. We have very different standards from Quebec, right along our border, where the drinking age is 18 and where they would follow 0.08 per cent. We have very different standards from New York state, which is right across the river, where many of my constituents go to eat or to drink or both or just have a good time. The drinking age is lower there and definition of impairment is higher.
I suggest that in parts of eastern Ontario and in parts of northern Ontario the idea of impounding a car would cause real problems. Many people go to the bigger cities because that is where the entertainment is. That is where they think they can have a good time, and that is where they can meet a broader cross-section of people. To impound a car there would create real financial burdens on some of those people.
The worst thing of it all is that they have not broken any law in terms of the Criminal Code. If they are above 0.08 per cent, fair enough, they have broken the law of Canada and we should throw the book at them in that sense. But if someone is apprehended at 0.05 per cent, has to have his car impounded, has to go back 15 or 20 miles, make all the arrangements and come back in the next night -- I really think that is unfair.
If we are going to crack down we should do it especially on hotels. I would really like to see the Solicitor General crack down on hotel owners who allow 15-, 16- and 17-year-old kids in their establishments on a regular basis, and who are commonly known to be drinking and smoking pot in their hotels. I would dare say that is a pretty common happening across this province in hotels. Go into any major town in this province tonight, especially those that have rock music or rock bands or disco, and how many of the patrons would we find under the age of 19. I wonder how many of those hotels have ever been prosecuted, every really --
An hon. member: Lost their licence.
Mr. Samis: Or lost their licence or been put under suspension by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. We recognize the value of the RIDE program and the idea of reducing the amount of drinking while driving, but after reading the Solicitor General's letter -- I recall a letter to The Toronto Star the day --
The Acting Speaker: Does this pertain to Bill 178?
Mr. Samis: It certainly does, Mr. Speaker. Prior to the publication of the Solicitor General's letter, a letter appeared that dealt with RIDE and the headline on the letter was "Police Wasting Money on Spot Checks." I am not saying I agree with that, but I will just quote certain parts of the letter from L. G. Wells of Rexdale. It says: "Metro police began their month of stop and sniff checks. I was not opposed to this program until I read the statistics printed in the article. They are unreal. This kind of waste is madness. Of nearly 54,000 checks, the police came up with 95 impaired driving charges. That is less than .17 per cent. Big deal.
"It also follows that 99.83 per cent of drivers are not drunk. I wonder how many of those 95 were convicted? When one considers the number of officers and police vehicles allocated to the program and the number of man-hours consumed, the cost must be astronomical. As a taxpayer, I would much rather see this kind of energy being directed to ridding the city of crime which I feel is a bigger threat to the majority of citizens than the odd drunk driver."
I do not agree with the overall thrust of that letter but I think he makes a valid point. We sort of create this aura that this is the solution to the problem. There is no question there is a problem but do we look at the attitudinal aspects of why people are drinking? No. Do we look at the whole question of advertising? No. Do we look at the question of enforcement of existing laws in terms of hotels, liquor outlets, et cetera? No. We just think this is the panacea to the problem; and I just cannot accept that, especially when it creates the double standard.
I notice the select committee was realistic enough to suggest that while they still favour this approach as outlined in this bill, there are some problems. I quote from page 11: "The study teams also found some problems. To the driver on the borderline of legal impairment, the 24-hour suspension," they are referring here to Alberta and British Columbia, "may weaken the deterrent effect of Criminal Code sanctions. In any event, as many as 50 per cent of persons under a 24-hour suspension will continue to drive. The system practised in British Columbia and Alberta permits a driver to incur any number of 24-hour suspensions without additional penalty. In addition, the 24-hour suspension may encourage inefficient or lazy police simply to suspend the licence rather than lay a charge under the Criminal Code when appropriate, further weakening the deterrent effect of current sanctions.
"The committee notes an additional problem. This approach could make possible arbitrary and capricious suspensions by police."
12:30 p.m.
I think some of the concerns raised are not invalid. I think they deal with problems this bill is going to create for the police -- new problems, without question. I think of the amount of time involved in terms of testing, forms; and especially if we get to impounding cars, that is going to take a fair amount of their time.
If I am not mistaken the select committee's report said the whole process of laying an impairment charge takes, on average, seven hours of a police officer's time. If we have to get the police not only to enforce the Criminal Code but an act like this, I really think some of them will wonder about the whole value of the Criminal Code provision which is far more serious than offences in the 0.05 to 0.08 range. I wonder if it will not affect their desire, their determination, to enforce the existing Criminal Code.
Several speakers have talked about the issue of whether it is 0.05, 0.08 or somewhere in between. Obviously there is conflicting evidence. But I think most people in Canada and most people in this province accept the 0.08 level. It has been accepted by the federal government for more than a decade now, I believe, as the legal level of impairment. I think it was first adopted by the government of the United Kingdom in the late 1960s. If I am not mistaken they have re-examined the whole question in the past five years, and they have come to the same conclusion that 0.08 does make sense. It is accepted, it is effective and it is efficient.
I would suggest that we stick with the 0.08 level. I do not think it is lacking in scientific evidence. It is a reasonable basis for defining what impairment actually is. I would suggest we not get into this grey zone of legislating between 0.05 and 0.08. What we should be doing is enforcing the existing Highway Traffic Act and the Criminal Code. If the government does not agree with the 0.08 level it should concentrate its efforts on changing the existing law which clearly has public support across this province, if not across this country.
I support the overall intent of the RIDE program or any other program to remove drunken drivers from our highways. I would support the RIDE program here in Toronto, for example. It is a worthwhile endeavour towards that end. I would support any measure to toughen penalties for drivers convicted of driving while impaired in order to further strengthen the deterrent value of the current law. I would support any new initiative to educate the public -- via schools, employers, business, the work place, the media, or whatever -- to the dangers and costs of drunken or impaired driving. I have no qualms about the government using some pretty tough imagery to convey the injury, the damage, the suffering and the tragedy of driving while impaired.
I reiterate I would like to see us crack down on those hotel owners who permit under-age people to drink so brazenly, so continuously and so frequently. But I cannot support the bill in its present form because I feel it goes too far, that it creates new problems and violates the rights of those who are clearly within the parameters established and recognized by the Criminal Code.
Mr. Nixon: The Attorney General has already drawn to the attention of the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, that I was a member of the select committee on highway safety that reported some years ago. One of its recommendations called for the government to have an alcohol level evaluation roadside tester program, similar to the one introduced many years ago in Alberta. It would give police officers the power to remove a driver from his car and from the operation of a motor vehicle if he blew 0.05 milligrams per 100 millilitres.
At the time, I can recall the great deal of concern about the numbers of highway accidents, injuries and deaths caused by impaired drivers and of the many accidents that could be attributed to the use of alcohol by drivers. I felt that the experience in Alberta justified a similar procedure in this province. The Attorney General then, I believe, was the same Attorney General we have now. He was not impressed with those recommendations. Frankly I do not recall the implementation of very many of the recommendations except for certain changes in the speed limit.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On a point of personal privilege: I think it is quite wrong for the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk to say I was not impressed with those recommendations. I never at any time suggested I was not impressed with the recommendations.
Mr. Nixon: I simply point out he did not act on them. We do not have a breathalyser that registers impression, but of course I accept the statement of the Attorney General that he might have intended to take such action. Many years have gone by and he has finally been convinced it is time this Attorney General, the same one as was impressed by the recommendations some years ago, now took this action, just as perhaps his view of the --
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: This is a Solicitor General's bill. I think the House leader might have some appreciation of that fact.
Mr. Nixon: I am not just sure what the Solicitor General, or whatever cap he is wearing at the present time, is trying to convey. What he often conveys to me is that the great heart he has for the public out there gets writ large and illuminated in neon beginning December 1. Have the members noticed that? His name begins to appear on every subway stop just about Christmas time, and all of a sudden the big problem experienced by drunk drivers and those people who are smashed by drunk drivers is only a Christmas-time problem.
I do not want to be misled from my argument on this by the Attorney General, a person who I think I like personally but who, as a minister, never fails to drive me nuts. Mr. Speaker, I know it is against the rules but I do suspect his motives. I think he keeps his Santa Claus suit pressed and woolly for jumping into in the most spectacular way.
The first time I got an inkling of this was when he dragged an old wreck -- it may have been a former minister's car -- up on the front lawn of the parliament building where we could all look at it as we drove by. We thought of the carnage on the highways and of the Attorney General, Solicitor General, candidate for leadership or whatever he was at that particular time.
The point I was beginning to make is that I am honestly glad the Solicitor General has decided that report was worthy of his consideration. While I had some concerns about the recommendation at the time, I have even more concerns about it now. I do not believe the results of it in Alberta have justified the intrusions that have already been referred to by those who have been critical of the bill. I am also concerned that the government of the province has seen fit to allow so many years to go by before it picked this particular Christmas to bring it forward as public policy.
The courts of the province shot down the so-called RIDE program a year ago, which they said was not legal because the policeman did not have -- what is the phrase?
Mr. T. P. Reid: Ancillary powers?
Mr. Nixon: No. It is some indication the driver of the car should be stopped. There is a phrase everybody uses in that connection. I cannot recall.
Mr. Gordon: A million brain cells die every day.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Nixon: "A reasonable and proper indication that the law was being broken."
So I do not feel too much concern when I join my colleagues in voting against this proposal.
I also agree with the position taken by the member for Renfrew South, who indicated that if the standard of 0.08 is deemed to be inadequate, perhaps we should take the kind of action that would change it. Some jurisdictions have 0.1 as the standard and others will not permit any indication on a breathalyser whatever. There is a broad range there, and 0.08 has been accepted as a range which people understand. It has been tried and tested in the courts. I think it is a reasonable standard.
I know the Attorney General's staff arranged for an alcohol-level evaluation tester down in the dining room of this building earlier on. I was not asked to participate for reasons I am not objecting to, but there was some attempt to persuade the honourable members of the efficacy of the ALERT system. As a matter of fact, the last time we did that, it was the chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police, Philip Givens himself, who took part. There was quite an interesting procedure as we tested and tested and tested. Of course, the chairman of the police commissioners was not involved in overextensive testing. I want to make that clear.
12:40 p.m.
Mr. Conway: He has a chauffeur.
Mr. Nixon: Of course; they all have. I do not object to the chauffeur, that is not the point; it is the taxpayers buying them their limousines that I object to. But that is another matter.
I am also concerned with the section of the bill that gives a mandatory three-year suspension to anyone involved in a high-speed chase who attempts to elude the police. This is a matter of grave concern. That section is supposed to make it appear to the public that the Solicitor General is taking sufficient action in regard to a problem that really has been plaguing us for a long time, and that offends me. I do not believe it is any sort of a remedy, let alone a panacea.
As has already been pointed out, the law deals very severely with people who drive carelessly or recklessly. To make a special crime of a high-speed chase, under the Highway Traffic Act at least, in my view does nothing whatever to solve the problem. It is a difficult situation indeed, because the police, I understand, have to make a written report under any circumstances where they do not pursue.
I do not know the answer to the situation, because we do not want criminals, or people who appear likely to have committed a crime, to escape without the possibility of legal identification of either the car or the driver. I do not know what the solution is, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that a mandatory three-year suspension is the kind of window dressing that I have found offensive in the past in the initiatives and policies brought forward by the Attorney General.
I also believe the police should have reasonable and probable grounds for suspecting that an individual has broken the law before they stop him. I know the argument about driving a car being a privilege, which the member for Riverdale has found sufficient to dismiss any of the provisions of this bill from the realm of civil liberties. I cannot agree with that. The roads were here long before the cars were, and I believe many people are not prepared to accept the concept that any kind of use of the highways is some special privilege.
Mr. Philip: Where does the Canadian Civil Liberties Association stand on this? I do not see Alan Borovoy in the gallery.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Brant has the floor.
Mr. Nixon: I am not so sure it is such a hot civil liberties issue. If it does not appeal to the honourable member who is interjecting, then of course he has the right to cast his vote, as undoubtedly he will, with the Attorney General.
I do not find myself in the position where I can support the bill. I have no objection nor any particular embarrassment about the fact that a number of years ago it appeared that the experiment in Alberta was well worth trying. It could be that the Solicitor General, in his judgement in rejecting the recommendation all these years, was right.
I have some concerns about it myself. I am certainly going to vote against the bill in principle. I do not believe the three-year mandatory suspension is anything but window dressing. I am very much concerned about establishing a second breathalyser standard, which may be confusing and in some respects unfair. I still believe the police should have reasonable and probable grounds to suspect that a law has been broken before they pull a citizen over and demand his identification.
Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I too am quite concerned about this bill before us today. I do not think many would object to the section about high-speed chases and refusal to stop on the direction of a police officer. However, sometimes when we see how things are administered -- I speak to this as having had the opportunity for about 10 years, not in this particular part of the legal profession, to work in protecting the laws of the country; I had and I wore a badge -- if we have worked in enforcing the laws, we have a different view of this.
I really hate to give this power to a person who must be judge and jury all at once. He must stop you; he must then decide on your ability to drive; he gives you a breath test, and if you are up to 0.05 he says, "Okay, you leave your car here; you have to get home." I do not know if you are going to be 50 or 75 miles from home or when you are going to get your car -- 12 hours later? A tow truck is going to tow it away.
I think we have to have some rationality in enforcing laws. I do not think our country was really meant to be operated that way. I think the laws have to be written by the legislators and then we hire people to enforce the laws. But then we hire someone else to interpret them; that is what we have judges for. Now if we are going to put laws in and they are going to be interpreted by the person who is supposed to be checking them, I think we are going to lose the real effect of what our whole country is based on.
I have worked beside many people who wore a badge, and I actually was very offended -- and I will say that it may be a small percentage of them -- by the way I have seen people actually feel so strongly about a certain thing that they would use all their power to make it very difficult for people in certain circumstances.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: I will ask the members to stop the buzzing.
Mr. Ruston: Only five or 10 per cent of the people who are hired to enforce laws act this way, but I remember one person I worked with who tried to see how many seizures he could get, and he worked at it diligently for years. After three years, when the civil service set up ratings for its employees at that time, he thought he would be at the top of the list as being well qualified to get an advancement in his position, but he ended up on the bottom of the list. Then his whole attitude changed, and from then on everything that came along he let go; he did not enforce any laws. He had thought that the more convictions he could get, the better the job he was doing. Well, some of the convictions he got were not very reasonable.
I had a case just a few weeks ago in which a farm vehicle was moving down the highway at a slow pace. A farmer, who thought he was doing the proper thing, took his pickup truck and followed along behind with his lights flashing. An officer came along and charged him with travelling too close. I suggested to him that he should take it to court, but apparently he decided to pay the fine and accept it without contesting it in court rather than hire a lawyer. I think that is a matter of judgement, and I think it is very poor judgement.
I cannot see how we can give the power to one person to decide to take a person off the road. If he is intoxicated, by all means take him off the road and send him home. Let him appear before a judge in a week or two weeks. The judge will say whether he is guilty or not and whether he will lose his licence for three months or six months or whatever we think it should be. That is fine, because, after all, the last thing we want on the highways is intoxicated people driving cars.
But I do not think we can or should give that power to the police. I do not think the police want that power. I think they will find after it has gone into effect -- and it is going to be soon, from what I can gather from the other opposition party, which is supporting it except for one person -- that it is bad legislation. I think it is bad legislation, and I for one cannot support that part of it at all.
12:50 p.m.
Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to speak on this, knowing time is a factor. We have a lot of work to do yet in this Legislature. But the Solicitor General saw fit to include my name in his interjections as being one of the members of the select committee on highway safety who signed the report. That is true; I did sign the report as a member of that committee which thoroughly looked into this whole matter of highway safety.
I know the combination of alcohol and driving constitutes the most serious problem in road safety. I think the member for Hamilton East pointed out that in Ontario in 1975, alcohol was involved in 12 per cent of property damage accidents, 19 per cent of all nonfatal injury accidents, 26.5 per cent of all fatal accidents and 51.8 per cent of all driver deaths in accidents. There is no other single factor involved in so many serious collisions. I want to point out some of the highlights of this report, in connection with highway safety as it is affected by impaired drivers.
I have come to the conclusion the Solicitor General has followed the example we have seen set by other ministers of the crown in this province. We can recall when one of the former Treasurers, John White, was driving back to his constituency in London and he had a dream. That dream was to form two more cities, similar to London. He immediately went out and bought land down in Townsend, Nanticoke and Cayuga. He was going to establish two cities, all because of a dream.
Then we had the other Treasurer who was jogging around the park one day and he decided it would be a good idea to take the sales tax off 1981 cars and trucks. He came in the next day and that was what he announced he was going to do.
Now we have the Solicitor General who, I am sure, had a dream one night that he was going to stop the carnage on our highways and correct this problem. He came in the next day and made this announcement, without any deliberations as far as I can gather. I do not know if he based his decision on this report put out by the select committee on highway safety. If he did, he has overlooked some of the points that I think were made strongly in this report.
The committee recommended a three-pronged attack on the problem of drinking and driving. One was prevention, the second was management and the third was rehabilitation. The committee advocated two kinds of preventive approaches: providing more information to the public, and introducing new deterrents to teenage drinking and driving.
The words I want to stress are "teenage drinking and driving." The committee learned most of the fatalities or accidents that occurred on the highways were caused by teenage drivers and by teenage drivers who had been consuming alcohol. We spent a lot of time on that. Yet we are passing legislation that is affecting all drivers who have consumed alcohol, not just teenage drivers. The committee made recommendations as to how we could control some of the problems on our highways caused by teenagers, particularly teenagers who have been drinking. We made a recommendation which the government, I must say, adopted.
But on the matter of more information for the public, I think the member for Hamilton East covered that quite well. The strong recommendation made was that the government of Ontario instruct the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario to develop and apply new restrictive guidelines on advertising that promotes alcohol, to restrict further lifestyle advertising. I think if we were to follow this recommendation, it would be far more meaningful than coming in with this kind of legislation to give the police the authority to pull all drivers over to the curb and have them breathe into an ALERT machine to see if they are blowing 0.05.
I want to say something about those machines and the accuracy of the equipment. A particular concern of the committee was the amount of alcohol in the blood that should constitute legal impairment. Currently it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle in Ontario if the concentration of alcohol in the bloodstream exceeds 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. This means that 80 milligrams is legal. The penalty is applied above 80 milligrams. Since testing equipment is calibrated in 10-milligram units, the illegal concentration is 90 milligrams or over.
In Ontario, the courts generally allow a 10 per cent leeway to compensate for any mechanical inadequacy in the testing equipment or error on the part of the technicians. In practice then, the level at which charges are laid is 100 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. So what we see here is that there is an inaccuracy in the equipment itself. The police may pull somebody over, and if the machine shows he is blowing 0.05, it may well be that he only has 0.03 in his bloodstream. Yet we are prepared to take that person's licence away. We know a person with 0.03 is not impaired, or certainly far removed from being legally impaired. Legal impairment is 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.
There is another point I want to bring out.
Mr. Speaker: It may be appropriate at this time for the honourable member to move adjournment of the debate, unless you wish to make a very quick point.
Mr. Riddell: I will move adjournment of the debate, because there is a point I want to bring out and stress in this report, which I think the minister has overlooked.
On motion by Mr. Riddell, the debate was adjourned.
The House recessed at 1 p.m.