role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 27, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L048 - Thu 27 Apr 1978 / Jeu 27 avr 1978

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES

CHANGE OF NAME AMENDMENT ACT

HYDRO RATES

VISITORS

HANOVER LAND ANNEXATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

VANDALISM

HYDRO RATES

AUTO PACT

EMPLOYEES’ HEALTH AND SAFETY

PERFECTION AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS LIMITED

RCA PLANT CLOSURE

FOODLAND ONTARIO PROGRAM

PITS AND QUARRIES CONTROL

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTRE

ST. LAWRENCE CEMENT

GREENHOUSE HEATING

PETITION

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PROTECTION

REPORT

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES ACT

PROVINCIAL COURTS AMENDMENT ACT

CHANGE OF NAME AMENDMENT ACT

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

PUBLICATION OF POLLS DURING ELECTIONS

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT

PUBLICATION OF POLLS DURING ELECTIONS

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, later today I am introducing for first reading a bill to enact the Provincial Offences Act, 1978, together with a bill to amend the Provincial Courts Act.

The proposed Provincial Offences Act will establish for the first time in Ontario a self- contained code of procedure under which all offences created by or pursuant to provincial statute law will be prosecuted. It will replace the

Summary Convictions Act, which incorporates by reference many provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. The companion bill, the Provincial Courts Amendment Act, will establish a new Provincial Offences Court.

These bills give formal recognition to the fact that offences under provincial statute law are, for the most part, regulatory, and that it is wrong in principle to deal with them automatically in the same procedural stream as offences under the Criminal Code. This concept flows from the recognition that the person who breaches an Ontario law need not be treated as if he or she were a dangerous criminal.

Under this legislation there would be less emphasis on formal court appearances, technical and adversarial procedures, and ceremonial trappings. The unnecessary and often hidden procedural baggage would be stripped out of the system without diminishing the existing rights of accused persons to defend themselves and to have their views considered by those who judge and who may ultimately sentence them. The Act will bolster the citizen’s ability to answer charges by making the assertion of a defence or explanation more convenient, speedier, less expensive and less intertwined with legal technicalities.

As an illustration, consider the position of a person charged with a minor highway traffic offence. At present, that person may pay the fine out of court, appear in court to defend or explain, or take no action, in which case he or she will be tried in his or her absence.

Under the Provincial Offences Act, a person charged could still at his or her option have a full trial of the issue or pay the fine out of court. But in addition the defendant could either:

1. Drop in at the court at his or her convenience at any time prior to the date set for trial, to plead guilty before a justice of the peace and offer an explanation in mitigation of the penalty; or

2. Plead not guilty by mail, simply by mailing in his or her side of the story. If a justice of the peace determined that the explanation disclosed a legal defence to the charge, he could, without the person accused having to attend, require the Crown to prove its case fully at a trial, with particular attention being paid to the defence raised in the letter. The person charged would not, therefore, have to take time off work or incur travel expenses to have the defences raised.

We see these additional alternatives as mechanisms to reduce very substantially the out-of-pocket cost involved in offering an explanation where guilt is admitted, or in putting forward a defence where the individual cannot afford to take the time to appear in court. I want to stress, Mr. Speaker, that these are simply alternatives and that the right to appear and have the Crown prove its case, as is the law at present, is not in any way diminished, not in any way interfered with.

To facilitate court scheduling, the citizen who receives a ticket will have to indicate within a reasonable time period, by checking a box on the ticket, which of these routes he or she proposes to follow. Failure to make this indication within the prescribed time period will result in a conviction being recorded without an expensive in absentia trial being held.

The proposed new appeal process reflects the desire to simplify and expedite the process for the average citizen. For minor offences, we propose to replace the current expensive, technical and slow appellate remedies by a speedy, informal and inexpensive drop-in appeal by way of review by a provincial judge. This appeal will exist as of right in all minor offences, with the relatively few more severe offences having a separate criminal-law type of appeal process.

The citizen who wishes to appeal a minor offence conviction will be able simply to attend upon a provincial court judge shortly after the conviction to have that judge review the matter. The judge may allow the appeal on the spot, adjourn the matter to obtain a transcript or more complete argument, order a new trial or dismiss the appeal. There will be a further right of appeal from that decision to the court of appeal on questions of law, if a judge of that court grants leave to appeal.

In these and many other ways we have sought in this legislation to remedy the problems that the present situation creates for defendants as well as for the administration of justice. We believe these proposals to be innovative, and when implemented they should have the advantage of resulting in the saving of millions of tax dollars annually. A large part of this saving will be from significantly reduced police time now expended in attending court to testify at in absentia proceedings, and in processing and serving warrants of committal.

It should be pointed out that there are literally tens of thousands of cases every year where the accused in minor offences do not appear in court, have no desire to appear in court, and yet the police and civilian witnesses will still be subpoenaed.

More efficient court scheduling will assist in achieving optimum use of court resources and more convenient service to the public. Alternative procedures for collecting defaulted fines will reduce costs to our correctional institutions generated by the all-too-frequent use of committal for failure to pay fines.

These important bills are part of my ministry’s continuing process of law reform and are evidence of the government’s commitment to bring the justice system closer to the people. We have done this in many ways, including the expansion of the jurisdiction of the small claims court, decentralization of the provincial courts in Metropolitan Toronto and the establishment of traffic tribunals which have become a model for other jurisdictions.

While there is an obvious need to proceed with this new legislation at the earliest opportunity, we are anxious to have the advice and opinions of all interested persons. Accordingly, 1 am tabling today a publication entitled “Provincial Offences Procedure,” which addresses the subject matter of these bills in detail and which will be distributed widely.

CHANGE OF NAME AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, a second, very brief statement. I am today introducing for first reading the Change of Name Amendment Act. The proposed amendment is purely of a housekeeping nature. It will remove a redundant subsection of the Act that, on a number of occasions in the past few months has been interpreted erroneously as giving minors an unqualified right to apply in court for a change of name. This has resulted in an uneven application of the law across the province and it has also created difficult problems for the office of the Registrar General.

Accordingly, it is a matter of some importance to remove any doubt that an applicant must be 18 years of age to bring his own application for a change of name under the Act. In introducing this bill, I would like to take this opportunity to confirm that it is my intention to come forward in the next few months with a comprehensive package of reforms concerning the law relating to the change of name. The bill I will be introducing today is simply an interim measure which must be taken to ensure that the intentions of the Legislature as expressed in the current Change of Name Act continue to be carried out until a review of the law is completed.

HYDRO RATES

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, Ontario Hydro president Douglas Gordon today advised me that Ontario Hydro proposes to increase its bulk power or wholesale rates to its municipal utilities and direct industrial customers by 9.8 per cent and 10.1 per cent respectively, effective January 1, 1979.

Mr. Deans: Disgusting -- they are out of control.

An hon. member: We’re still paying for that building.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: As I view any increase in electric power rates with serious concern --

Mr. Deans: They are out of control. Take them into the public sector.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- I will take steps to have the Ontario Energy Board closely scrutinize the Hydro proposal to see what, if any, margin of that increase can be trimmed.

Mr. Sargent: On top of 30 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I am very disappointed that Hydro finds its costs increasing to such an extent in this time of general fiscal restraint. I have, however, been assured by Hydro that in making its calculations --

An hon. member: New minister!

Mr. Sargent: You know what happened to Darcy.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- with respect to its 1979 rates it has conformed to the spirit and intent --

An hon. member: We want Jim Taylor!

Mr. Sargent: He’s going to get it, too.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- of the current anti-inflation guidelines --

Mr. Kerrio: Where’s Jim Taylor?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- even though the anti- inflation program will have no further application after December 31, 1978.

Mr. Deans: That’s just utter nonsense.

Mr. Philip: It never had any effect on business anyhow.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I will ask the Energy Board to verify that Hydro has indeed conformed to the anti-inflation guideline.

In spite of this rate proposal, I am optimistic that the increase in 1979 could well be significantly less. This is as a result of an estimated $130 million expected to be obtained by Hydro in 1978 through increased sales of power to the United States. It is also because of the current high level of performance of Hydro’s nuclear power stations. If all of these funds materialize, it could mean Ontario Hydro wholesale customers -- i.e., the municipal utilities -- would receive a rebate in 1979 in the order of 6.5 per cent.

The effect of Hydro’s rate proposal and this additional revenue on retail customers is still not precisely known, but it should make the size of its 1979 retail increase substantially less than otherwise would have been the case. In this regard, I am pleased to be able to announce also that the actual net revenue earned in 1977 generated an additional $14 million more than forecast last summer. This amount is also to be rebated to Hydro’s bulk power customers, resulting in a further three-quarters of one per cent reduction in the 1978 rates.

This will lower the increase for 1978 to an effective level of about two per cent, or more than seven per cent below the actual increase of 9.5 per cent instituted by Ontario Hydro for 1978.

We have been fortunate that rebates in 1978 and those forecast for 1979 help very considerably to offset the effect of increased hydro costs to the consumer. I am, nevertheless, very concerned about these rate increases and the fact that rebates are not a permanent factor in keeping down rate levels. I would like to caution, moreover, that while the lowest possible consumer rate is of utmost concern to me, we must also be mindful not to damage Hydro’s long-term financial health, which is vital to the province’s own financial health and credit rating.

After I have reviewed fully the Hydro proposal, I will, in accordance with

section 37(

a) of the Ontario Energy Board Act, be referring it to the Ontario Energy Board for a detailed review. I would urge any groups or individual citizens who are concerned about the potential increase to contact the Ontario Energy Board.

[2:15]

VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to draw to your attention and the attention of members of the assembly that we have with us today as a guest in your gallery, the Hon. Peter Cox, Minister of Transport and Highways from the state of New South Wales in Australia. With him is Mr. Ken Trott, his deputy minister.

HANOVER LAND ANNEXATION

Mr. MacDonald: On Tuesday of this week I asked the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) why, when the government had ordered a rehearing by the OMB of the town of Hanover’s move to annex 200 acres of prime agricultural land, it had also taken the unprecedented step of designating which members of the OMB should have that hearing.

The Treasurer intervened and said, “I’m sure we didn’t.” He then pointed out that this fell into the responsibility of the Attorney General and added, “I am sure that he would be aware.” He was mumbling sotto voce that it was not correct.

Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention and to the attention of the House that order in council 400 for this year states that “the aforementioned decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, dated October 3, 1977, shall be the subject of a new public hearing before the following members of the board: A. B. Ball, E. A. Seaborne.”

My question stands: Why did the government, in ordering a rehearing, hand pick the members of the board who should hear that case?

Mr. Swart: What does the ministry have to say about that?

Mr. Speaker: That is properly a problem that should be brought up during question period.

Mr. Martel: It was a point of privilege though.

Mr MacDonald: But he misinformed the House -- unwittingly.

ORAL QUESTIONS

VANDALISM

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to ask a question of the Attorney General. Does the Attorney General intend to appeal the sentence in a vandalism case in Hamilton involving over $50,000 damage? In the case, the judge, Gordon McTurk, refused to grant the Crown’s application for an order requiring restitution on the grounds that it would impose further hardship on the parents. Is the Attorney General familiar with this case and would the Crown consider an appeal so that restitution would be imposed as a condition in the sentence?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not familiar with the case. I will certainly look into the matter and respond to the Leader of the Opposition’s question as soon as possible.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, would the Attorney General have a comment to make with regard to the recommendations made by Metro Toronto council concerning the need for amendments to the federal Juvenile Delinquents Act which would make parents automatically financially responsible for acts of vandalism committed by their children? Does he have any comment and what progress has he made in his discussion with federal authorities in order to make progress on this particular matter? I know from previous occasions that the Attorney General has agreed with me that restitution is important. I wonder whether he has been working on that particular matter.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I must state I have some misgivings about that proposal. This of course is a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government, as has been pointed out by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

In our ministry we have looked at the experience of similar legislation in other jurisdictions in North America, more particularly the United States. The experience has been not a very happy one. We recognize the very serious problem of vandalism, but in many of these cases the very fact that there are charges laid and young people are brought to court has created situations of high tension within the family circle.

To state that the parents shall automatically be responsible for the acts of the children has, in many cases in states of the US, produced irreparable breaches between the parents and the children. People in this area who have studied the matter carefully do have very serious misgivings about that aspect of it, that when we are trying to rehabilitate children they obviously cannot be considered to be confirmed criminals when they are still children in law.

To produce that additional polarization in the family with the parent who is forced to pay for something that he or she is not responsible for has led to serious breakdown in the family relationship, and I have to say, quite frankly, this proposal would give us great concern for that reason.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Has the Attorney General any substitute proposal which would guarantee and bring about the state of affairs where young people who are engaged in vandalism would undergo the very therapeutic and rehabilitative action of having to make restitution within the limits of their ability? If one does not force this on the parents, and then indirectly presumably on the children, what alternative method is available, and will the Attorney General give us some policy in this regard?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The issue is a very serious one, let there be no doubt about that. Obviously one of the approaches that must be used is to make children more aware of their responsibility without incarceration. What we are doing in this area is to develop the concept of community service orders within the juvenile court system.

This is one method with which we hope to attack this very serious problem, to provide for situations where children will have to work in the community in order to create a greater sense of responsibility in themselves for the acts they have been responsible for and for which the whole community has to pay a price. We think the development of our community service orders in the family courts will be one useful method of combating this very serious problem.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Would the Attorney General be able to provide us with information showing bow the community service orders actually work in the communities? Subject to that, does the Attorney General realize that within a large cross-section of the juvenile community the whole matter of vandalism is treated with more or less contempt, and it is looked upon as a somewhat playful act rather than a matter that is to be seriously considered?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The whole concept of community service orders has developed very extensively in recent months. I should point out that the community service orders themselves are the responsibility of the Ministry of Correctional Services, and the present minister (Mr. Drea) has made a very significant commitment to this concept and has developed it very dramatically.

If the member wants us to give him individual cases of where this is carried out we can. Basically, the concept of it is that obviously the court must initially make the order, but the importance of success is dependent upon having the community resources -- starting with the probation officer -- to ensure that the order is properly carried out.

Mr. Deans: You don’t have it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We do. As a matter of fact the Minister of Correctional Services and I were discussing this very matter of community service orders as recently as two hours ago, and we have the capacity for community service orders in virtually every area of the province.

With respect to dealing with juveniles and young offenders, there are additional problems because of the type of work that can be done. For example, you will recall exchanges earlier in the Legislature that indicated that we required the co-operation of unions because obviously a number of community service orders, to be meaningful, involved working in relation to municipal institutions which are the subject matter of vandalism. If the member doesn’t know that, he is really out of touch.

Mr. Kerrio: If you don’t know what’s happening out there, you are out of touch.

Mr. Deans: I understand. I know something; I know that it isn’t actually working. You talk a lot but nothing happens.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There was some local objection by a particular union in Toronto many months ago. I might say that since that time the union movement has been very supportive.

Mr. Deans: That’s not juveniles.

Mr. McClellan: That has nothing to do with juveniles.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’m telling the members that a lot of these community service orders, to be effective, have to relate to vandalism and vandalism is particularly a problem with respect to publicly-owned buildings. Obviously what we are trying to do is develop community service orders that relate -- where we can -- to the very property that has been damaged. And so there are a number of matters that must be worked out. This whole business has gone ahead faster in the adult courts that it has in the juvenile courts but we are developing this and we’ll keep the House advised.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. S. Smith: I will ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: Good luck.

Mr. S. Smith: What does the minister mean when he comes before us today to tell us that Hydro has told him that it wants to raise its rates around 10 per cent in 1979 and he says, “I am very disappointed”? What is the meaning of that? Has the minister, in fact, looked at the basis on which this 10 per cent is being requested? Has he looked at the figures? Has he assured himself one way or another whether these figures are accurate, whether they are defensible? Of course, it is going to go to the Energy Board. That’s automatic. But what is the meaning of this “disappointment”? What is it based on? What has he done in terms of research to decide whether or not those are justifiable increases?

Mr. Roy: Show some guts.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We are disappointed here whenever we see any increase in costs and prices exceed six per cent. That’s what we strive for.

Mr. Roy: You would have ruled them back, eh, Jim?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I don’t think that should surprise the members opposite at all. That’s what we are still straining for.

An hon. member: I’ll bet you were disappointed when you heard about the budget.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: What is disappointing, of course, and what we expect to be inevitable is that the chicken of world oil prices is coming home to roost, and the fact is that if members opposite -- and particularly that party there -- had not fought as hard for Canadian oil prices going to world price, the chances are very real that I wouldn’t have to announce here today --

An hon. member: What does Joe Clark want on that? He wants world prices.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- that Ontario Hydro is proposing a 10 per cent increase. That’s why I’m disappointed, and I think all of the people of Ontario should be disappointed in this.

An hon. member: What kind of a junk answer is that?

An hon. member: Just like Joe Clark.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Is the minister saying, first of all, that he feels these 10 per cent increases are justified? Second, is he saying they are justified based on world oil price? Third, can he tell us whether these new suggested increases are based on the new or the old load forecast and whether one of the reasons for these increases is the huge capital costs and the financing costs due to the overbuilding of the system which he announced here the other day?

An hon. member: Bring back Jim Taylor.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition seems to be puzzled at the relationship between the --

Mr. Roy: We are puzzled about you.

Mr. Laughren: You are being condescending now, eh?

Mr. Roy: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- increase of electric energy in this province and the increase in world oil price. I think what he should know is that there is a very definite correlation in energy prices -- and anybody who has done any study in the field would tell him this. Some of it is regulated and fixed and others simply follow lock-step along.

Mr. Roy: You are the minister now. Quit apologizing and do something.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: But I am certainly not prepared to say here that I have done a vast amount of research or that I’ve gotten the slide rule out or the sharp pencil. We have an Ontario Energy Board to do that.

[2:30]

Mr. Roy: You haven’t done anything.

Mr. Warner: Bring in the chairman of Hydro and we might get some answers.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: All I’m saying is that we can surely express disappointment when the rates seem to go up by 10 per cent. That surely is a good reason for disappointment.

Mr. Foulds: Your crocodile tears serve no purpose.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I’m puzzled too. Can the minister tell me what the purpose will be of his fully reviewing the Hydro rate increase prior to sending it to the Ontario Energy Board if he doesn’t intend to review it with an eye to trying to bring Hydro into line with what would make him happy, as opposed to what now makes him disappointed?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The Hydro proposal is going forward to the Ontario Energy Board immediately. We don’t intend to review this in the ministry in any great detail. We’re sending it on to the Ontario Energy Board, and we’re doing that right away.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, does the statement mean, first of all, that the minister is proposing to tie the price of electric power on a Btu basis with the world price of petroleum? Is that what he’s saying?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No; no way. The member is still apologizing for his party’s world price for oil.

Mr. Bradley: Your friend Peter Lougheed put that up.

Mr. J. Reed: Secondly, perhaps he could tell us what the relationship is right now between the Btu price of electric power and the Btu price of petroleum.

Mr. Bradley: I thought you Tory Premiers were solid.

Mr. J. Reed: And I would ask the minister if he’s prepared to go to the Ontario Energy Board and oppose this increase.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Once again, the member opposite seems so puzzled and so surprised that there should be some relationship between the price of electrical energy in this province and the world price of oil. Read the literature on the subject. It’s elementary, Watson; it’s elementary. It’s there.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question in relation to the question of my colleague the member for Wentworth, what prior knowledge did the minister have of this proposed rate increase by Ontario Hydro and what action did his ministry take to review the background figures to come to the conclusion that has caused him such immense disappointment?

Mr. Mancini: Jim Taylor looked like a superstar compared to that.

Mr. Renwick: And did the minister give consideration to saying to Ontario Hydro, ‘You must not implement in any way any rate increase without the approval of the minister”?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I, of course, do not have the authority, nor does anyone in this government have the authority, to tell Ontario Hydro precisely what their rates will be.

Mr. Deans: It’s time you did.

Mr. Warner: You’re bringing Ontario Hydro under public control.

Mr. Foulds: All you need is the will and the guts to do it.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Unlike Consumers’ Gas and Union Gas prices in this province, we cannot set the rates; we can only advise.

Mr. Sargent: Why isn’t Jim Taylor running again?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: It would have been completely inappropriate for our ministry to be advising Ontario Hydro or telling it or commanding it what its rates should be. We did not do that; that would have been inappropriate.

Mr. Roy: Bring back Jim.

Mr. Mackenzie: What are you Energy minister for? Why are you Energy minister?

Mr. Warner: He’s lost, totally lost.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a final supplementary.

Mr. S. Smith: Basically, is the minister simply standing in this House purely as the mouthpiece of Ontario Hydro --

Mr. Roy: Exactly.

Mr. Warner: He’s an apologist.

Mr. S. Smith: -- with no ability even, as he says, to use a slide rule, if necessary, to justify at least in his own mind whether or not Hydro is on safe and correct ground in asking for this increase? If he doesn’t intend to review it and, as he told the member for Wentworth, he’s just sending it directly to the Ontario Energy Board, what does this final paragraph in his statement mean: “After I have reviewed fully the Hydro proposal, I will send it to the Energy Board”? Why bother? The minister is just a conduit and a channel for it anyhow.

Mr. Deans: That program is nonsense.

Mr. Foulds: Why doesn’t the minister read his speech?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Either the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t know the formal sequence of events by which way Ontario Hydro’s annual rates are developed and finalized --

Mr. Sargent: Tell us how you do it.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- or he’s trying to confuse the issue here. The next logical step is to send Hydro’s proposal for its rates for 1979 to the Ontario Energy Board, where it will be thoroughly reviewed by all kinds of people, including the staff and including my ministry to a degree.

Mr. Martel: It has nothing to do with world price then.

Mr. Warner: The minister has only one course of action left and he knows it. He can’t run that ministry and he knows it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s true, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere trying to invoke the Magna Carta again on Hydro?

AUTO PACT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. I’ve had the opportunity to review a study prepared in the Treasury ministry entitled, “Canada’s Fear of the North American Automotive Industry -- An Ontario Perspective.” Is the minister aware of this document which shows that Canada is receiving a full 20 per cent less than its fair share of production activity in the automobile industry? Does he agree with the findings of that study, and will he undertake to table that report as soon as possible in this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I’m most definitely aware of the study. It was completed a week or so ago. We have mailed it to the automobile manufacturers, to Mr. Horner, to Mr. Chretien, to the parts people, and to the United Auto Workers, and we have asked for their views on the study.

Mr. Deans: Why don’t we get it? Why don’t we get a copy?

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Can the minister then explain to the Legislature why, after all that consultation has taken place, he did not see fit to table this matter so the members of the Legislature could also be consulted and express opinions on that study?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No consultation has taken place. I only mailed it, I think, the day before yesterday.

Mr. Kerrio: Does the minister see a direct connection between that study and the imbalance of the auto pact trade?

Mr. Laughren: Mr.

Speaker, is the Treasurer aware that one of the specific observations in the report indicates a fair share of production in Ontario would require production levels consistent with the market share; second, that it would require a mix of assembly and parts activities equal to the North American average; third, that a fair share of research, design and development targets would require that Canada be allocated research, design and development jobs and expenditures proportionate to its market share; and if those three goals were realized, that in 1976 alone there would be an additional 25,000 jobs in Ontario, an additional $868 million net investment and an additional $200 million in research and development expenditures in this province?

If he is aware of those specific observations, why does the Treasurer not now himself convene a meeting of federal authorities, the auto industry, the trade union movement and his officials to get on with renegotiating the auto pact rather than sitting back and passing the buck to the federal government?

Mr. Makarchuk: It’s a good time of the year to do it.

Mr. Renwick: He said to convene a meeting.

Mr. Makarchuk: When is the Treasurer going to do something about it? Stop sitting around.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is not the government of Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: Call the meeting then.

Mr. Martel: Why doesn’t the Treasurer force their hand for a change? He is posturing again.

Mr. McClellan: Show some leadership.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In answer to the member’s question, certainly I’m aware of it. I read it before it was mailed out. There are differences of opinion. Ottawa doesn’t necessarily agree with the conclusions that some of my staff have come to, and we do want other opinions.

The Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Rhodes) and I discussed this matter a month ago with the United Auto Workers. They shared some of the same concerns. They, however, are also interested, in my opinion, in getting at the facts of the matter and there will be, I’m sure, a full debate on whether those statistics hang together or not.

Mr. Laughren: Why doesn’t the Treasurer convene a meeting then?

Mr. Kerrio: The question is, isn’t this an urgent matter as it relates to talking about subsidizing these large corporations? This is the question I was leading up to. Doesn’t the Treasurer think that we have to get with it?

Mr. Foulds: Is the member for Niagara Falls going to subsidize them?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, if the member will go back and read the 1976 budget, he will find there that this government believes it is an urgent matter. We drew it to the public attention first and we will continue to pursue it and to put the spotlight on what we think is a situation which can be improved.

Mr. Peterson: It was urgent 10 years ago and it is urgent today.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Certainly.

Mr. Laughren: Talk is cheap.

Mr. Martel: The Treasurer is just posturing.

Mr. Peterson: You deserve a lot of credit.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Bluster. Nerves are pretty raw over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: You just sit in the weeds.

Mr. Cassidy: As a matter of fact, the minister is taking a long time to get to this point and we haven’t yet had a commitment from him that the study will be made public. In view of the significant differences between the Ontario figures and the federal government -- which indicate, for example, that Ontario believes that we have less than our share of employment in the industry,

whereas the federal government is saying we have far more than our share -- and in view of the differences over the next course of action to be taken to ensure a fair share of production here in Canada, what specific steps does the Treasurer now plan to take in order to ensure that we build up this industry and stop having such massive trade deficits which are costing so many jobs and so much investment and so much research to Canada?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the first step we have taken, obviously, is to determine whether the various parties think the study has validity. When we have determined that, then presumably we will be ready to take other steps and recommending certain steps to the government at Ottawa, which has responsibility for the auto pact.

Mr. McClellan: Ask Lorne Maeck about the auto pact.

EMPLOYEES’ HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Premier arising out of some comments that he made at the close of the debate on Tuesday at 6 o’clock. In those comments the Premier talked about minority government, referred to Bill 70 and then made a reference to it having to be a two-way street, and I wonder if the Premier could explain those remarks, particularly with reference to Bill 70.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I assume when I am talking about Bill 70 that we have the right number of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: The health and safety bill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right.

Mr. Sargent: You were kind of mixed up on Tuesday.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I recall the history of it, the bill was introduced by the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson), it received approval here on second reading, then went to committee, where certain fundamental changes were made. What I was trying to point out to the parties opposite was that in the context of minority government there is a tendency for members opposite to --

Mr. Bounsall: Do the right thing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, sometimes we hear a point of view that is not necessarily a representative point of view. I think it’s fair to state that we usually get those who are opposed to whatever government is initiating --

Mr. Bounsall: It is more than representative.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- not necessarily those in support. Yesterday afternoon at 2 o’clock we met with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. As I understand the amendments that have taken place with respect to Bill 70, and I could be corrected on all of this, there was some inclusion of the farm community in Bill 70.

An hon. member: Your members voted for it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is fair to state --

Mr. S. Smith: And some said the farmers voted for it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to make a speech, let him do so. I am trying to answer a question. What I am saying is that we have had very strong representation from the federation of agriculture, as one example, that it should not be included. We happen to support that point of view. We hope the members opposite understand that as well. We have also had representation very recently from the police commission, which I understand probably will be approaching some of the rest of you too, and I hope you give them the same enthusiastic reception --

Mr. Boy: We always do.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- as you give other groups, in terms of the inclusion of some public bodies within Bill 70.

Mr. Bounsall: What about the associations?

Hon. Mr. Davis: All I am saying to the leader of the New Democratic Party is we have demonstrated that we are making a genuine effort to make minority government work. It is our responsibility to initiate legislation which we think is in the public interest. We are suggesting in Bill 70 that some of you have tried to bite off more than can be properly digested at one time and that Bill 70 should proceed as initially proposed by the Minister of Labour. It’s as simple as that.

Mr. Martel: What makes your position right?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Premier: Am I correct in understanding that the government is therefore abandoning its commitment to bring forward Bill 70 in the form in which it was adopted by the standing committee on resources development, and if that is the case, and we regret it very deeply, would the Premier here in this House say which other sections of the bill the government intends to try to change from the decision that was reached by the standing resources committee?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You know. You know.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know. I can’t even give you the

section numbers. I do know there has been some discussion with respect to the question of a public sector, if I can use that terminology, being included within the Act. I think there is a genuine concern by the people who have the responsibility to administer this legislation that that whole area requires not only some study but some consultation with those groups which would be involved, and that includes the farm workers.

Mr. Bounsall: Exactly what was provided?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We have made it very clear to the federation that we think it requires very close consultation.

[2:45]

Mr. Foulds: What were the public hearings about?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not saying today that it will not be brought back to the House. I am hopeful that if the leader of the New Democratic Party is maintaining his approach to the functioning of minority government, he and his colleagues will reassess some of the suggestions they have made. It is as simple as that. I am not saying whether it is coming back or not.

Mr. Deans: Which ones?

Mr. Cassidy: That is what the committee was for.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: Surely the Premier is aware that we went through a long series of hearings. We have been through a previous bill and this has been on the record for well over a year now. My understanding of the workings of Parliament is that when it went through the hearings and a majority voted, as the majority in this House did, for the changes that were made in that bill, the majority carries. Is the Premier now telling us that that is not the case?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have always respected the majority will of this House.

Mr. Martel: Especially when you have it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I also understand the system under which we work. That is that it is the responsibility of the government -- and that happens to represent this side of the House -- to determine what legislation is brought forward. We have to assume the ultimate responsibility for its administration. It’s great for the members across the road to suggest many of these things and then hie for cover when the flak starts to emerge. We have to assume the responsibility for what happens.

Mr. Foulds: Are you going to withdraw the bill?

Mr. Warner: Backtracking.

An hon. member: No more bluster now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Do I take it from the Premier’s comments in the House today that he has been persuaded, quite rightly, by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to exclude the farm from the provisions of Bill 70 contrary to the suggestion by his own committee members?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We needed no persuasion at all, because we never included it in the bill. The member’s party supported a motion in there.

Mr. Cunningham: It is a flip-flop. You’ve changed your mind again.

Mr. Eaton: Had to run out in the hall and come back with amendments. Didn’t know what you were doing.

Mr. Breithaupt: Your members supported it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon. W. Newman: You are kind of on the horns of a dilemma, aren’t you?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The hon. member for Essex South on a point of privilege.

Mr. Mancini: if the Premier would take the time to check the records of the standing resources development committee they will show that it was this party that put forth the proposal to --

Mr. Eaton: Put everybody under the bill.

Interjections.

Mr. Mancini: -- withdraw the agricultural --

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Listen, and you will hear something.

Mr. Eaton: Had to run out in the hall to make your amendments.

Hon. Mr. Norton: You guys are going to wear it.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, the record will show that it was this party that included an amendment to have agriculture not under Bill 70. Also, the record will show that it was the Conservative caucus members and the members of the New Democratic caucus who voted that motion down.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was not present but I know exactly what happened. And I’ll tell you something else -- so do the farmers of this province know exactly what happened.

Mr. S. Smith: The record doesn’t lie. Unfortunately, that is not true of some others.

Mr. Roy: What can we do to calm down the member for Middlesex? He is getting excited up there.

An hon. member: What can we do to meet with the OFA more often?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Do we want a 10-minute recess just to sort of cool out and reflect for a moment?

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, has the Premier met with as many police associations as he has met with police commissions? Secondly, has the Minister of Labour and her staff, to his knowledge, met yet with the two farm-worker groups that she said she had difficulty pulling together but was able to identify at the time of those committee hearings as groups that should be consulted on the agricultural question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say to the hon. member I can’t answer for the Minister of Labour. I haven’t met with any police commissions. I was asked to speak to the association of police commissions a week ago yesterday or whatever evening and, for the first time, some of them began to realize what was involved in Bill 70.

They raised it with me in a very informal fashion. I suggested that they first discuss it with the ministry. Then I took the liberty of saying to a former distinguished member of this House, a colleague of the members opposite, who is involved with police work here in Metropolitan Toronto, that knowing his great rapport with the people opposite, he should go and visit the opposition to express his concerns there as we already knew about them.

Mr. Bounsall: He is more to the right than the Premier.

Interjections.

PERFECTION AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS LIMITED

Mr. B. Newman: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that Perfection Automotive Products Limited decided to close its operations in Windsor three hours after the plant was legally struck by its employees, who could not accept a 60 cent per hour pay cut? Will the minister use her good offices and ask that both management and union meet with her and/or her officials in an attempt to resolve this problem and have the company continue their operations in Windsor, thereby saving 80 jobs?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m delighted to be able to tell the hon. member that the Perfection Automotive Products plant is not going to close. We have that assurance from management today. I’m also happy to tell him there was a tentative agreement between the union and the company as of this morning and that a ratification meeting was held by the union this morning, the results of which I do not know, except that 1 am informed that everyone is reasonably optimistic about it.

I am also informed that there might have been some verbal statement about closing but there is nothing in writing anywhere that anyone has been able to find about closing the plant. That plant will stay open and the jobs are saved.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary: In matters of this sort where at the time of a strike or shortly thereafter management indicates it may be closing, as did occur in this case, would the Ministry of Labour take it as a matter of course and practice that whenever that threat is used that the company should open up its entire books so that the ministry and the union involved or a group of workers involved will know the true financial situation of the company?

Hon. B. Stephenson: In this specific case I am not positive that there ever was any commitment or any statement on the part of the company, except perhaps in some kind of conversation. If this is a practice, it is not a widespread practice in the province of Ontario and it is one that has not been of any particular trouble. I shall be interested in considering the hon. member’s suggestion.

RCA PLANT CLOSURE

Mr. Samis: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the announcement on Friday that RCA will close its Smiths Falls plant by the end of March 1979 with the loss of 287 jobs, and in view of the fact that 100 employees were laid off earlier this year at the same plant, can the minister tell the House what measures the government will take to alleviate the loss of jobs, particularly among the women who make up the bulk of the labour force and in view of the fact that 800 women are presently registered with the Manpower office in Smiths Falls?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am aware of some efforts on the part of this company. We have been investigating the statement which the company has made. I know that my colleague, the Minister of Industry and Tourism, has also been involved in this. Although the company has made the statement that it will be closing at that time, hopefully, there is a possibility of purchase of the plant by another employer so that most of those jobs could be saved.

Mr. Sargent: We’ve heard that song before.

Mr. Samis: Can the minister tell us if she will seek any guarantee from RCA, in case the plant isn’t bought by another outfit, to ensure that affected employees would be offered jobs by a Metro-based Canadian company which will be receiving much of the contract work from RCA for future production transferred from Smiths Falls?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m aware that if production is to be continued it will be in Metropolitan Toronto, which, I think, would pose a mobility problem for many of the Smiths Falls workers. There are certain kinds of guarantees -- unless they’re within the contract -- which cannot be made to those workers. We will most certainly be working with both the company and the workers in that instance to try to resolve the difficulties which may arise if the unfortunate eventuality should take place. We’re hopeful that the eventualities will not be unfortunate.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: Mr. Minister --

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mister?

Mr. Cassidy: It had to be said.

Mr. Sargent: I’ll start off again. Madam Minister, in view of the fact that from week to week --

Mr. Martel: It’s the glasses.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Just take your glasses off.

Mr. Sargent: -- we hear of these plant closings, is she not concerned about her Premier’s position with regard to unemployment in this province? Is she not concerned about this do-nothing policy for getting new jobs?

Mr. Martel: We have suspected that for a while.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, although I would suggest to the hon. member that he remove his glasses before he addresses me so that he can see that I’m not “Mr. Minister” --

Mr. Sargent: You don’t look any better with them off!

Hon. B. Stephenson: In the light of that very chivalrous remark on behalf of the hon. member for -- for where? Grey-Bruce? --

Mr. Martel: You have never had to use that defence before.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- I can assure the hon. member that the Premier of this province is extremely concerned about unemployment, as are all members of this government and that, indeed, all of us are making every effort to solve those problems.

FOODLAND ONTARIO PROGRAM

Mr. G. Taylor: I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Agriculturalists in Simcoe county held a meeting yesterday and made a statement that the province of Ontario isn’t doing enough to promote the purchasing of Ontario grown products and promoting the processors of the province of Ontario, particularly in the Holland Marsh area. What does he say in defence of that statement?

Mr. McClellan: Right on.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, what’s your defence, Bill?

Mr. Makarchuk: They don’t know what they’re talking about, right, Bill?

Hon. W. Newman: You wouldn’t know a gelding from a mare.

Mr. Breaugh: Well, there is one standing up just now.

Mr. S. Smith: With your food policy we will end up eating both of them.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: What is the difference, Bill? One has horns, he says.

Hon. W. Newman: In answer to that question, I just point out that we did have the winter vegetable promotion program. A great deal of that promotion program was geared to the Holland Marsh people and the storage of winter vegetables that they had on hand. We had excellent --

Mr. Makarchuk: Whelan said, “Eat onions.”

Hon. W. Newman: You smell like one.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: I’m sorry. I’ll withdraw, Mr. Speaker. I’ll withdraw that. I’m sorry.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: You guys provoke over there.

Mr. Eakins: That’s the strongest statement you ever made.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, on our winter vegetable promotion program, I think it’s very important that we realize that in sales to the chain stores in Metro Toronto, where we did some survey on the winter vegetable promotion, our average increase in sales of Marsh products was about 300 per cent during that program.

Mr. McClellan: Better write him a letter.

Hon. W. Newman: We have an ongoing promotional program where many of our chains are still promoting some of the Marsh products, and it has been perhaps the most successful program of all of them as far as alleviating the problems and moving out many of the commodities of the Marsh.

Mr. Martel: Aren’t you reading the minister’s press releases, George?

Hon. W. Newman: I know they still have some surplus onions. I know we still are getting co-operation from the chain stores to move out those commodities.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary: In view of the presentation made to all caucuses yesterday by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which stipulated that the $1 million program was only a token to what should be presented and asked for $10 million in regard to promoting agricultural products, how far does the minister intend to go in this regard?

An hon. member: You said, “Let them eat onions.”

Hon. W. Newman: The $1 million promotion program we had in place last year -- and I can give members the results in detail within about two weeks’ time of all of our promotions -- has certainly paid off extremely well. Because we used our money wisely and well to promote these commodities and were so successful in doing it, if members look at our budget this year --

Mr. Kerrio: There is our new Treasurer.

[3:00]

Hon. W. Newman: -- we have about the same amount of money in it and I’m sure, with the very small staff we had to operate that program, that we can operate it just as effectively and as well this year. Also, the marketing hoards and the various agencies in the province are getting very much involved in putting forward funds, and we are also supporting them with funds to do a lot of their own promotional work. Advertising is paying off; the marketing boards are getting more involved and will be putting in a lot more money themselves this year. So actually this total budget will be much larger.

I am absolutely confident that the program will go forward in a very successful manner in the coming year.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister agree with the criticism of the Simcoe federation, as reflected in the OFA brief of yesterday, that his present program is just an emergency program to pick up on surpluses and that what it should be is an ongoing program for the promotion of Ontario produced food?

Hon. W. Newman: I am surprised at the Agriculture critic over there.

Mr. MacDonald: I am only repeating what the fed people said yesterday.

Hon. W. Newman: I hope you have seen this little button -- Foodland, Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: Abracadabra.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to answer the question and point out to the hon. member that this is an ongoing program. We have developed a symbol and we also have a slogan, as I think you know, and in case you don’t, I will repeat it, “Good things grow in Ontario”.

Mr. Martel: Did you ever try eating a slogan?

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: It is an ongoing program; we are now getting a commitment from processors down the road to use this symbol on their products. We are getting cooperation in the beef industry to use this symbol --

Mr. MacDonald: That’s not what the feds said yesterday.

An hon. member: Oranges and lemons.

An hon. member: Are you going to spend more money?

Mr. Kerrio: Can you get that symbol on the beef, Bill?

Hon. W. Newman: You know, the facts speak for themselves. As I said once before, the members opposite always want to knock success.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right, you are always jealous of success.

Mr. Martel: Like Bill 70.

Hon. W. Newman: It has been a very successful story and it will continue to be just that. It is going to help the fanners of this province and the members opposite mustn’t forget it.

PITS AND QUARRIES CONTROL

Mr. Roy: In the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources (Hon. F. S. Miller), I would like to direct this question to the Premier. It relates to the unfortunate drowning of a young boy in Ottawa, William Labrosse, on April 21.

I wonder if, in view of the fact that the city of Ottawa has been attempting since 1972 through correspondence and telephone calls to the Ministry of Natural Resources to do something about a quarry on Montreal Road -- an open quarry that has been abandoned now for some 20 years -- and in view of the fact that the previous Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Kenora (Mr.

Bernier), on May 26, 1972, advised that they would be exercising more control over the rehabilitation of operating pits, and because nothing has been done for the protection of young children in that area, which has led to this unfortunate incident, would the Premier advise the Ministry of Natural Resources to take immediate action to correct this situation and avoid any further such incidents?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I share the hon. member’s concern about the drowning that took place. I am not familiar with the circumstances of the pit. I gather from what the hon. member has said that it is a non-operating pit so it probably doesn’t come within legislation. I am only guessing at this. I will find out as much as I can. There may be some municipal bylaw; I don’t know whether that would be the case. Whether the ministry can in fact assist, I don’t know, but I shall inquire for the hon. member. From what he tells me, if it is not an operating pit, it may not be that simple.

Mr. Roy: If I may, as a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, and as information to the Premier, because I understand that he may not be aware of this situation.

The Premier may not be aware that in these situations it comes under the jurisdiction of what is called the Pits and Quarries Control Act, under provincial jurisdiction and there are very limited things that the municipality can do under the Municipal Act. Because it is under the provincial jurisdiction of the Ministry of Natural Resources, and in view of the fact that the latest response from the Ministry of Natural Resources, just last week, was apparently that they were not even aware of this situation in Ottawa, would the Premier immediately look at the position and convey to his colleague in the cabinet that it is clearly under provincial jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I really don’t think we want to get into a debate in a situation of this kind as to whose jurisdiction it is. I certainly don’t intend to debate that with the hon. member. I will take it up with the Minister of Natural Resources tomorrow; if not tomorrow, on Monday.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Labour. I am assuming the Minister of Labour is aware that her federal counterpart has indicated that he is desirous of setting up an occupational health centre someplace in central Canada. Has she informed him that owing to a lack of inspection and a lack of enforcement by her ministry, tens of thousands of workers have suffered industrial hazards and, consequently, it would be a good place to put an occupational health centre?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that opinion of the hon. member for Sudbury cannot go unchallenged.

Some hon. members: It’s a fact.

Hon. B. Stephenson: But nonetheless my reason for encouraging the Minister of Labour at the federal level to site the institute in central Canada was that it would be accessible to all parts of Canada, and that it would be available to all ministries of labour and divisions of occupational health and safety throughout the country.

I must admit that at one point I did suggest that he might consider Winnipeg, which I gather is considered to be the geographical centre of Canada, or perhaps even Thunder Bay.

Mr. Foulds: Or Geraldton.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Geraldton didn’t seem to be exactly the right location for an institute which I think must have some university affiliation. But we did suggest Thunder Bay.

Mr. Foulds: What about Sudbury?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have no idea what the hon. minister has decided about this, but I would be suspicious that with an impending federal election he is going to suggest that it be in Hamilton.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sure Ivor Wynne Stadium --

ST. LAWRENCE CEMENT

Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware that the St. Lawrence Cement Company has been awarded the Chemical Institute of Canada’s environmental improvement award for 1978?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. B. Newman: Is the minister aware that the federal report on the Mississauga experiment says, “Ring formation prevented proper burning of liquid hydrocarbons and the tests had to be terminated time and time again” -- concerning PCBs?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, is that a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: I allowed it.

An hon. member: He can’t answer it.

GREENHOUSE HEATING

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy. In view of the fact that his ministry has tabled a study concerning the feasibility of using waste hot water from the Bruce hydro station as energy to heat some greenhouses that he hopes to have built there; and in view of the fact that his ministry has assigned this matter to a civil servant and has given him the mandate to promote this idea, and since neither this civil servant nor anyone else in his ministry can explain how it will handle the detrimental effects on the existing greenhouse industry in my area of Essex South if his ministry’s Bruce project is feasible and successful --

Mr. Martel: Grow more food; that’s all.

Mr. Mancini: -- is the minister now willing to cancel this program?

Hon. B. Stephenson: What detrimental effects?

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s a flip-flop within a flip-flop.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to the last part of that question, asking whether I would cancel this very exciting project at this particular stage and time, is certainly not -- not now.

Mr. Martel: Quit while you are ahead.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: But the other comment to that rather peculiar question is, I really wonder whether perhaps the hon. member shouldn’t check with his own party leader and perhaps with his colleague from Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt), who is very much interested in that particular project.

Mr. Roy: Good member. Both excellent members.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Certainly his whole party has for weeks been saying that they are very much interested in energy conservation --

Mr. Makarchuk: Consistency wasn’t one of the bright lights.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- and experimentation and demonstration. There can be no better, more classical, more beautiful example of exactly that kind of thing than what we are trying to do in Kincardine.

Mr. Roy: Bring on Jim Taylor, 1 tell you; bring on Jim Taylor.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We are trying to do it in a collaborative way with local government, with the town of Kincardine, with the township of Kincardine, with the county of Bruce, with the township of Bruce. There are many people involved in it and we did not hire a civil servant to call the shots.

Mr. Ruston: A former candidate? Sam MacGregor?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Furthermore, I would suggest that the bon. member opposite better lay off the civil service and quit threatening them, as he has done.

Mr. Ruston: Give Sam MacGregor another chance.

Mr. Sargent: Get Sam MacGregor.

An hon. member: Poor Sam.

Mr. Bradley: That’s the Tory senate.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, it’s clearly shown today and it is very unfortunate --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just ask your question. The original one was far too long.

Mr. Martel: He is being argumentative.

Mr. Mancini: Yes. In view of the fact that it has been clearly shown today that the minister does not understand the greenhouse industry in Essex county --

Hon. W. Newman: That’s nonsense and you know it.

Mr. Mancini: -- why was his ministry not able to explain to the growers when he sent this civil servant to my riding last week what would happen to the greenhouse industry, and how they were supposed to compete with another group of greenhouses that were going to get this energy for nothing; secondly, who was going to give these other greenhouse growers the expertise that it has taken --

Mr. Rotenberg: You are an embarrassment.

Mr. Mancini: -- and thirdly, how is the minister going to justify the detrimental effect that this project will have on the Essex county greenhouses if his project is successful? He has not been able to justify that. It is a hare-brained scheme.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. B. Stephenson: What detrimental effect?

Mr. Makarchuk: What is this anyway?

Mr. Martel: Liberal consistency, it’s called.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Just to clarify one part of that question, the civil servant was not sent to Essex county.

An hon. member: He had the day off.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: He was invited to come down there by some greenhouse owners. The other point is that I wish we could discuss this after the session sometime. The hon. member is welcome to discuss this whole project with us here.

Mr. Conway: You are in the greenhouse now, Reuben.

Mr. Makarchuk: Let’s discuss it in the House.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Quite frankly, what we are planning to do at Kincardine, or at the Bruce generating plant, with the greenhouses has absolutely nothing to do with the problems that the member is facing with the greenhouse industry in his riding. I think it would be more honourable on his part --

Mr. Bradley: You are the last one to talk about honour.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- if he would just desist from the dog-in-the-manger attitude that he is exhibiting here today --

An hon. member: Bring on Jim Taylor.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- by saying that there may just be success up in Bruce county.

Mr. Martel: That is argumentative and provocative. He was really provocative -- dog-in-the-manger.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We want to hear the official position of the Liberal Party a little further.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York South.

Mr. Mancini: I have one more supplementary, Mr. Speaker, which is very important because the minister has given the impression to the House --

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Mr. Martel: It’s not even parliamentary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex South will take his seat. The hon. member for York South with a supplementary.

Mr. Mancini: May I ask, on a point of personal privilege --

Mr. Speaker: Sit down.

Mr. Mancini: No, I have a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Speaker Sit down. Sit down! The hon. member for York South.

Mr. MacDonald: May I ask the minister to what extent his studies have focused on the point that was discussed in last year’s agricultural estimates, namely, that any expansion of the greenhouse industry should not provide competition for the Essex greenhouse operators but should replace imported foods and vegetables?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: As the hon. member opposite knows, one of the problems with the greenhouse industry today -- and as my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I’m sure, knows better than anyone here --

Mr. Sargent: Sure he does.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- one of the problems is the high cost of the greenhouse operations. One of the factors in that high cost is the high cost of energy. This is precisely the kind of problem we are trying to deal with at the Kincardine plant, where we are using the surplus thermal heat from the generating station. It is also, I might say -- and I think really my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, should be speaking more about this --

Mr. Martel: He doesn’t understand it.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- but this whole question of getting cheaper energy into the greenhouse industry in Essex is quite a different and unrelated subject.

Mr. MacDonald: Answer my question. Answer my question.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The other part of this question here is, how does all of this relate to the imported food? I can tell the member that is a problem that is not in any way related to what we are trying and planning and hoping to do at the Kincardine greenhouses.

Mr. MacDonald: How are they going to compete?

Mr. Martel: He just bombed.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Middlesex with a supplementary.

Mr. Eaton: Supplementary to the minister: Is it not a fact that the study group involved in this project --

Mr. Bradley: A rehearsed question.

Mr. Eaton: -- set up a display at the annual meeting of the growers and, at that point, there was an opportunity for all the greenhouse growers to be involved in the project, to see what was going on, and to ask questions?

[3:15]

Mr. Bradley: I’m glad you asked that question.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I’m glad -- Yes, the answer is yes, twice.

Mr. Martel: That was fast, Reuben.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: We’re in favour of energy conservation over here, but --

Mr. Makarchuk: The way you guys are talking, it’s not greenhouses you need.

Mr. Gaunt: -- the question is, would the minister stop his Tory hacks from harassing my colleague from Essex South?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Get on with the project in Kincardine.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The answer is obviously no.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister has given the impression to this House that I am not for energy conservation --

Mr. McNeil: Question.

Mr. Havrot: Question.

Mr. Mancini: -- could the minister inform the House why, six months after myself and five well-qualified people put forth a brief --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. All hon. members are entitled to their own opinion.

Mr. Mancini: As I was saying, after myself and five well-qualified technical people put together a brief and submitted this brief, after it was endorsed by resolution of the greenhouse marketing board, to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Put the question.

Mr. Mancini: -- and we had asked for funds to have a solar energy project, why, after six months, have we not heard about whether we’re going to get funds? When the minister makes statements in this House concerning solar energy and other types of energy conservation, would he please refer to that also?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I am glad the member opposite has referred to this particular subject because it confirms we have, in fact, been doing a great deal of research and demonstration on solar energy related to greenhouses. That will continue, but that is not related to the excess thermal heat coming from the Bruce generating plant. The two things have gone in a parallel fashion.

We certainly would hope we could cooperate across the House with the hon. member every step of the way. There will be no unilateral decisions taken. We want to work with the opposition on this because it can be a very exciting project.

Mr. Sargent: Is Sam MacGregor working with you?

Mr. Mancini: Nonsense.

PETITION

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PROTECTION

Mr. McKessock: I beg leave to present a petition bearing the names of 3,415 people to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

We, the undersigned, beg to petition the Parliament of Ontario to support Bill 62,

An Act to amend the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, 1973.

REPORT

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee has carefully examined the following application for a private Act and finds the notices, as published, sufficient:

City of Cornwall (No. 2).

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 74,

An Act to establish a Code of Procedure for Provincial Offences.

Motion agreed to.

PROVINCIAL COURTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 75,

An Act to amend the Provincial Courts Act.

Motion agreed to.

CHANGE OF NAME AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 76,

An Act to amend the Change of Name Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: On a point of order. The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: We do not seem to have received the package of information the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) should have filed with the opposition parties before the introduction of a new piece of legislation, or the bill itself.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry, what ministry?

Mr. Foulds: The bill introduced by the Minister of Transportation and Communications. We do not have it.

Mr. Speaker: There was no bill introduced by the Minister of Transportation and Communications. There were three by the Attorney General.

Mr. Foulds: Oh, my apologies.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, it is our custom to say thank you to our pages, who have served us with distinction and diligence, and to read their names and constituencies into the record. I will do so now. They were with us from February 21 and will complete their stint of duty tomorrow at 1 o’clock. They are as follows:

Jeremy Bateson, Durham West; Martin Berthelot, Algoma-Manitoulin; Vito Cuddemi, Yorkview, Cameron Douglas, Humber; Thomas Gray, Scarborough-Ellesmere; Philip Hoddinott, Etobicoke; Scott Kantymir, Fort William; Robert Lang, Armourdale; Ian McLeod, York Centre; Shayne Smith, Essex South; Richard Yamashita, Etobicoke; Jennifer Archer, York Mills; Karen Bennett, Mississauga North; Sharon Boyd, Brock; Kathy Lynn Fiander, Wellington South; Patricia Hall, Lincoln; Cynthia Higgins, York East; Michelle Kelly, Beaches-Woodbine; Jodi Martindale, Rainy River; Lisa McKessock, Grey; Kathleen O’Donnell, Brantford; and Nancy Scott, Scarborough North.

I’m sure all members would like to join with me in thanking our legislative pages for the excellent work they have done.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 26 and 27 and the interim answers to questions 28, 29 and 30 standing on the notice paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

PUBLICATION OF POLLS DURING ELECTIONS

Mr. Ashe moved private member’s resolution 8:

That in the opinion of this House, the government should give immediate consideration to legislation that would prohibit, during any provincial election, the publication or broadcasting of all public opinion polls that purport to indicate the standing of any leader, candidate or party or the status of any issue in the election.

Mr. Ashe: The first thing I would like to comment upon today is the fact that I brought in a resolution rather than a bill.

Members of both opposition parties have introduced bills covering much the same topic in previous years, so I know there is some rather widespread interest in this subject. However, at this point, I don’t feel we’ve had enough input to warrant the presentation of a piece of legislation.

I want to hear -- in fact I look forward to hearing -- the comments of members from all parts of this House.

What I am looking for is a sampling of opinion from fellow politicians. That may sound ironic but it is a fact. There are all kinds of items in the media about public opinion polls and their value or lack thereof, but I thought it would be valuable to hear what successful politicians think about them. After all, there is hardly a group in the country more familiar with the existence of polls with the possible exception of the producers of television shows.

Despite the fact that most parties and most media outlets use or have used public opinion polls, and despite the fact that political scientists and others have developed the science of polling to a relatively fine degree, I think the principal argument against their publication or broadcast is that they can be misleading. No responsible pollster ever claims that a poll can predict the outcome of an election. What the results of a poll show is how a certain number of potential voters feel about a leader or a party or a candidate or an issue, et cetera, on a given day. They may or may not feel that way when they go into the voting booths.

I would venture to say that very few of us in this chamber arrived here without reading a poll which claimed that we had no chance of winning or, worse still, that we did not even merit a chance of winning. There would appear to be some notoriously safe tidings -- for example, Brant-Oxford-Norfolk -- where public opinion polls would serve probably little or no purpose. But in the main we have all had experience with such polls.

The main purpose of my resolution, as I said at the outset, is to generate some debate and to sound out the views of as many members as possible within the time allotted. I do not pretend to be an expert on the science of polling. I am not thoroughly familiar with polling techniques, sampling, statistical testing and all the rest, and I assume it’s highly likely that many members in this chamber are in the same position.

But that is not what the resolution addresses, in any event. What I have suggested in the motion is that the publication or broadcasting of the results of such polls be banned during the time of a provincial election. I repeat, my resolution is presented simply as a stimulus to debate. I believe the issue requires some airing and hopefully this is our opportunity.

There is a notion that the publication of poll results can influence the decision of some voters. It goes without saying that this notion also implies that polls can influence the behaviour of candidates, leaders and parties. This is not true of all polls however and here we are faced with the problem of definition. What polls can reasonably be included under any ban that we might propose?

Here for instance I am thinking about the so-called poll done in British Columbia during the last provincial election held there. An enterprising entrepreneur got the idea of selling Bennett-burgers and Barrett-burgers --

Mr. Samis: No Tory-burgers though.

Mr. Ashe: -- and comparing the sales figures for each as an indicator of how people were going to vote. I might add that the publication or broadcasting of public opinion polls is, I am told, prohibited in BC during provincial elections. Hence, the importance, I suppose, of the burger poll.

Are man-in-the-street interviewing polls, polls in the strictest sense? What about straw polls? If I might venture into the area of definition, I would say what I am talking about are polls conducted by organizations whose normal business is the sampling of public opinion and which, therefore, can claim some supposed reliability for their results. Of course, I do not mean I would exempt those firms who are considered unreliable, but I think you know, Mr. Speaker, and the House surely knows what I am referring to. I mean those polls conducted by such enterprises as Gallup, Roper and Regenstreif -- those polls which are commissioned or otherwise paid for by the media.

I will return to this subject in a moment, but first I want to explain why I think this resolution has merit and deserves the consideration of this House. As I said before, it is generally accepted that the publication of poll results can have an influence on people’s behaviour. I think this is true or why would politicians be happy with the polls which show them ahead and scornful of those which show them in a less favourable light?

[3:30]

“Dogs know what to do with polls,” is a famous quotation from an equally famous former Prime Minister of our country. But there is more to that story than just that. To my mind, there are at least four basic responses open to potential voters who are presented with the results of a public opinion poll which purports to show the standing of leaders, candidates or parties in an election campaign.

First, the voter might say that the leading party looks like a sure winner, and can therefore decide to join the bandwagon. Second, the voter might react to the notion that a certain candidate or party is going to win and vote for the second or even the third party more or less as a protest. Third, the voter might decide, since the winner is almost certain, that they don’t need his vote any way and stay at home. Fourth, the voter might wholly ignore the poll and vote his or her own way.

There are a number of bothersome elements to the choices I have just outlined. First, let’s talk about the bandwagon effect. There is a notion that such a thing cannot happen in a free democracy like ours, that all voters are rational and make up their own minds without external influences. I happen to believe that this is unfortunately, only a cherished myth.

I could tell all kinds of stories about the last election, and I am sure every member of this House could as well, about the people who said they would vote for us or against us on the basis of incomprehensible reasoning. I was asked my stand on baby seals, hanging, abortion and all manner of issues outside of provincial jurisdiction. It did no good to explain that these were federal matters, because the questioner was determined to make up his or her mind on the basis of my answer and nothing else. I am not talking about a great many people here, only a few.

But a few can very often change the outcome of an election. It doesn’t take all that many voters to be swayed by the bandwagon effect to make the difference between winning and losing.

In a two-party race, for example, every switched vote is really worth two -- one for the winner and the one that the loser lost. In a riding where two candidates are very close, by changing their mind 100 voters can mean a margin of victory of 200 and probably avoid having a recount. The question here is whether the voters change their minds because of real differences between the candidates or because the publication of a poll showed one candidate’s party to be ahead regionally or provincially. The situation is complicated all the more if the poll which influenced the voter was poorly structured, incorrectly tabulated or otherwise erroneous.

Here I might digress for a moment and talk about a curious fact in Canadian politics. All parties rely, in theory if not in practice, on their ability to identify their supporters and get them out of the polls on voting day. This is generally accomplished by canvassing door-to-door. This is, I suppose, in itself a form of opinion polling. But without the help of alert and experienced canvassers, the numbers of potential allies in most instances are vastly exaggerated.

The reason for this is that Canadians are simply too polite to tell a canvasser, particularly if the canvasser happens to be the candidate, that they will not vote for him. All kinds of smiles, nods and friendly handshakes are listed in the definite supporter category. It’s no wonder that when parties within certain tidings release the number of votes they expect to gather, the totals sometimes exceed the eligible voters by two and three to one. The point here is that the bandwagon effect, where and when it takes place, detracts from a serious evaluation of the candidates and their merits.

The second notion, that people can react negatively to the results of a poll, has often been documented. There is the famous example of the 1948 presidential election in the United States, when Thomas Dewey was the leader in all of the polls, and Harry Newman was not given a chance to become president. I meant Harry Truman. I was thinking of Bill Newman’s father, of course, who is a very good resident of my area. That idea was so strong that, as we all know, a Chicago newspaper came out with the headline, “Dewey Wins.” But we all know that Harry Truman prevailed in the end.

What is important here is that the polls were wrong. The same thing happened in the 1957 election here in Canada, when nobody expected John Diefenbaker to prevail over Louis St. Laurent. The point here is not that polls are wrong, but that people’s perceptions of reality are often very changeable.

One of the problems acknowledged by pollsters is the fact that respondents aren’t necessarily definite in their answers to questions. They may give answers along the lines they expect they should give. For instance, with regard to the question of putting a public housing project into a neighbourhood, people might say they’re all for it in response to a questionnaire,

whereas in reality they might be totally opposed to the idea. They simply wouldn’t want to appear prejudiced to the questioner.

The third option open to voters is of far greater concern to me, and that is, that poll results might encourage apathy. If one candidate or party appears to have an insurmountable lead in the polls, people might choose to stay at home on election day, thinking their vote isn’t needed or wouldn’t count in any event.

That kind of reaction is the very antithesis of the democratic ideal. We all know the importance of every vote or potential vote in an election. At this moment, there’s probably no one who knows this better than my friend and neighbour, the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz), with the possible exception of the former member for Durham East.

Mr. Samis: That’s right.

Mr. Ashe: Apathy is the concern of elected members and potential elected members. I’m not sure I would support an electoral system that forced people to vote, like the system employed in Australia, because I firmly believe people should vote on the basis of free choice. And that goes to the heart of my resolution. All of us in this House would like to believe the voters in our riding have made a firm choice on the basis of comparing the merits of all the candidates in the race. Anything that detracts from that free choice should not be encouraged.

This is particularly important for incumbents. We would all like to have our records judged fairly and openly. There isn’t a member in this assembly who does not give his or her best on behalf of the voters who elected him or her. The idea that our work would be negated by the results of a poll, especially if that poll were inaccurate or misleading, is indeed repugnant.

To sum up, Mr. Speaker, there’s a great deal of questioning being done regarding the relative value of publishing or broadcasting public opinion poll results. I happen to believe that any influence they have on the outcome of an election is bad.

I’m wholly in favour of voters making up their minds on the basis of what we, the candidates, say and do. I’m not in favour of voters being influenced, either positively or negatively, by publication of figures which show party standings. I am in favour of voters being influenced by parties and candidates, not by other voters’ notions.

The goal of every democratic society is an educated, alert, and active electorate. We should encourage every effort to have voters weigh the issues, balance the claims of the competing parties and make a rational decision.

There’s a great deal to be said on both sides of this issue, and I look forward to hearing from other speakers in this debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Durham West has not used up his time. Does he wish to reserve the balance, about seven minutes?

Mr. Ashe: I thought it was longer than that. I’ll keep it open in case it’s necessary, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Mr. Cunningham: I want to commend the member for Durham West for what appears to be a very objective and sincere suggestion. I hope a constructive idea like this will enjoy the support of all members in all three parties.

As a kind of suggestion, especially as it doesn’t involve the expenditure of public moneys, may it be reflected into law as soon as possible so the perversities that flow from the publication of inaccurate or even accurate polls would not have a disadvantageous effect on one candidate or another for any one particular party during the course of an election.

I view this particular resolution as a constructive idea. Unlike some cynics in this particular environment and out, I tend to think the suggestion was put forth very constructively and objectively, knowing that the member for Durham West, not being a member of the Executive Council, is not apprised of the standing of his own particular party in the polls at this time and to that end has no conflict of interest. Of course, as of this last week his party may not be in great favour in the public opinion polls --

Mr. Pope: You said that this morning and you’re wrong.

Mr. Cunningham: -- at this time.

However, we all know that as time goes by people may forget the effort made, quite objectively, by the opposition parties in reducing the 37.5 per cent OHIP increase and the good work done this past week. Their position in the polls at best, may be static.

The voters are getting wise to some of these polls. I appreciate the analogies put forth in an historical context by the member. I couldn’t remember 1948 -- I’m sure he’ll appreciate that. He was just in his early 30s then, so I know that he wouldn’t remember it, but --

Mr. Samis: Ask Dick about it, he will tell you.

Mr. Cunningham: -- certainly the Truman- Dewey situation was but one of the first so-called polling fiascos. In the time that has transpired --

Mr. Ashe: I was a teenager.

Mr. Cunningham: -- in the last 30 years I do not think there has been a great deal of progress in the sophistication the pollsters use at this time. Certainly in 1960 the polls indicated that President Kennedy would not enjoy the favour of the electorate in the United States, both early on and right up until the end. Of course, the results proved that wrong.

In our own domain in 1972 I recall a number of polls that indicated that Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau had no difficulty whatsoever. To quote the phrase of the federal Liberals at the time, “The land was strong,” and there was nothing to worry about. Of course the results spoke for themselves. Possibly the effect of the polls that were predominant and well published during the course of that campaign had a profound effect in one particular riding. I’m sure the member coming from that area may recall the tremendous margin enjoyed by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. I believe his margin was -- well, less than 10, anyway -- four or two. Four, was it?

If the polls had an effect, just on that riding alone, it had a perverse effect on the outcome of the election, because one seat in the hands of the Conservative Party would have caused a tie at that time and possibly the course of events as they are today may have been radically different.

I recall the 1975 provincial election, when it appeared that our party was running somewhere in excess of 40 per cent -- we’re just about there right now, I might tell you, Mr. Speaker -- and the results were not reflected in what obviously looked at the time like a Liberal government -- maybe not a majority government but a Liberal government in Ontario. We may have to wait for that yet.

I recall a by-election, and I’m sure that the hon. Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), were he here at this moment, would recall that by-election too. It was March 15, 1973. The polls at that time indicated that the Attorney General would be in by quite a pile, I think. It took some years for him to attain that kind of majority, but the polls on that occasion certainly were wrong. For the record, they were wrong by over 2,000 votes. The presence of the hon. member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) in the Legislature today and the contribution that she makes is testimony yet again to the fallacy of polls.

I recall in 1974 I was a participant in that federal election as a candidate in the constituency then called Halton-Wentworth, now redistributed. I recall driving home from the very far end of the constituency and I heard a poll as the hon. member for Durham West described, albeit not a very sophisticated one, on one of the local radio stations. It was a man-in-the-street interview. The interviewer asked who was going to win and four of five respondents indicated the incumbent was going to win. Win he did but certainly not with a margin of four out of five. The last respondent indicated that he didn’t particularly care who won as long as it wasn’t a Liberal or an NDP.

I want to assure the members of the House that in no way reflected the results of the election. In fact, it was a margin of approximately one per cent -- 26,600-some odd to 26,150 or whatever. But it wasn’t enough and we were not successful. Yet were someone to listen to that broadcast -- which I believe was done quite innocently and not with malice aforethought -- one would be of the illusion that there was only one candidate in the area to vote for and the other fellows weren’t even in the ball game.

Such was the situation, I believe, in 1977. I hope I wouldn’t be accused of being cynical, sir, if I suggested to you that the election, albeit unnecessary in 1977, was somewhat provoked by some polls which indicated that my particular party was approaching decimation and that the lender was running at somewhere around nine per cent popular opinion in the city of Toronto --

Mr. Samis: Thirteen.

Mr. Cunningham: -- not a heck of a lot more outside of Toronto. Of course, it manifested itself in a matter of confidence in the view, I suppose, of the Premier (Mr. Davis), the great six or eight per cent review debate. It certainly was a matter of utmost crucial importance to the people of Ontario.

[3:45]

I must say to you, Mr. Speaker, and not cynically in any way, that I am glad we had that election. Some of us were getting a little overweight, and it certainly was time to go out and see the people again. From my perspective then, as a member of the third party, it was time for us to move over to the official opposition.

Mr. Samis: That’s not what you said before the election.

Mr. Cunningham: Certainly for members such as the member for Durham West and the member for Durham East, who I see has left, unfortunately -- I wanted to talk about his riding very briefly, although it may not be germane to this resolution -- it was an opportunity for them to come to this Legislature and propose suggestions such as this.

The member for Durham East I suppose has been a beneficiary, albeit somewhat innocently, of these particular polls because I believe, as has been suggested, that these polls do have a real effect on the voter. It is for that reason that all political parties -- I believe the NDP do this; I know the Conservatives do; and I certainly know we do -- are involved from time to time in the polling process.

We like to know what the issues are and, most important, as politicians who inherently are concerned about what the public think of us and just what kind of favour we may curry from them in the next election, we are anxious to know just where they stand at a given moment, day to day, on a particular issue.

It would be a great idea to see the banning of these particular polls during the confines of an election. The most important thing we could do during the course of an election possibly would be to either publish attendance records or voting records or, most important, policies. If we are facing a crisis in this particular country of ours, it is a leadership crisis. It is a crisis that is not common only to Ottawa; it can be seen here on a regular basis. It can be extended even to the level of a school board or a school board’s negotiation with teachers. It is a severe problem and in many ways one that is not beyond at least a solution by members of the Legislature.

If we are going to see elections determined on the basis of traditional support, we are not going to see the kind of change within a province like this or within the country that is required from time to time. I would be very disturbed if someone stayed home because they felt their vote was useless.

Since I am being told that my time is almost up, I can only suggest to the member for Durham West in conclusion that he pursue this matter with a great fervour. As a private member in this House I would like to see resolutions such as this reflected in legislation and, of course, the importance of this process itself respected.

Mr. Samis: First of all, may I say it is almost superfluous to talk about polls when you are occupying the chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since I believe you have the largest majority in this entire province.

Mr. Ruston: Polls are just a waste in his ease.

Mr. Samis: Polls obviously are totally irrelevant in your riding because of your reputation as the landslide victor in this province of ours.

Naturally, I rise in support of this resolution, having brought in a bill saying exactly the same thing in a session immediately following the 1977 election. It has already been referred to that the province of British Columbia has had such a ban for quite a while, brought in by none other than “Wacky” Bennett, who is not world-famous as the world’s most progressive parliamentarian or democrat.

I believe Australia has a ban on polls. I don’t think it is quite as rigid as the one in British Columbia; I believe it is one week prior to the actual voting day. I notice that the new government in Quebec in its electoral platform -- since the very beginning of that party, in fact -- has advocated a ban on public opinion polls during election time. I wouldn’t be surprised that before the next provincial election in that province, such legislation will be enacted.

The member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) referred to polls in the last provincial election campaign, and I recall quite vividly the Regenstreif poll in particular. I have here some copies of articles done by somebody probably familiar to my friends to the right, none other than Harold Greer, who I think performed a tremendous service to the people of this province by demolishing the validity and methodology of that Regenstreif poll, which rendered it utterly useless.

The point is, the damage had been done, especially to our friends to the right. I recall screaming red headlines in the Toronto Star about what terrible shape the Liberal Party was in and how Stuart Smith was so badly down in the polls. We found out, after the methodology of this poll had been so logically and effectively attacked by Greer and changed, the results of the second poll prior to the actual election were considerably different.

I think the Regenstreif poll in the last provincial election was an excellent argument for why polls should be banned in this particular province. I notice some quotes I came across when doing a little reading on this. For example, author Walter Stewart says: “Polls are a nuisance at best, a danger at worst.”

One, in which the member for Durham West might be interested from the Globe and Mail, June 2, 1977: “I think there have to be some controls. I think you can alter the democratic process if you aren’t careful. They do have some effect, and they can be -- while manipulated isn’t the right word, but you can have some figures that vary from what can be the case.” I think it was the hon. member for Brampton (Mr. Davis) who uttered that statement in the Globe and Mail.

We all know what John Diefenbaker said about polls; I don’t think we have to reiterate that.

I was interested in what Edwin Newman, the American journalist, said about polls: “It is a bad business because it puts the emphasis in the election in the wrong place, on who is thought to be ahead rather than what the candidates propose and rather what their election might mean.” I think that is the nub of the whole matter, quite frankly. We are here to be judged by what we stand for, not who is going to win or who has the best chance of winning.

I notice the former leader of the federal Conservative Party has been very critical of the role that polls played in the 1968 and 1972 elections, especially the polls published in the last 10 days, and their actual effect on the results of those two campaigns.

I notice Hugh Whelan had an interesting comment from the University of Newfoundland. He argues: “A four per cent error on a total vote of 40 per cent, for example, should be considered as an error of 10 per cent, not four per cent.” By his yardstick: “Gallup has been outside his stated margin of error on almost every occasion since 1945.”

In the 1972 federal results of the Regenstreif poll, for example, the margin of error is rather interesting. The Liberals are plus six, Tories are minus four, NDP are plus one, and Social Credit are minus three. Go back a little further to 1968; the Liberals are minus one, the Tories are minus four, and the Social Credit, minus two. Looking back at the ‘75 provincial election, the Regenstreif record in terms of margin of error; Liberals plus seven, Conservatives minus three, and NDP minus three. This is hardly the world’s greatest record for accuracy. I must say, in comparison, the Gallup record is considerably better.

I think there is no question there has to be some form of regulation. But who would regulate it? Who is there in the media to regulate it? I, unfortunately, don’t have confidence that there is any meaningful, effective agency to do that, and that is why I support the bill. That is why I think we need a complete ban on all polls between the issuing of the writs and election day, provided those polls are based on the standing of the party leader, the standing of any political party, or the standing of any particular candidate.

I would not be opposed to publication of polls on particular issues during the campaign. But I wholeheartedly agree polls on any of the candidates, or the leaders of the parties should be completely banned. Obviously, the publication of a poll especially favourable to one party or unfavourable to another affects the political party’s performance, its ability to raise funds, its ability to recruit workers, and its ability to motivate workers and supporters.

I think the member for Durham West has already suggested that if one poll shows a party a particularly long way in front then some of the voters become apathetic, or they say, “They don’t need my vote. Why should I vote? What value is there in my vote? It is already sewn up.” That is very destructive, I think, to the democratic process.

Then there is also the danger that when polls are published some people may swing one way merely because of the result of a poll. I was rather interested in what a famous Tory by the name of Winston Churchill said: “Nothing is more dangerous than to live in the temperamental atmosphere of a Gallup poll, always feeling one’s pulse and taking one’s temperature. There is only one duty, one safe course, and that is to try to be right, not to fear to do or say what you believe to be right.” That is a danger of the public relying too heavily on polls.

As I said, there is some restriction on the information of the general public and I know some will say: “What about freedom of information or access to information?” But what this resolution or my own bill would do is prevent the publication of polls for a total of five weeks out of the 208 weeks in a normal four-year term of office. I don’t think that is a very drastic curtailment.

I know some will still argue that it is an absolute right of information. I don’t really believe that because I don’t really believe we have control over how the polls are being used by the people who publish them. Let’s remember that not every political party can afford to have a poll done, not every newspaper can afford to have a poll done, not every television station can afford it and not every radio station can afford it.

When they are done, what control do we have on how they are being used, whether they are front page, whether they are screaming headlines while the actual results are buried in the back or whether certain questions are ignored and only one question is built up as the conclusion of a newspaper? We have no control over that. I think that’s a powerful factor in how people can be influenced. If a newspaper has a very built-in bias -- and most of them in this province do -- it can seize upon a poll to become a part of its overall electoral campaign to build up one party or to denigrate another party and, in that sense, the people are very poorly served.

I recall quite vividly during my own election in 1974, a by-election, when a television station from Ottawa came down two days prior to the actual voting day and proudly proclaimed in a poll that I would be third on election day that particular week. Naturally the good burghers of Cornwall have more sense than that. I think it was very instructive in a sense in that they gave no indication of how the poll was done, they gave no indication of who conducted it, how many people were interviewed, what the question asked was and what expertise was involved by the people who conducted it.

They just came out with a bald percentage, stating that if the election were held today, X, Y and Z would get the following percentages. I think that’s shortchanging the people. Again, I come back to my point: There were no controls over any of those criteria or factors because there is no legislation.

On that basis, I think the easiest and most effective way of handling that situation would be to eliminate polls from the issuing of the writs to the actual election day. We all know that polls have a value in democracy. We all know they are very useful between elections. But I think that we must want people to vote on the basis of who is the best candidate, who has the best record, who offers the most to people and which party would best serve the interests of the vote -- not who would win, not who was most likely to win, but who would be the best.

Mr. Johnson: Since all parties are agreed on this debate, maybe we could have the vote now and dispense with the rest of the speeches.

Mr. Kerrio: Give us time.

Mr. Johnson: Failing that, I would like to congratulate the member for Durham West for presenting such an excellent resolution that it received such unanimous support. When I first considered this resolution I was rather indifferent to the idea, as I believe were many other members in the House. After reading some of the literature on the impact of public opinion polls on the electorate, I find myself prepared to support this resolution.

Generally, much of what has been written on this topic can be divided into two categories: The material prepared by the pollsters themselves and articles and books written by political scientists, academics and journalists. The general consensus among the former group, the pollsters, is that public opinion polls do not interfere with the electoral process, nor do they influence votes. In their view, polls are simply a tool to provide a better understanding of the election, its candidates and the issues. Their position is understandable since they have a vested interest in this matter.

I might also point out that many of the articles were written for others in their profession. Those I have perused were generally sophisticated, methodically oriented and, quite frankly, beyond my understanding.

I was quite surprised however, to find that opinion was divided among the other group. There were those who argued in defence of public opinion polls during an election. But on the other hand, there were those who expressed doubts about their credibility. Others were unconvinced that public opinion polls influence the opinions that they seek to measure. This, of course, is not done intentionally. The most common perceptions are the bandwagon effect and the reverse bandwagon effect. The implications of the former are obvious.

Voters, upon hearing or reading the results of an opinion poll, may decide that their vote is not needed if their candidate appears to have a comfortable margin over the competition. Supporters of the trailing candidate may lose heart or donations may dwindle because the candidate has fallen behind; or a voter may alter his vote to support a winning team.

[4:00]

A classic example of this was the 1936 election. Harry Truman, who had no love for public opinion polls, stated: “I accuse the Republicans of issuing false polls with high ratings for their party in order to keep Democrats away on election day.”

Hence, he dubbed them “sleeping polls.” Harry also had some definite opinion about the polls in the 1948 election, many not fit to repeat in this chamber.

A recent study by Robert Navazio in the Public Opinion Quarterly does support the theory that an opinion poll can play a role in influencing voting patterns. Although he stated that his results must be used with caution and they run contrary to other studies, he does point out the inherent weakness in previous bandwagon studies and suggests that if his methods were used in a wider area the results would be the same.

The reverse bandwagon effect is evident in cases where voters are drawn to a trailing candidate because he’s the underdog. Mervin D. Feld, a leading California pollster, has put forward this argument in a well documented speech to the American Psychological Association in 1968. Leo Bogart in Silent Politics has stated that there is some very limited experimental evidence that supports the common-sense supposition that when a poll report shows that candidate or position is favoured by the majority, there is a corresponding change in voting intention and opinion.

If, indeed, this relationship does exist, and I believe that it does, then I believe that it is in the interest of the voting public to support this resolution.

In my view, Mr. Speaker, the electorate has a responsibility to make up its mind on the merit of the candidates involved, on the issues and on its perspective of the political party whom the candidate is representing. Is the interest of democracy being served if it is otherwise? I think not.

I remember a quote from Walter Bagehot: “Public opinion is a permeating influence. It requires us to think other men’s thoughts, to speak other men’s words and to follow other men’s habits.”

When we appear before the electorate, do we want to be judged on the basis of trends or opinion polls, or do we want to be judged by the service we have rendered to our constituents, or the merit of the platforms that our parties have put before the people of Ontario and on the assumption that people are concerned enough to judge us on that basis and that alone?

When I first looked at the impact of public opinion polls upon the electorate during writ period, I did so with an open mind. Frankly, I could have been persuaded either way. But after reading a representative sample of the material on the subject, I came to support the resolution placed before this House.

I am not convinced the polls are always accurate. Like most of us here, I believe those who favour my position and disbelieve and question those who do not. I do not question the intelligence of the electorate to see through them, but at the same time they may place an inaccurate picture before the public. If it does have an effect upon the public, as some of the literature I read suggests, then I believe this resolution should be passed.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) was to be here but he is in the justice committee and I think he may be on his way up. I’ll take a few minutes and if there’s time later on he may be able to come in.

With regard to this resolution, ballot item 13 with regard to opinion polls, I feel I could support the resolution. I don’t know that they have the effect that some people here have said, but the problem I find with them is that I don’t think some of them are taken in any great depth. That creates a problem if they have a tendency to sway the vote one way or another. I have heard many people say at times that they don’t think even the press should come out with editorials in favour of one candidate or another, or one party or another, but since we have freedom of the press and they have that right, I am sure that can’t ever be accomplished.

However, it’s interesting when you see what happens in the polis. The member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) mentioned it quite well, that when we talk about the polls we need only go back to those just in the last few years. Of course, the famous one in the United States was the one involving President Truman.

In our own case here in 1975, I happened to be coming back from a trip and I got a copy of one of the Toronto papers on the plane. It was kind of a nice ending to a trip to see the results of that poll showing our party doing so well. However, a few months later when election day ended it didn’t pan out quite that way. Sometimes maybe it builds up false hopes for those who like to see the polls one way, and on the other hand, it’s the opposite in other cases. So, one has doubts about them in that way.

I think the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) mentioned about the poll a year or two ago, when one of the columnists spent a great deal of detail and time looking over how it was made up and surveyed, and he proved without too much doubt that the way the poll was taken left a very great deal to be desired.

I could support this, Mr. Speaker. I think I would not want to take it all the way as far as policies and things like that are concerned. I think we have got to leave that open, because after all that is part of politics. I don’t have any objections to that. I think that should be left open. I think the main criterion should be strictly the standing of one party or one leader, whatever the ease might be, as opposed to policies and not on any other matter. After all, the people have a right to know if there is a poll taken as to certain policies, even during the election campaign. I certainly have no objection to that.

With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would support the resolution.

Mr. Deans: I don’t intend to speak at any great length on this matter but I think it’s worth some discussion because polls, of course, cut both ways. There are those who argue that they tend to influence public opinion: if you appear to be winning, then people join your side. There are, of course, those of us who might argue that the poll is sometimes interpreted the other way: if you appear to be winning they leave you in droves in order to make sure that you don’t win.

Mr. Samis: There was no poll on that though.

Mr. Deans: And so I always have to look at this from both sides.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It depends on which party you are in.

Mr. Samis: You have had a unique experience.

Mr. Deans: I can remember, like most of the members, the pre-1975 polls which showed the Liberal Party at 41 per cent, the Tories trailing somewhat, and us nowhere. As it turned out, they were inaccurate, to say the least.

I have never put a lot of stock in polls but I do think their intention is wrong. it’s not just simply to give people information, unfortunately. The use of polls is really an attempt to manipulate; an attempt to manipulate people not to support someone else.

And there is no way to test the validity of them. There is no way to test the methodology; no way to determine whether or not the poll is an accurate reflection of anything. You don’t know the question, you don’t know the methods used to determine the answer, and the end result, quite frankly, is that the poll is inaccurate.

During an election period we are attempting to provide the public of Ontario with a clear opportunity to sit back and view the platforms of the various parties and the candidate qualifications; to muddy the waters by injecting into the equation polls which may have questionable validity or no validity at all doesn’t serve the cause of democracy very well.

I wish in many ways that governments and politicians in general were as interested in public opinion between elections as they appear to be during elections; as interested in the publishing of polls between elections as they appear to be during elections. I am sure there are many people in the province of Ontario who would be extremely eager to exercise the opportunity to respond to some serious questions in matters of the economy of the province, and matters of the handling of the labour relations in the province and in many other matters.

Yet nobody seems to bother very much about polling the electorate on those matters. In fact they tend to shy away from doing it for fear it may reflect positions which are not consistent with the things they want to do.

So on balance, I feel it would be helpful to eliminate the taking and publication of polls, but particularly the publication of public opinion polls during elections.

I just finished reading a book that deals with the vice-presidential candidacy of George McGovern. If you were to read it, you would find just how public opinion polls can be manipulated, just how easily they can be misinterpreted, always inadvertently of course, by those who would have them published. In fact you often find there really isn’t any poll at all, that it is just an opinion somebody leaks to the press in an effort to alter the voting intention of numbers, if not large numbers, of the overall population.

You can imagine in today’s multicultural, multiracial society that unless there were very carefully defined and designed methods of poll-taking, unless there was some clear jurisdiction over the questions which could be asked, and unless there was some final legal responsibility placed upon those who take the polls for their authenticity, it would be very simple -- and I don’t doubt for a moment it has happened -- to misrepresent the position of a candidate or a political party in an effort to bring about the result desired by the person who had either paid for or would be the beneficiary of the poll.

It might not represent the view of the vast majority of people if the question were put to them more forthrightly.

If you can’t get acceptance of the proposal to eliminate or prohibit the publishing and use of polls during an election, it might be that we should take a look at registering pollsters and setting out how those people can undertake the polling, the uses to which they can be put, and the way in which the information has to be distributed throughout the jurisdictions in order to guarantee an impartiality and fairness that would guarantee at least some degree of honesty in the methods used and the goals of the poll-taking operation.

[4:15]

Maybe we should say people taking polls have to clearly maintain a record of the questions and the methods used in determining the answers. In the event they are found to be improper and done without proper care, and therefore an attempt to improperly influence the voting patterns of the electorate, the person who is responsible for the design of the poll should be legally responsible for the consequences. Maybe that would tend to make them a little more honest in the long haul. I don’t know how you would do it, it’s a pretty complex problem; but it may be that should be done throughout, maybe that’s something that should be done in any event.

When the members of the Legislature attempt to influence public opinion, they do so knowing full well that they are answerable for their actions. If the Premier (Mr. Davis) stands and makes statements in an attempt to influence public opinion in the direction of the Conservative Party, or if the leader of the official opposition, the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith) does likewise, or the leader of the New Democratic Party does the same; there is an ultimate responsibility. That responsibility is that the ele