The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR WENTWORTH

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House of a vacancy which has occurred in the membership of the House since the last session by reason of the resignation of Ian Deans, Esquire, as member for the electoral district of Wentworth.

INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBER

Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Clerk had received from the chief election officer, and laid upon the table, the certificate of a by-election held on December 14, 1978:

Electoral district of Sault Ste. Marie: R. H. Ramsay.

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO

This is to certify that in view of a writ of election dated October 30, 1978, issued by the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario and addressed to Curtis A. Scott, Esquire, returning officer for the electoral district of Sault Ste. Marie, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of Sault Ste. Marie in the Legislative Assembly of the province, in the room of John R. Rhodes, Esquire, who, since his election as representative of the said electoral district of Sault Ste. Marie, has departed this life, R. H. Ramsay, Esquire, has been returned as duly elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election, dated December 27, 1978, which is now lodged of record in my office.

(Signed) Roderick Lewis, Chief Election Officer; Toronto, February 5, 1979.

R. H. Ramsay, Esquire, member-elect for the electoral district of Sault Ste. Marie, having taken the oaths and subscribed the roll, took his seat.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you and to the House Mr. Russell Ramsay, who was successful in the electoral district of Sault Ste. Marie, who has taken the oaths, signed the roll and wishes now to take his seat.

Mr. Speaker: Let the honourable member take his seat.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Provincial Police have completed an investigation into alleged incidents of abuse against residents of the Huronia Regional Centre for the Mentally Retarded in Orillia.

I want to share with members our conclusions about these allegations, and announce an initiative which we are implementing immediately.

In July last year, the administrator of Huronia regional centre reported that he had received letters from two former employees who believed, on the basis of their experience in the facility, that certain retarded residents were being abused by certain members of the staff.

Acting on the instruction of senior staff of the ministry, the administrator requested the police to conduct a full investigation.

Officers of the OPP’s criminal investigation branch spent four months investigating the charges and, in the process, they interviewed approximately 120 persons.

The police report concluded that while there was some evidence to suggest resident abuse by, at most, a handful of the 1,400 staff members, there was limited or no corroboration of some allegations and nothing at all to substantiate other allegations. In some instances there was a substantial time lag between the occurrence and the police investigation. Some allegations related back to incidents in 1976 and 1977. In most cases, it became a question of the word of one employee, or former employee, against the word of another employee.

My colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry), advised me of the provincial police decision not to lay criminal charges against any individual. The OPP and the crown attorney in Barrie based this decision in part on the fact that the alleged victims were severely retarded and, therefore, could not themselves serve as crown witnesses.

Also, many of the alleged offences were common assaults and the statutory limitation for such charges had expired.

I received a copy of the final investigation report in late December and I have reviewed it in detail with senior officials of my ministry. Ministry officials undertook a further investigation to find out whether just cause existed for disciplinary action. We have concluded that there are not grounds to warrant disciplinary action against any individuals for basically the same reasons which led the police not to lay criminal charges.

There is limited evidence to suggest that some residents may have been abused by certain staff. There is not enough specific evidence, however, to enable the ministry to proceed with disciplinary measures against any employee.

It is a better course, I believe, to eliminate conditions which may create an environment in which abuse is regarded as acceptable behaviour by some individuals. For example, we must come to grips with the problems of stress which could lead an otherwise good employee to abuse a person in his or her care; and when we recruit and train staff to provide such care, we must accentuate, in all their complexity, the special qualities which it demands.

Accordingly, I am announcing today implementation of a co-operative program to improve the job environment for employees and the living environment for residents in our facilities.

Our network of residential facilities for the mentally retarded in this province had its origin in the natural concern of Ontarians to care compassionately for those with mental handicaps. That system also reflected the popular belief of the time that what the retarded needed most basically was simple sustenance and a secure protection against exploitation by others.

Our experience in working with the retarded over the past generation has taught us that such an evaluation of the retarded person underestimated seriously his or her capacity to learn, to enjoy a rich emotional life and to make a contribution to life in community with others.

Many of the initiatives in service undertaken over the past decade by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and before us by our colleagues in the Ministry of Health, reflected our increasing appreciation of those abilities. The integration of many retarded people into our communities is a tangible and important example. It is crucial to the evolution of our service that our regional centres for the mentally retarded continue to reflect our concern for the personal and individual growth of their residents. A major component of our progress to that end will be the degree to which we can enable staff members with direct-care responsibilities to make their special contributions to that growth.

An essential part of that contribution is the protection of those in their care. A specific improvement has been made already in the reporting of alleged incidents of abuse, following the establishment last June of formal guidelines which direct the immediate investigation of each allegation. Those guidelines are being followed now in all of our facilities. They represent a crucial element in our efforts to ensure that protection of residents is achieved.

I am confident that all but very few of the 6,000 concerned and competent staff members entrusted with the responsibility of caring for the retarded feel both pride and purpose in what they have helped accomplish. While our principal objective of providing protection, care, comfort and skills training to the retarded must be maintained, we must emphasize an equally important commitment to create an environment wherein employees experience satisfaction in what they do and share a feeling of accomplishment in what they have achieved.

It is in that light that we are initiating a co-operative program to identify and establish improvements in the every-day life in our facilities, starting with Huronia and Oxford regional centre in Woodstock. This program will engage the talents and perspectives of our management officials, direct-care staff and residents to develop a model of sensitive and helping service which will be applied to all our facilities.

Mr. McClellan: What does this mean?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The style of the plan will be based on consultation with and participation of all levels of staff in our facilities. The plan will deal with such issues as internal communications, staff attitudes and behaviour, and management and supervisory practices. It is my belief that this initiative will benefit both staff and residents as well as our future endeavours in the care and development of the mentally retarded.

Mr. Breaugh: This has got to be a new tactic to keep this government in power for another three months.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We have a clear responsibility to make whatever contribution we can to nurture and enrich the lives of those who depend upon us for help. The initiative I have announced is, I believe, a vital aspect of my ministry’s commitment to that goal.

Mr. McClellan: What does it mean? Why doesn’t the minister tell us what it means?

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR HANDICAPPED

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would like to enlarge on a statement that was contained in the speech of Her Honour on Tuesday last, a statement which referred to this government’s commitment to financially support public transportation services for Ontario’s disabled.

To begin with, let me point out that over the past two or three years my ministry has co-operated with Metro Toronto, Ottawa-Carleton, Sault Ste. Marie, Peterborough and Chatham in experimenting with such transportation, using specialized minibuses, vans, passenger cars, et cetera, for individuals physically unable to board conventional transit systems.

The option to experiment with specialized vehicles, rather than attempting to convert conventional transit vehicles now in use, was based on what we believed the most appropriate way to go. The experience gained has confirmed this opinion. Our neighbours to the south who did use modified systems also convinced us we were pursuing the appropriate course of action here in Ontario.

Another plus for the specialized system approach is that mobility can be provided almost immediately, rather than later if we were to modify existing systems. Therefore, because there will be no service limitations, the criticisms levelled during some portions of the experiment should be answered. In fact, the only material limitation will be a minimum fare similar to regular transit fares, which must be charged, and a provincial ceiling which cannot be exceeded.

[2:15]

In brief, the province will help municipalities applying for financial assistance for the kinds of specialized transportation services that I have noted, services which the municipalities operate themselves or contract out on their behalf. Such operators may, of course, include non-profit organizations, et cetera.

As the costs of this type of service are substantial, the province will contribute 50 per cent of the municipal cost incurred in providing services for the physically disabled up to a limit rated on a per capita basis established as a result of our previous experience. This limit was arrived at by the extensive monitoring and study of the experimental services. We feel it will allow participating municipalities to operate services geared to local demand, or in other words similar to the transit service available to able-bodied individuals.

However, in that the mobility needs of the physically disabled are somewhat greater than those for the able bodied and their choice of transportation means is somewhat restricted, financial assistance will be available to municipalities with or without conventional transit services.

In order, then, to fully realize the potential which exists within Ontario municipalities, funds donated to a municipality for the transportation of the physically disabled may be considered to form all or part of the municipal portion in the expenses shared with the province. In addition, gifts in kind will not be evaluated as contributing towards the funding ceiling.

Provincial support will be available as of July 1 of this year and an explanatory policy summary will he mailed shortly to all municipalities known to have expressed an interest.

If any members who may wish to have further information on this new system of transportation for the handicapped would contact my office, we would be pleased to send them the full information.

STANDING ORDERS

Mr. Speaker: Just before we get to oral questions, I want to remind honourable members that we approved and passed the new standing orders on December 14 last. It was a decision taken unanimously by the House, and since we are about to approach the oral questions I want to draw honourable members’ attention to a particular section of 27 which says in part: “In the discretion of Mr. Speaker, a reasonable number of supplementary questions arising out of the minister’s reply to an oral question may be asked by any members.” Similarly, in putting an oral question, “no argument or opinion is to be offered nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same; and in answering any such question, the member” -- which includes all ministers -- “is not to debate the matter to which it refers.”

So with that slight admonition we will go to oral questions.

HYDRO EXPANSION PROGRAM

Mr. S. Smith: I take it I have just been read my rights, Mr Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The last rites.

Mr S Smith: I would like to address a question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Premier explain to the House and to the people why he and his cabinet approved Ontario Hydro’s expansion program, project by project, when he knew very well early in 1976 that the Treasury of Ontario had done a careful study which concluded that Hydro’s growth forecasts were much too high?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition is perhaps oversimplifying the matter.

Mr. Peterson: Why don’t you complicate it?

Mr. Breaugh: Do you want to read that rule again?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member for London Centre, it may be a little too complicated for me but it is obviously far too complicated for him, something he will never totally understand. Particularly with his stated objective of world price for oil; I will never understand that.

Mr. Speaker: That was not part of the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, you are quite right.

Mr. Peterson: I am sorry I said anything.

Mr. Speaker: And shouldn’t be part of the answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: To try to deal with it as briefly as I can, to say that cabinet in fact dealt with this on a project by project basis, I think the select committee that has been involved in these discussions will understand the complexity of the process that Ontario Hydro has used. I think it is quite evident that taking the historical record of Ontario Hydro with respect to their load forecasts, and not getting into a debate today as to the validity of their forecasts in 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977, this government has given to Hydro certain responsibilities which historically, in the history of their responsibilities in this province, they have discharged extremely well.

I recognize this is a matter of great concern and of great interest to the Leader of the Opposition. I would only say to him that this government has great confidence in the future economic life of this province. We are concerned about the international instability in terms of energy, the question of oil prices. The Leader of the Opposition may have greater confidence in what the Ayatollah may do in Iran; I don’t. I’m prepared to put my confidence in an indigenous resource making available to the people of this province electricity in abundant supply so we can be competitive --

Mr. J. Reed: You don’t even understand the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- so that we can provide the economic base so we can have jobs for the people of this province. I’m not minimizing the difficulty but I say to the opposition, please don’t try to simplistically put it on the government that we approved or disapproved of individual projects. We are in support of Hydro doing its job to the best of its ability.

An hon. member: Its ability isn’t very good.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You can quarrel with its ability. You can quarrel with it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say something else now that I have been provoked. It’s great to second guess. We all have 20-20 hindsight. The Leader of the Opposition has this in abundance. But I would say to him that in spite of any overcapacity, the fact is the residential consumers :in this province are still obtaining electrical energy at a lower price than in any competing jurisdiction in North America, with the exception of the province of Quebec.

Mr. Van Horne: In spite of that it’s 40 per cent higher than it should be.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that has to be restated time and time again. I look at the distinguished member to the leader’s right who is concerned about Atikokan and I understand it.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Is the Premier saying that the cabinet did not deal with this project by project, and does he not recall having to pass an order in council for every single project of Hydro. Did they not even consider it? Was it cabinet’s decision to overrule the Treasury’s forecast, which was considerably lower than Hydro’s forecast at the time? If, when doing this, the reason the cabinet overruled the Treasury itself was because the cabinet anticipated difficulty in the Middle East, can the Premier possibly tell the people of Ontario what form of protection we get against the Iranian oil problem by having excess unused Hydro generation capacity? What type of substitution for oil does he anticipate will take place?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, one thing I’d make obvious to the Leader of the Opposition is that to a certain extent Hydro’s generating capacity does relate to the price of oil -- to a certain extent, and not Iranian oil, I acknowledge that. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, who has expressed his concern about the overcapacity which means some costs per week for the consumer, tinder his policy of world price for oil, every time a dollar is put on the barrel it is $300 million to the consumers of this province. Why doesn’t he start putting things in perspective and understand it?

I had no insights into what was going to happen in the Middle East; I don’t think anybody did.

Mr. Van Horne: You should, you spent enough time travelling around over there.

Mr. J. Reed: You were there.

Mr. Kerrio: What did you go for?

Hon. Mr. Davis: But I think anybody who for the past four years has not understood that the world supply of energy, whether it’s oil or natural gas or electricity, is vulnerable and is volatile, and that we should be making every effort to have security of electrical energy related to an indigenous resource available to the people of this province, I would say with respect to the Leader of the Opposition, is not discharging his responsibility in an appropriate fashion.

I’d say something else. We’ve had forecasts from Treasury; we’ve had forecasts from Hydro. It is the easiest thing in the world to start second guessing those people who have responsibility. It was not a question of overruling or disregarding the forecasts of Treasury at all. We take all of the information that is available to us, but under the existing situation, which was approved by the members of this House --

Mr. Warner: Hydro’s out of control. Why don’t you bring Hydro under public control?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I recall some of the debates in this House when the Power Corporation Act was passed, that responsibility ultimately lies with Ontario Hydro.

Mr. J. Reed: Guess who voted against it.

Mr. Warner: If you can’t do that, you should resign; get out of here. Put it under public control.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I re-emphasize, Mr. Speaker, they have on balance, historically, traditionally, done it very well. And please, when the member goes to Scarborough West the next time, when he talks about rates, please tell the residents there the truth. Tell them that they are paying less than in Detroit, that they are paying less than they are in Cleveland, New York City; any competing jurisdiction in North America.

Mr. Makarchuk: But those are private enterprises.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the Premier saying that cents per day, per person in the province of Ontario are insignificant; because if that’s the case, has he read the speech by his own Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) just the other day to the municipal electrical utilities, where he estimated that three cents a day was equal to overcharging by Hydro by $100 million a year because of misestimates in the past? Is the Premier saying there is nothing to be made of $100 million that people are paying in excess charges by Hydro today?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will say this for the leader of the New Democratic Party and his party, at least there is some measure of consistency, unlike the Liberals on this issue.

I am concerned about three cents a day. I am concerned about 21 cents a week. I am concerned about anything the consumer is paying, but I do re-emphasize that the capacity of Hydro, in terms of forecasts, et cetera, one can debate in the House, but the fact remains the consumer in this province is still paying less than in most comparable or competing jurisdictions. Where I have great difficulty in understanding the policies opposite, is where they are prepared to go to world price for oil, which at $1 a barrel, and in today’s market that doesn’t seem too difficult to achieve, but in a matter of 48 hours represents $300 million to the consumers of this province.

Mr. J. Reed: It’s obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier has no conception whatsoever of the technical aspects of transferring, of using electric power --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. J. Reed: -- as some kind of hedge against the shortage of oil. Now I have a question.

Mr. Speaker: Please put it.

Mrs. Campbell: I wish you would keep the Premier in order.

Mr. Speaker: It is not the responsibility of the Premier to ask questions. Just answer them.

Mr. J. Reed: Is the Premier not aware that his own ministry has done a forecast for electric power growth in Ontario a full one per cent per year lower than Hydro’s forecast, which the Premier seems to accept holus-bolus? Does he not also realize that this jurisdiction, among all of the jurisdictions in North America, is the highest?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of all of the load forecasts in every jurisdiction in North America. I must confess that to the honourable member.

Mr. J. Reed: He should be aware of it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am aware that there is perhaps a differential in terms of the forecast of Ontario Hydro and the Ministry of Energy. I understand that the load forecast for Ontario Hydro is 4.1 and the ministry’s is 3.7, something of that nature. I understand from discussions that took place in the committee that the committee itself hasn’t really assessed the differential between the two load forecasts. I would say with respect, Mr. Speaker, the members of this House will look forward to being informed by the members of the select committee as to a rationalization.

As I recall the criteria that went into the load forecast of the Ministry of Energy -- I can’t speak for Hydro -- there were some 1,500 assumptions that are made, I would say with respect to the very distinguished member, when you are predicting on the basis of 1,500 assumptions, some of which may not necessarily be right, that one has to be very careful in saying the Ministry of Energy is correct and Ontario Hydro is wrong. I think, with respect Mr. Speaker, surely that’s not what the select committee is looking for in any event. Surely we are looking for a reasonable load forecast. For me to get up here and say that I have the exact figure, Mr. Speaker -- unlike the distinguished member from Halton Hills, I don’t pretend to have that ability; and with respect neither does he.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Premier, since Ontario Hydro now has an excess generating capacity of upwards of 4,000 megawatts and the government has asked it to seek markets in the United States, if possible on a firm contract basis, in order to use this; would the Premier not agree that the government shares with Hydro the responsibility for building that excess generating capacity beyond its necessary reserves, because the government authorized each one of those plants, even in defiance of the lower forecast that TEIGA was presenting?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Davis: What the distinguished member for York South is suggesting is somewhat more understandable and logical than some of the observations I have heard on this issue to date. What I really think he is saying is, should we, out of general revenues, in order to retain the ongoing growth of Ontario Hydro, with the possibility that we may need it more rapidly than even some of the forecasters say and knowing the vulnerability of this jurisdiction with respect to energy supply, should we offset some of the costs to Hydro through general taxation revenues rather than through rates?

Mr. MacDonald: I didn’t say that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member was suggesting that. It was implicit in what he said. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we await the select committee’s recommendations.

Mr. MacDonald: Could I put my question? That’s a good answer to a question I didn’t ask.

My question is this: Since Hydro admittedly has a generating capacity of upwards of 4,000 megawatts beyond the reserve they need, and it is scrambling for markets for that in the United States so that the burden can be lessened on the consumers in this province; doesn’t the government have to share responsibility for that excess generating capacity, because the government authorized each one of the plants, even though TEIGA’s forecast indicated those plants wouldn’t all be needed?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, let’s be very realistic in this chamber. Whether we assume some responsibility or not, there are some members opposite who, for whatever reasons, sometimes politically motivated, will endeavour to give us that responsibility. I am a realist and I know the member for York South, being an objective, fair-minded chairman, would never take that point of view.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Well, who should be paying?

Mr. MacDonald: That’s what I call a snow job.

CO-PAYMENT FEES

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my second question to the Minister of Health. Can the Minister of Health tell us, regarding his chronic care co-payment fees, whether in fact the government has now changed its mind with regard to levying this particular fee against psychiatric patients? What is the status of that plan?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact I have recommended to the cabinet, based on a review of the situation and the fact that there is no easy way to determine a chronic psychiatric patient in one of our psychiatric hospitals since they are all technically active treatment beds, that we drop the plans for this charge. Also, there is, of course, the fact that those who are in homes for special care who are longer-term residents do pay the same co-payment as both nursing home, and as of April 1, active-treatment chronic care.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, welcoming as I do this decision on the part of the minister, can the minister explain why it was he announced this plan in the first place? Did he not study these matters properly before sending all sorts of announcements out to the public of Ontario, frightening the people who are in hospital, frightening theft families? Does the minister not take some time to study his plans and the recommendations of his ministry before inflicting them on the public; and then withdrawing them later, tail between his legs?

Mr. Bradley: And did he check with Frank Drea?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I hadn’t noticed anything behind me. Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the honourable member would have commended any ministry that, on examination, finding the effect of a plan to be unworkable, did withdraw it. At the outset the purpose was to maintain fairness and equity between active physical care and psychiatric care. It was found to be unworkable without creating a great deal of bureaucratic nonsense in the psychiatric hospitals, so it has been dropped.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister, using the same fine rationale and for the very same reasons, would now get rid of his chronic care deterrent fee as well?

Mr. Speaker: That is not supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: May I answer it? I would love to answer it, Mr. Speaker. I would love to ask them to tell me about the caucus they had last October before theft members signed the select committee report on behalf of the party. I would like to ask them what happened in the debate last November in this House on the select committee report. I would like to ask where that member was in the standing committee on social development --

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the minister’s function to answer questions, not ask them.

Mr. Conway: A supplementary on the psychiatric charge to which the Leader of the Opposition directed his attention: Can the minister point to any recommendation for that psychiatric charge that he did introduce?

I am aware of the recommendations that called for the chronic user charge, but where in the ministry or elsewhere was there a specific recommendation for that psychiatric charge that was made part of the package?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would take the recommendation of the select committee, of which the honourable member was a member, to cover all types of care, inasmuch as you did refer to nursing home care, in which in fact special care residents are from time to time housed.

HYDRO LOAD FORECASTS

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. In view of the fact that the government is now estimating that the cost of overcapacity at Hydro is costing the consumers $100 million a year; and in view of the fact that Hydro says itself that a one per cent error in forecasting future growth demand will wind up costing the consumers of this province half a billion dollars a year in power charges; will the minister direct Hydro to produce forecasts of future demand which are much more reliable than those we have had revealed in recent weeks before Hydro makes its decisions about future system expansion?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Perhaps I could start off by pointing out --

Mr. Makarchuk: It’s hard to stop you once you start.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You have got to rebuild the system.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- that the figures that are being talked about at the moment are not quite the same. That is the Ministry of Energy’s forecast, so-called, members of the committee will recall, was not presented to the committee as an energy forecast but as an energy demand model for all kinds of energy in the province. That is being compared to Ontario Hydro’s load forecasts for peak demand for the east system. There are a great many suppositions that are involved in those two things which are quite different and they are not comparable prognostications. In fact the energy demand models showed a number of scenarios, in the current jargon.

Moving on from that --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Auld: As I say, Mr. Speaker, moving right along: I think Ontario Hydro’s own forecasters, or main forecaster, has indicated that a forecast for a 20 or 30 year period is a very difficult thing to do.

Mr. Makarchuk: Is that the forecast of the first part or the forecast of the second part?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Start from the beginning, Jim.

Mr. Makarchuk: Start again.

Hon. Mr. Auld: That is a great straight line, but I’ll avoid it.

In fact, our people and Hydro are looking at the suppositions that were made on which both forecasts -- the electrical parts of our forecasts and the Hydro load forecasts -- were made. I am sure that since the committee is also doing a forecast, and I see that Dr. Porter is going to be doing a forecast, we will have a variety to look at pretty soon.

Mr. Samis: You make Jim Taylor look like a piker.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why don’t you ask a supplementary?

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: I have listened with care to the obscure comments of the minister, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, he is saying he rejects the forecast prepared by his ministry because it looked at all energy demands in the province, and that he prefers to look at a forecast prepared by Hydro because it only looks at electricity.

I would ask the minister does he, having rejected the advice of his own experts in the ministry, also reject the comments that were made just last week by the distinguished professor of electrical engineering, Dr. Arthur Porter, who was the chairman of the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning, who said that he found Ontario Hydro’s submissions on forecasting were inadequate on several grounds, not least because they were extremely difficult to understand.

If even Dr. Porter doesn’t know what the devil Hydro is doing, will the minister say why the government is telling Hydro to go full steam ahead, on the basis of forecasts which are extraordinarily suspect and may well be grossly wrong, at a cost of billions of dollars to the people of this province?

Hon. Mr. Auld: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I was not talking about our Hydro load forecast; I was talking about the energy demand model -- and they are different.

Secondly, I did not say that I was not accepting the advice of my own ministry’s staff; I think it is quite competent.

Thirdly, there is a supposition around --

Mr. J. Reed: Just say you don’t know.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- and the one set of figures that I haven’t got with me is that of the various dates when the various projects which are being discussed were actually approved by cabinet. My recollection, though

-- and I’ll correct it if I’m wrong -- is that all of them were approved in principle prior to 1974.

The honourable members will recall that in the world of building large power plants -- like a lot of other large things -- from the time you decide that you should do it until the time you have got it finished is anywhere from 10 to 12 years.

In fact, in Hydro’s experience, prior to environmental assessment and things such as problems in getting transmission lines built, they used to operate on a basis of about 10 years to start and, after they were down the road about two years to three years, the thing was committed. By that time they were into contracts and so on. In all fairness, we are now looking at decisions that were made at least 10 years ago. That’s why I say seriously that the matter of forecasting is by no means an exact science.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Isn’t it true that the reason the ministry and the government have not imposed any kind of policy framework on Hydro is in fact that they can’t, that the Power Corporation Act does not allow them to impose policy? And isn’t it a fact that back in 1974 -- and I see the Premier shifting in his seat --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not. I haven’t moved an inch.

Mr. J. Reed: -- he apparently stated in a press release that one of the first priorities of the directorate of Ontario Hydro was to accept government policy, and that, in fact, has never happened; that has not taken place since the inception of the Power Corporation Act; and that the government --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. J. Reed: -- and that, because that is not there, the government has simply ignored Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, has he taken account of the testimony of chairman Taylor of Hydro that, by his own admission, we may be into a vicious circle -- this was also backed up by the testimony of Mr. Higgins, the load forecaster for Hydro -- where we overproject demand for hydro, costs rise because we have excess capacity, then demand is lower because the cost has gone up, and so on and so on?

Has the minister taken a look at that theory of the vicious circle, which I believe were on, and what is his feeling about that theory?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The honourable member is now really relating the energy demand model which I think she saw in the select committee --

Ms. Gigantes: No. Talk to Mr. Higgins.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- which looked at a number of the factors that could switch people from one form of energy to another, as well as the use. There are a great many factors; price is certainly one of them.

If I may get off the subject of electricity and use gas as an analogy, every time the price of gas has gone up we find that there are more reserves available because they now are economical to develop. The same thing works in reverse: As the price of one form of energy goes up, people move to another. That has happened. in heating oil and gas, for instance. It has certainly happened in a great many fields.

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Given that as of January 1, 1979, all the 35 doctors in the Peterborough Medical Clinic have opted out of OHIP, and given that a significant percentage of the remaining doctors in Peterborough are also opted-out has the minister any plans to intervene in that situation?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the Peterborough situation is one that I follow very closely inasmuch as the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner) is my parliamentary assistant. At this point, I would have to say there is no indication of a need to intervene in any way.

Mr. Breaugh: Seventy per cent are opted-out, and there is no need?

Mr. McClellan: What’s the limit? Ninety per cent?

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary: Given the fact that about a year ago, on April 14, the minister said that “if the numbers of opted-out physicians begin to threaten the universality of the health system, then we will intervene,” does he not consider that the fact that 50 per cent to 70 per cent of physicians in the Peterborough area, overall. are opted-out constitutes a threat to universality and therefore warrants intervention by this government?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me comment on the accuracy of the NDP. If I stray a bit, according to the new House rules, I beg your indulgence, but I am getting a little sick and tired of the distortions coming from that party.

Mr. Mackenzie: We know the minister is sick and tired. He shows it in his actions.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will grant, sir, that the level of opting-out in Peterborough county is higher than in any other area of the province. It is not 50 to 70 per cent. In point of fact, last month it went down a little bit, because a doctor opted back in, strangely enough.

Mr. Cassidy: What is it?

Mr. Foulds: What is it for the province?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I could perhaps talk about the press release that went out today from the member for Hamilton East. We had a call from the controller of the hospital he talked about, refuting what was said in that release. I could perhaps refer to the press release last week about the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital, alleging certain things to have happened which did not happen. I am getting just a little sick and tired of this inaccuracy.

Mr. Samis: That is not in the question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let me just refer the member to his party’s green paper on health care; this perhaps explains the whole thing. His party’s green paper on health care says:

“Notions of health must reflect human and political values.” Clearly, all these distortions of fact that are coming from that party are reflecting his party’s political values.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would ask the minister either to substantiate any comments like that or to withdraw that language, which is unparliamentary and should not belong here.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted. Where would the member like me to start? Shall we start with the press release today on Hamilton? Shall we start with Hamilton?

Mr. MacDonald: With Peterborough.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Differences of opinion do not constitute points of privilege or points of order.

A new question.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: No. A new question.

Mr. Cassidy: That was only my first supplementary, Mr Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A new question.

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health regarding the health cost restraint program and, more particularly, the hospital bed reduction part of his program; and I am pleased that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) shares our concern, according to a CFRB report this morning.

In arriving at his formula of 3.5 beds per 1,000 population, why did he not take into consideration such matters as the operational efficiency of those hospitals which have already trimmed any fat to the hone and the makeup of the population in the various areas of Ontario, firstly taking into consideration the higher percentage of senior citizens in areas such as Huron and Bruce, compared to the provincial average, and, secondly, the tremendous seasonal increase in the population of those areas, which attract thousands of tourists who also require the services of hospitals from time to I time?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the honourable member perhaps take a look at the material which I believe was sent to all MPPs -- or MLAs, depending upon the point of view -- entitled The Active Treatment Bed Allocation Method. If he will look at that -- I believe it was sent to his office -- he will find that we do take into account, in the referral population compilations, age factors and, of course, the actual utilization of a given hospital from whatever municipalities surround it. With respect, if the member takes a look at that, he will see that is covered. So the actual utilization of a hospital is taken into account.

As regards the other part of the question -- basically, the member is talking about the peer groupings among hospitals -- we did, over the last year to year and a half, try to come up with some means of tying hospital budgets to the peer groupings that compare hospitals in terms of admissions per 1,000, in terms of average length of stay, in terms of staff days per patient and any number of things. Frankly, we weren’t able to come up with something that wasn’t going to be a bureaucratic nightmare.

Mr. T. P. Reid: What do you think this is?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What we decided to do instead, recognizing, first of all, that the four beds per thousand standard in the south and the four-and-a-half beds per thousand standard in the north has I been in place since 1972 and the 3.5 and four beds per thousand standard, in place for a year, was to begin this year to tie the budget to those bed-planning standards based on the referral populations and with reference to beds actually in service last fall and to ask the hospital association and the Association of Teaching Hospital Administrators to work with us in developing an entirely new budget formula. Again, if the member will refer back to my January 19 statement, we would like to build in more and more incentives to reward efficiency and to provide the incentive to find ways to save money. Clearly, many hospitals have shown and are showing that there are many ingenious ways, where the incentive is there, to save money.

Mr. Warner: While patients suffer.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister sure hasn’t convinced the hospital boards, the doctors, and other people in the medical profession that any rationale was used in that formula.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Riddell: Does the minister not have enough faith in the hospital boards to permit them to make the decisions as to how they can operate within their budgets without penalizing them through hospital bed reductions? Is it his policy to prohibit any private financial support for the operation and administration of public hospitals so that beds might remain open and staff retained?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, the whole system depends on the volunteer hospital hoards. Unlike the people to the member’s left, we believe in -- and I hope the member does too -- the worth of the volunteer hospital hoard for each of the hospitals. In point of fact, the decision is left to each hospital board to determine how it will live within this year’s budget.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Or die.

Mr. Nixon: Starve or die, one of the two.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: When we decided to tie it to the bed-planning standards, it was on the basis of taking off the top the incremental cost per bed -- not the full cost per bed, because if we did that it would be somewhere in the order of $20,000 to $30,000, and in some hospitals $35,000, a year. We took it off the average incremental cost.

The decision as to how to operate the hospital and apportion it within the hospital is, in fact, with the individual hospital board.

I think it would be folly for any hospital to think it can plan to use private funds on a long-term basis. Clearly, the intent of the budget formula is to treat all I hospitals in the province equally and equitably to maintain a high level of service.

Let me just say one other thing that bears repeating: In tying the budget formula to the bed allocation formulas, one point seems to be missed quite often by the media and by the rest of us. That is that we’re talking about moving towards a reduced number of treatment beds, but making provision, as was mentioned in Her Honour’s remarks on Tuesday, for expansion of chronic and/or extended care facilities where they are needed.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That’s not taking place.

Mrs. Campbell: That doesn’t happen.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That work is already under way in most parts of the province.

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Health. To quote the Reverend Frank Drea, “Enough is enough.”

An hon. member: The irreverent.

Mr. Lawlor: “Budget cuts to hospitals are beginning to hurt the quality of service and it’s time to start easing up.”

Mr. Breaugh: We are with you.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, that is ant what I said.

Mr. Renwick: What did you say?

Mr. Lawlor: Does the Minister of Health disagree with his colleague’s statement; and, in view of his own McKinsey report recommending the necessary retention of Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital, what justification can there possibly be for his arbitrary decision to close it?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege before the minister answers the question --

Mr. T. P. Reid: You’re not a reverend?

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- I don’t know where the member got that from but I did not say that.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Check the tape.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I spoke in Hamilton last night. I was asked a question which particularly applied to hospitals.

Mr. Foulds: It is too bad you answered it.

Mr. McClellan: You should have kept our mouth shut.

Hon. Mr. Drea: What I said is, if a hospital, large or small, can demonstrate that its quality of service is being affected, then the Minister of Health, as he has done in the past, is prepared to make individual adjustments. That is why I am very proud that this government has the finest-quality health care in the world.

Mr. Mackenzie: You shot from the hip again and you got caught.

Mr. Warner: You can’t wiggle out of this one.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s a direct quote.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health has the answer to the question from the member for Lakeshore.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I thought that sounded pretty good. Does that mean I can disagree with what the member said the minister said? I guess I can because he didn’t say it.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: To go back to the statement I made on January 22, which I think is fairly clear, in outlining the steps which led to that announcement of the government’s intention to close the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital on September 1 of this year, I can only say, as I said then, it was not an easy decision clearly. But given the condition of the building, the capacity available in modern -- in fact, new facilities -- at Queen Street Mental Health Centre, additional capacity available at Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, the fact that capital funds are not likely to be available into the 1980s for more than one hospital to be rebuilt -- and both are in bad condition -- and the fact that Whitby Psychiatric Hospital serves an area that goes as far east, if I remember correctly, as the Hastings-Peterborough county line and as far north as Victoria and Haliburton --

Mr. Eakins: A great area.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: A great Tory area.

Mr. Nixon: It may be federally.

Mr. Martel: Is there a difference?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- while it was a difficult decision, it seemed to me that the alternatives were not acceptable.

Mr. McClellan: It would have been easier if it was a Tory area, would it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The alternatives were to leave the hospital as it is or to try to continue to patch up what is clearly an unacceptable facility.

Mr. Lawlor: Supplementary: Is the minister totally inflexible about this closing or would he be open to an alternative proposal with respect to a phased or staged replacement, say, over five years, of the facilities at Lakeshore?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Looking ahead to the future, it is difficult to predict what the exact needs are going to be in five to 10 years. If one had asked us, let us say 10 or 12 years back from now, what the needs would be, the chances are any prediction that would have been made would have been quite inaccurate. A decade or more ago, we had about 16,000 people in psychiatric hospitals in this province. We now have just over 4,000. So any prediction one might have made in 1967, 1968 or 1969 would probably have been dead wrong.

I don’t like to seem inflexible, but let me just say that I don’t see that the facts have changed. The capacity is still there at Queen Street and at Hamilton. We still have an antiquated building at Lakeshore. I don’t intend ever to have another phone call, the likes of which I had last November at the time of the fire, in which a person died in that facility.

The capital funds are not going to be available into the 1980s to build two hospitals. Cabinet has agreed to make them available to build one. I don’t see that the facts have changed.

Mr. Foulds: We can build hydro plants.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I just want to say the decision would have to stand.

Mr. Warner: The minister is inflexible.

Mr. Gaunt: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Dealing with the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital?

Mr. Gaunt: Dealing with the initial question of my colleague.

Mr. Speaker: That is what the initial question was. Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Gaunt: The initial question was with reference to the statement of the minister, the member for Scarborough Centre, in which he stated that individual adjustments would be made.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I did not make it.

Mr. Gaunt: I want to relate my questions to those individual adjustments, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Go ahead. Try it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: They have been made.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is the member for Huron-Bruce making an adjustment?

Mr. Gaunt: Since the referral population of Bruce county is 13.3 per cent, I believe, constituted of people over 65 years of age, and the same figure in Huron county is 12.9, would the minister, in view of the fact that the chronic bed situation across the province is not being relieved up until this point --

Mr. Speaker: That is not supplementary.

That is really stretching it. I would have to disallow that.

[3:00]

Mr. Gaunt: What steps would the minister advise the hospitals to take in order to see that this chronic bed situation is relieved?

Mr. Speaker: No, a new question.

DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION

Mr. Watson: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. In view of the fact that the Ministry of Housing is responsible for the downtown redevelopment policy and programs of the government and in view of the fact that the city of Chatham along with other cities in Ontario has made application to the ministry under this redevelopment program, could the minister advise the House as to the status of this program? Specifically, could the minister advise me as to the status of the application of the city of Chatham with regard to funds for this program?

Mr. Foulds: Darcy McKeough never had to answer questions like that.

Mr. Laughren: He went ahead and did it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The downtown revitalization program has been one of the most successful programs that we’ve implemented in assisting municipalities in redeveloping the downtown cores and trying to improve the assessment position.

Mr. Warner: You read that well.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: In the last two or three years we have allocated some 30-odd millions of dollars and, more specifically in the case of Cornwall, $5½ million in the redevelopment of that particular community.

At the moment, we have about 16 or 17 applications that are on our primary list for review and development. In the case of Chatham, and I might say Sault Ste. Marie, which are likely the two closest to being completed at this time, we hope that with the continuation of the negotiations between our --

An hon. member: That is a pork barrel.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I’ll tell members, if it’s a pork barrel, the opposition ridings have done very well out of it, I can assure them.

My ministry will continue to negotiate with Chatham and the others to try to come to a conclusion. Just today I was in touch with the city of Chatham and the council advising them that we hope they’ll continue their negotiations and that the provision of funding will come forward very shortly.

FUNDING OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Sweeney: I have a question of the Premier. Given that the federal government is going to be transferring to this government $88 million of new dollars for post-secondary education, how can the Premier explain that his government is only authorizing the transfer of $55 million of new dollars to the Ontario universities and colleges? Where did the other $33 million go?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t know what the member means by new money. We’ve been short-changed in our transfers from Ottawa for generations. I don’t know that there’s any new money.

I think the member should ask a very simple question and should take a position. If he doesn’t feel that we’re being fair to the universities and colleges in terms of our transfers to them, let him say so. Let him get up and say a Liberal government would give them 10 per cent at the same time as it would deprive others. We are distributing to the universities and colleges of this province an equitable proportion of that which we are spending on all our various programs. I would also say, contrary to the member’s point of view, we think it is not only equitable, but it will give the universities and colleges the opportunity to maintain what is an excellent, high-quality, post-secondary system.

Mr. Sweeney: Where’s the rest of the money? The Premier never answered my question. He never does. This change in funding mechanism means that the province will now only bear 45 per cent of the cost compared to 51 per cent last year. Since his government has the constitutional responsibility for education, does the Premier think that sharing is appropriate?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ll just remind the member of a little history in terms of post-secondary education in this province, history that relates to his party.

Mr. Sweeney: Is it appropriate or not?

Hon. Mr. Davis: His party was in the process some years ago under certain leadership whereby not only was there a per capita grant for students, but it was involved with the provinces in terms of technical and vocational training for the post-secondary institutions which we now call our community colleges. His good friends in Ottawa opted out and that left this province with the total responsibility for capital funding. We have done this for the past 10 years; we have assumed the total responsibility for all the capital expansion within the post-secondary field.

Mr. Van Horne: And who was the Minister of Education then?

Mr. Sweeney: We’re talking about operating funds, not capital funds.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member’s friends in Ottawa haven’t provided a nickel. I don’t know whether there is a surplus in terms of their transfer. All I know is the taxpayers of this province have provided the capital, they have provided the bulk of the operating expenses to the post-secondary institutions and they are receiving in terms of our priorities what we think is an equitable share.

If the member wants to argue with some of his colleagues on the front bench that the universities should get more and the hospitals less, let him do so at his own risk.

HOCKEY VIOLENCE

Mr. Martel: A question of the Attorney General: Because of the continued violence in hockey with fighting still condoned in many leagues and, I believe, the escalation of stick-swinging, cross-checking and slashing since the introduction of helmets and masks, would the minister agree with me that something must be done to reduce violence in hockey and to increase the development of skills?

Hon. Mr. Davis: How about verbal violence in the House?

Mr. Martel: I am never part of that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I received a fairly lengthy and a very powerfully written letter from the member recently and I must say that I share his concerns completely. Despite the efforts of some minor hockey leagues to improve the situation so far as the removal of mindless violence, unnecessary violence, is concerned, I think there is still some distance to go. I want to say that I welcome the member’s concern in this particular area because I believe it touches the lives of many thousands of young people across this country.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary: Would the Attorney General consider the possibility of a select committee to look into violence and make recommendations which might be introduced to improve the quality of hockey in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are more concerned about violence in the media.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, it is not my position to determine whether or not a select committee would be the appropriate vehicle, but I do believe very strongly, as does the member opposite, that there should be a forum in this Legislature whereby the concerns of not only members of the Legislature but of many concerned citizens across this province could be expressed.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Does the Attorney General recall that a study was done by request of the Legislature arising from questions that I and others asked?

Mr. Nixon: That was the Patrick Reid study.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I forget who actually wrote the thing now; the name slips my mind. But does the Attorney General not think that the situation, far from getting better since that report, has, as my honourable friend says, in fact got worse, that the violence is a part of the very funny things that go on in the hockey system in the province of Ontario with six-year-old children having to have contracts and being traded back and forth and so on and --

Mr. Speaker: That’s hardly in keeping with the original question.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Well, it’s violence as well, Mr. Speaker. Does he not think it is time that he, perhaps with the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz), did a study at least on their own into the whole system of hockey in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Again, Mr. Speaker, the report that the honourable member is referring to was prepared by one William McMurtry approximately five or six years ago. I commend it to all members of the Legislature as a very excellent report. I do this in the most impartial manner possible.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And I want you to be sure no royalties are payable.

Mr. Cunningham: I want to hear from Mickey.

Mr. Hennessy: That’s right, you will hear some sense.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: This is really a form of violence against the clock.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: All I can Mr. Speaker, is that I would welcome any initiative that would help alleviate what I do regard as a serious and a continuing problem.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Fort William have a new question?

Mr. Hennessy: I would like to question by what right has this government to get into minor hockey and to have a select committee? There is more violence and hot air that should be investigated right here in this House, never mind about that.

Mr. Speaker: That was a statement, not a question.

GRAND RIVER FLOODING

Mr. Nixon: I don’t want to interfere with a possible answer from anybody in the ministry, but under your direction, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources, notice of which I gave him, having to do with the flood situation on the Grand River which caused considerable damage on Tuesday, March 6. Can he explain why the conservation authority was not able to give sufficient warning to the community so that the people and their household effects could be moved out of the way of the flood, and why the conservation authority did not take an initiative or a responsibility to break up the ice jams that caused the flooding?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the honourable member for the notice getting through. Perhaps you might permit me to read a brief report which has come to me through our conservation authorities branch from the conservation authority on the Grand River.

I am informed that the assistant general manager of the authority discussed the removal of the I am with municipal officials, recognizing the possibility of spring flooding in that area over the five-mile stretch between Paris and Brantford. The most recent meeting -- there were several meetings I gather -- was on Friday, March 2, when the possibility of ice rafting and river flow blockage was discussed and arrangements were made for local municipal police to maintain close surveillance.

Responsibility for issuing a flood warning was left with the municipality because flooding was expected to be local in nature and municipal staff were in a much better position to observe its development.

The January observation of the ice jam led to the conclusion that because of the extent of the jam, it was not feasible to attempt to remove it by dynamiting. Under low flow conditions which existed at that time, dynamiting was seen as merely transferring the problem somewhere downstream. As a matter of policy the authority does not undertake ice I am removal by dynamiting. In this particular instance, conservation authority officials discussed the advisability of this method of removal and left responsibility and liability with the municipality.

From the report I have from my staff, it appears that the municipality did not request assistance to cope with the flood emergency because it did not escalate beyond the capability of the municipality to deal with it.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Does the minister not agree that it is beyond the capability of a relatively small municipality to undertake the kind of dynamiting that surely would obviously lie with the responsibility of the river authority? It can’t be done without their permission. Would he not feel, particularly since this has now happened a few days ago, that we should undertake some direction to see that it does not happen again, if this is possible, and that the government would give every assurance to the community of the kind of financial support that is going to be necessary to assist the people who were injured and had their goods damaged through no fault of their own?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I got this report a few minutes before I came to the House. I must say that in reading it the inference I take is that the authority discussed with the municipality what might be done, and was under the impression that the municipality was going to carry out whatever it was decided was necessary. However, it is not clear, and I had asked for a little farther information about this, which I will convey to the honourable members as soon as I get it. If it appears there is something we should be doing in connection with the arrangements we make each year -- as the honourable member knows, the minister writes to heads of all municipalities and all the conservation authorities -- we give twice-monthly snow moisture content reports and we have a pretty good warning system, but it may well be that there can be some improvements made.

[3:15]

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services, arising from his statement. Mr. Speaker, while it is difficult to get the sense of what the minister was saying in the first and sixth paragraphs on the first page, if you remove the subordinate clauses, he stated that the police report concluded that there was evidence to suggest resident abuse and there was limited corroboration of allegation. I want to ask the minister if he will table the police report, making prevision, of course, for anonymity; but I want to ask him to table that report so we can understand what in the bell is going on there.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have considered that possibility and, at the present time, I have been advised by the crown law officers that the status of the report is such that it ought not to be made a public document. I can assure the honourable member that the reference in that paragraph does relate to the fact that there were allegations. There certainly were allegations, as has been indicated for some time.

Mr. McClellan: You said it was evidence.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Well, perhaps that was a pour choice of words. But I suppose any allegation is some evidence; the question is, whether there is any corroborating evidence --

Mr. McClellan: What did the police report conclude, then? Was there evidence or not?

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- which might have given rise, either to the laying of charges by the police, or to our ministry taking specific disciplinary action against an individual.

The answer to that is no, there was not sufficient evidence of that. There were allegations that would not support that action.

VEHICLE LICENCE FEES

Mr. Blundy: I wish to ask the Premier a question. Given the substantial difference in the cost of automobile licence plate sticker renewals between northern Ontario and southern Ontario, and given the fact that I have with me petitions with the names of over 11,000 people, which will be presented at the appropriate time, is the Premier giving any consideration to rectifying the difference in treatment of the people of southern Ontario and the people of northern Ontario?

Mr. McClellan: Does the Liberal Party support this?

Mr. Martel: I like that.

Mr. Cassidy: That is the end of your party.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Where does your party stand? Where do you stand?

Mr. Conway: It is the national unity plank scaled down.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the very distinguished member from Sarnia has indicated to his constituents --

Mr. Foulds: I can understand why they have so few seats up north.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that it would be Liberal Party policy to have licence fees the same across the province. This is the report I get from that great municipality. In that I assume he is speaking for the Liberal Party. That party would, in fact, --

Mr. Eaton: What is the matter, Pat?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- not try to find some way to equalize opportunity in this province; would not try to find some way to recognize the transportation difficulties and the problems confronting the people in northern Ontario. His party is so oriented obviously, today, to Metro; tomorrow, who knows where, geographically?

I would have to say to the member for Sarnia, no, we are not contemplating it. The rationale is very simple. It is understood, I hope by all of us. We are attempting, as a government, and we are using this vehicle, to recognize that there are certain problems related to northern Ontario, which, unfortunately, your party has failed to recognize. And that’s why you have one seat in the House here from the north; and that’s probably all you’ll ever get.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, two. Sorry. That’s all you’ll ever get.

Mr. Conway: Merle Dickerson is still in North Bay.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

Mr. Bounsall: On a point of privilege, I am very concerned about the situation here today. This being International Women’s Day, are we not going to revert to “Statements by the Ministry” so that the Minister of Labour and Manpower (Mr. Elgie) may announce some new legislative initiative in this field, none of which is planned for at all?

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member knows that is not a point of privilege.

PETITION

VEHICLE LICENCE FEES

Mr. Blundy: I have over 10,000 names on a petition addressed to the Premier -- including the name of the mayor of Sarnia, who was my competitor in the last election, running for the Tory government, and 400 letters from people on the same topic. I would like to present it on their behalf.

REPORTS

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Havrot from the standing resources development committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee recommends that the annual report of the Ministry of the Environment for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, be referred again to the committee in order that consideration of this report may he completed by the committee.

Your committee further recommends that the annual report of the Ontario Highway Transport Board for 1977 be referred again to the committee in order that consideration of this report may be completed by the committee.

Report adopted.

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Mr. Philip from the standing administration of justice committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills with certain amendments:

Bill 74, An Act to establish a Code of Procedure for Provincial Offences.

Bill 75, An Act to amend the Provincial Courts Act.

Report adopted.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the member for Humber (Mr. MacBeth) be appointed Deputy Chairman of the committee of the whole House for this session.

Motion agreed to.

APPOINTMENT OF STANDING COMMITTEES

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the following standing committees be established for this session with power to examine and inquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, with power to send for persons, papers and things as provided in section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act:

General government committee: Messrs. Ashe, Charlton, Dukszta, Epp, Handleman, Hennessy, Hodgson, Laughren, Mancini, McCaffrey, McEwen, McGuigan and Samis, Mrs. Scrivener, and Messrs. G. E. Smith and Turner;

Resources development committee: Mr. Bolan, Ms. Bryden, Messrs. di Santo, Eaton, Foulds, Havrot, Johnson, Lane, McNeil, J. Reed, Riddell, Van Horne, Villeneuve, Watson, Wildman and Yakabuski;

Administration of justice committee: Mr. Bradley, Mrs. Campbell, Messrs. Cureatz, Kerr, Lupusella, Philip, Renwick, Rotenberg, Roy, Sterling, Stong, Swart, G. Taylor, J. A. Taylor, Williams and Ziemba.

Social development committee: Messrs. Belanger, Blundy, Cooke and Gaunt, Ms. Gigantes, Messrs. Grande, Jones, Kennedy, Kerrio, Leluk, McClellan, O’Neil, Pope, Ramsay, Rowe and Sweeney;

Public accounts committee: Messrs. Germa, Hall, Handelman, Leluk, Mackenzie, Makarchuk, Peterson, Pope, Ramsay, T. P. Reid, Sargent and G. Taylor.

The report of the provincial auditor for 1977-78 and the public accounts for 1977-78 are referred to the public accounts committee.

The standing statutory instruments committee is appointed for the session, to be the committee provided for by section 12 of the Regulations Act, and has the terms of reference as set out in that section, and the said committee, in addition to those powers, shall review and consider, first, the role of the committee, with particular reference to the recommendations of the select committee on the fourth and fifth reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature, and the practices of the parliaments of Canada and the United Kingdom; and, secondly, the establishment of guidelines to be observed in the delegation by statutes of power to make statutory instruments and the use made of such delegated power.

The said committee is to report its recommendations to the House and, in addition to the normal powers of the standing committees to send for persons, papers and things, it shall have the power to employ counsel and such other staff as the committee considers necessary.

The committee shall be composed of eight members as follows: Messrs. Cureatz, M. N. Davison, Eakins, McCaffrey, McKessock, Rollins, Swart and Williams.

That the standing members’ services committee be appointed for the session to examine the services to members from time to time and, without interfering with the statutory responsibility of the Board of Internal Economy in such matters, the committee is empowered to recommend to the consideration of the House matters it wishes to draw to the special attention of the board, and that the committee be empowered to act as an advisory committee to Mr. Speaker and to the Board of Internal Economy on the administration of the House and on the provision of services and facilities to members, and to draw the special attention of the House to such matters as the committee believes require it.

The committee shall he composed of eight members as follows: Mr. Bounsall, Mrs. Campbell, Messrs. Conway, Jones, B. Newman, G. E. Smith, Watson and Young.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved, unless otherwise ordered, that substitution be permitted on all standing committees, provided that notice of substitution is given to the chairman of the committee prior to the commencement of the meeting.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEETING

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the procedural affairs committee be authorized to meet concurrently with the House this afternoon.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX ACT

Hon. Mr. Henderson moved first reading of Bill 2, An Act respecting the County of Middlesex.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Riddell: Is that pertaining to the good old court house, Lorne?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes, sir.

Mr. Riddell: That’s the way to go.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this section is to vest the title of the lands described in the schedule in the corporation of the county of Middlesex in fee simple. The lands were granted to the county in 1868, subject to a trust that the lands be used for the purpose of a county jail and courthouse. The lands are no longer required for such purpose.

Section 2: this provision will enable the Minister of Government Services to make a grant to the corporation of the county of Middlesex to assist the county in financing the cost of restoring the former county courthouse.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Bounsall moved first reading of Bill 8, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, this bill would establish equal pay for work of equal value and ensure that no discrimination, or differential in pay, can occur on the basis of sex.

The present Employment Standards Act establishes only that there be equal pay for men and women when performing substantially the same work. This bill therefore would eliminate the all-too-common situation

Motion agreed to. where jobs filled only by women and which are of higher skill, effort and responsibility, have a lower pay rate than jobs filled by men working for the same employer. It would require an employment standards officer to assess the value of the work performed and would allow a differential to pertain between employees on the basis of seniority or quantity of production only.

This legislation is long overdue, Mr. Speaker. Discrimination in pay on the basis of sex must end.

[3:30]

NON-UNIONIZED WORKERS RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved first reading of Bill 4, An Act respecting the Rights of Non-Unionized Workers.

Motion agreed to.

An hon. member: Somehow I don’t think that will pass.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory note for this bill is: The purpose of the bill is to provide a low-cost mechanism whereby a non-unionized worker may obtain a review by the Ontario Labour Relations Board where the worker is discharged or otherwise disciplined for cause and the contract of employment is silent on matters of discipline. At the present time, a non-unionized worker who is dismissed or otherwise disciplined for cause may have no right of action against his employer, notwithstanding the fact that the discipline is, having regard to all of the circumstances, unduly harsh.

The bill provides a two-stage process for reviewing complaints involving harsh discipline. Initially, a labour relations officer would be appointed to effect a settlement which would be reduced to writing and which would have to be complied with according to its terms. If no settlement is reached, or where a settlement is not likely, the Ontario Labour Relations Board would inquire into the matter. The board, if satisfied that the complaint is justified, will have the power to make an order substituting such penalty as is just and reasonable in the circumstances.

PITS AND QUARRIES CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Warner moved first reading of Bill 5, An Act to amend the Pits and Quarries Control Act, 1971.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide power to the Minister of Natural Resources to fill in hazardous abandoned pits and quarries, and thereby redress a serious problem in the province of Ontario.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved first reading of Bill 6, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory note is: The purpose of the bill is to provide a mechanism whereby the Lieutenant Governor in Council can order a 60-day suspension of a strike or lockout and order a return to work where the strike or lockout constitutes an immediate and serious danger to life, health or safety, or seriously disrupts the economy of the province or any area of the province.

The bill provides that the Minister of Labour must appoint a conciliation officer where an order suspending a strike or lockout has been made and may subsequently appoint a conciliation board where the efforts of the conciliation officer to effect a collective agreement are unsuccessful. If conciliation efforts are unsuccessful, a strike or lockout may be resumed without a further strike vote. An order made under the bill would be enforceable as an order of the Supreme Court.

MOTION TO SUSPEND NORMAL BUSINESS

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, I have received a notice under section 34 of the standing orders from the honourable Leader of the Opposition that he wants to suspend the ordinary business of the House for a matter of urgent public importance.

The Leader of the Opposition, for up to five minutes.

Mr. S. Smith: The Premier has just said that he agrees to the suspension. If all three parties agree, then I don’t have to make the speech.

Mr. Foulds: You’ve got to make your arguments.

Mr. S. Smith: I will continue with my speech.

Mr. Speaker: Under standing order 34, each party has the right to put up a spokesman for up to five minutes, at which time --

Mr. Nixon: The NDP has not agreed.

Mr. Speaker: If there isn’t that concurrence, we will hear the Leader of the Opposition for up to five minutes.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will try to be brief.

The members are undoubtedly aware that the motion of which I gave you notice, sir, says that the matter of urgent public importance is the failure of the province to provide the funds necessary to avert the fare increase of the Toronto Transit Commission. We regard this to be of urgency because of the decline in ridership, which has been noticeable for some time, and the fact that a fare increase is expected to accelerate that decline.

The falling ridership jeopardizes, in our view, the long-term viability of the transit system in Ontario’s largest municipality, the decline of which would have serious energy use and financial implications for all citizens of Ontario.

The Metropolitan government has agreed to match the required additional provincial contribution. Toronto is asking, not for special treatment but for equal treatment with other large municipalities of Ontario. And, of course, without the additional funds, the fares will increase on March 12, 1979. That was the substance of the motion, Mr. Speaker.

What I would care to say, in defending the need for this emergency debate on the matter, is basically that the urgency stems from the fact that the fares are to go up imminently.

The fact of the matter is we have not had a chance in this Legislature to debate the question of this particular additional allocation of funds for the TTC. Although we have raised it, as you know, in question period, in press conferences, by newsletter, by open letters to the Premier and so on, we haven’t yet had a chance to debate this matter. In view of the imminence of the fare increase, it seems to us an urgent matter to discuss in the House at this time.

During this few minutes while we debate whether or not we are going to have an emergency debate, I want to make clear that this is not just a question of the nickel which everyone has spoken about. Hardship as that may be for certain people in society, that is not the primary problem. The primary problem is that ridership has been declining in the Toronto Transit Commission situation for the last several years.

This declining ridership is not a situation which finds its parallel in some of the other large municipal areas in Ontario. Toronto is in a unique position because of its very size, because of its megalopolis-like character. The fact of the matter is we have experience in other jurisdictions which indicates that, once ridership begins to decline on a steady basis, a fare increase leading to a further decline in ridership might just be the signal indicating an imminent downward spiral.

What happens is that you increase the fares, ridership further declines and, consequently, the fare box revenue declines. That leads either to further decisions to increase fares or difficulty in maintaining services, or even conscious decisions to decrease services. Little by little, you have a downward spiral affecting mass transit.

Surely, when we are thinking now of problems for the future, when we think of the enormous amount of capital funds already put into the TTC by every taxpayer of Ontario, it does not make sense, in our largest concentration of population, to take the risk that there will, in fact, be such a downward spiral.

One final word before we get into the substance of the debate, should you, in your wisdom, sir, rule that the debate will go forward: I want to make it clear that in the situation before us in Toronto we are not, in fact, saying that the money should be given simply as a remedy for the situation. We know that it will take more than a one-year fare freeze to make any substantial difference in the declining situation in ridership. We know that what is required on the part of Metropolitan Toronto and the TTC is a bold plan, a pro-transit plan, a clear indication of where they are going structurally to make transit more appealing to the citizens in this large metropolitan area.

I would like to say therefore, that the sensible way we can, in fact, achieve this particular end is for the Metropolitan government to put forward the $6 million that it would be required to put forward, for the fares to be frozen for a period of time -- I suggest one year -- and for the provincial government to commit itself to its $6 million subsidy only on condition that there be a proper pro-transit plan brought forward from the Metropolitan government in the next six months. That, it would seem to me, is a sensible and reasonable approach which would accomplish all the goals that surely members of this House must desire. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a spokesman from the New Democratic Party? The member for Riverdale, for up to five minutes.

Mr. Renwick: I would, as always, out of courtesy defer to the government House leader for his five minutes.

Hon. Mr. Welch: You know the order is established this way.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Go ahead, Jimmy.

Mr. Renwick: Oh, I see, it’s this way today.

Mr. Speaker, in order to assist you in making your decision under the new rules as to whether you should be in favour of the proposed motion or not, I have four or five matters that I would like to comment about.

First of all let me say that we will abide by your decision. If you rule in favour of the motion then we will vote for the debate to proceed when that question is put. If you rule against the motion, we shall abide by your decision in any event.

You will have noticed, and I am certain that the other members of the House will have noticed, that on the order paper today standing in the name of the leader of this party is a resolution under standing order 63(a) under Part X of the standing orders relating to private members’ public business. That rule, if I may draw your attention to it, Mr. Speaker, states that: “In any session upon proper notice, the official opposition is entitled to not more than three motions of want of confidence in the government; the third party is entitled to not more than two such motions and any other recognized party to one such motion.” I rather regret that we’re required to use up one of our two motions of no-confidence in the government on this particular issue when the official opposition has three, and I’m quite certain at the end of the session in all likelihood all three of their opportunities will remain available to them.

The third matter that I want to draw to your attention is that there is absolutely --

Hon. Mr. Davis: If you were wise you would keep yours for years.

Mr. Renwick: -- that there is, I submit, no conflict whatsoever between the motion standing in the name of the leader of this party and the motion put by the leader of the official opposition. You will note specifically under the new orders that our motion is a substantive motion under standing order 37(a) which is under the heading, part VIII of the standing orders, Substantive Motions. I would like, if I may, to draw to your attention and to the attention of the House specifically the wording of that standing order.

Mr. Nixon: Are you suggesting the debate should not go forward?

Mr. Renwick: “A substantive motion is one which is not incidental to any other business of the House but is a self-contained proposal capable of expressing a decision of the House.” I’d like to emphasize that it is a substantive motion and the conclusive words are, “capable of expressing a decision of the House.” Of course, the motion put forward by the Liberal Party falls under the heading of Procedural Motions under part VII of the standing rules and is merely a procedural motion which permits a discussion with no decision. Or if we could use baseball parlance, it’s all wind-up and no pitch.

Mr. Martel: It’s called bluff.

[3:45]

Mr. Renwick: I simply want to submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is no reason whatsoever why there should be any ruling on your part that there is any conflict between the one motion which we have put, which is one of substance, and the motion of the Liberal Party, which relates merely to procedural matters.

Mr. Nixon: The motion is political posturing.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the question for your consideration is: Does this matter proposed for discussion relate to a genuine emergency call for immediate and urgent consideration? It is such a matter. If it were not so, we would not be moving want of confidence in the government. It is for us a matter of confidence and also, a fortiori or a priori, whichever is the appropriate Latin expression, on a matter of this importance we have no alternative but to support the urgency of this debate. It is an emergency at this time because on Monday next the TTC fares will increase from 42-6/7 cents to 50 cents by ticket or token per ride, an increase of something in the neighbourhood of 17 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I therefore will simply say that I hope my remarks have been of assistance to you and that we will abide by the decision which you will make.

Mr. Nixon: Strike three.

Mr. S. Smith: Are you in favour or against?

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Premier, for up to five minutes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with this very briefly. We are quite prepared to debate this matter. I listened very attentively to the Leader of the Opposition and his rationale, which I guess was relevant. We have a concern, and I will express this during my brief contribution. I wouldn’t say for a moment that the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about the by-election in Scarborough West nor would I say this of the New Democratic Party, although I do find it somewhat difficult to understand its motion of no-confidence in terms of the fare increase when several months ago it was prepared to have the transit riders of Metropolitan Toronto deprived of service for who knows how long. In fact, if they had had their way, there might not be any service today. I do find that a little bit contradictory.

Mr. Martel: We find your position strange with respect to labour’s rights.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, now come on, Elie, come on. Let’s be very frank. Let’s face it. You people are worried about Scarborough West and I understand that.

Mr. Martel: Don’t be foolish.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, Elie, when you were handing out those things to say call my office, and I had some interesting calls --

Mr. Martel: I wasn’t here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You weren’t here? Who handed them out? Well, listen, whoever handed them out, why didn’t you give them another slip of paper saying the province was giving an 8.4 per cent increase and the province put the TTC back in functioning order last fall when we as a party did what you weren’t prepared to do? Why didn’t you tell them the whole story, so that when I got the phone calls I would have got an objective analysis?

An hon. member: That would be honest.

Mr. Martel: You know Michael Warren.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh come on now, Elie. Mr. Speaker, I really don’t want to use up the full five minutes but everybody else did and I think my observations are as relevant as theirs. I would only say to the Leader of the Opposition that I recognize he is put in the position where he has to do something. I would just read to him his communique from Sarasota. This was a transcript of his conversation with the CBC as he was studying public transit in that great community. Well, I doubt it.

Mr. S. Smith: At my expense, unlike your Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry).

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would just say to the Leader of the Opposition in that transcript he was thinking of no-confidence; today it’s an emergency. I would only say we have been hard pressed to understand exactly what his position is, and I see some quotation where he suggested he wasn’t sure until he consulted with the rural reeves of Ontario, something of that nature. I am looking forward to the contribution from the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), who isn’t here, and the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell). I am anxious to hear their contribution in this debate.

A hon. member: And the member forChatham-Kent (Mr. Watson).

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am very anxious. I will have some observations to make on the substance of it, but I don’t want this House to feel that we are not prepared to debate this. We are. It’s a very difficult problem these days in government to assess the priorities. I heard the Leader of the Opposition being correctly quoted yesterday I believe -- well, I won’t, I will save that for my 10 minutes a little later on. Mr. Speaker, we agree to the debate. We will leave it up to your good wisdom, your good judgement, to assess whether it is in fact an emergency and to deal with the two sides of the issue as presented by the member for Riverdale, which to me didn’t indicate whether he wanted the debate to proceed or not.

Mr. Speaker: I want to thank the honourable members for their contribution, which assists me in making up my mind. I see and I am prepared to state that the notice given by the Leader of the Opposition does in general terms meet the requirements of standing order 34; the only thing for the House to decide now is whether or not the debate should proceed.

Shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

TTC FARE INCREASE

Mr. S. Smith: I want to be clear that as taxpayers of Ontario throughout the province, we have put an enormous amount of money into the mass transit system in the Toronto area. In fact, the capital costs have been truly staggering. As soon as you have to start building those facilities -- which are either above ground level or subways below ground -- you run into enormous costs. That is what happens in large metropolitan areas where the density of population is such that these measures are required.

Over the years I believe this province has done its part to support the transit system in the Toronto area. However, despite the best intentions on the part of the province, and despite I think reasonable intentions -- although some perhaps questionable decisions in the planning of Metropolitan Toronto -- we have come up against a problem.

The problem is not the question of a nickel fare. That is not the problem. Nor is in dispute the question that the extension of services would in itself increase ridership, because must would agree that extensions of services would increase ridership. The problem is that ridership has been declining; it has been declining now for several years consecutively.

It is predicted that the fare increase about to be implemented will further cause a decline in ridership.

Nowhere can anyone guarantee that freezing the fare would stem that decline. It is quite possible the decline will happen anyway. Frankly, it is a very difficult thing to predict. The prediction is that the decline will worsen. The most conservative prediction I have seen is a decline of six million riders. I have seen it as high as 10 million with the fare increase, but even these predictions cannot be taken as gospel. I am the first to admit that.

But we are at a point where we might just find ourselves unfortunately propelled into a downward spiral which will be very difficult to rectify once it gains momentum. We may just be at that knife edge and we are warned by some experts that that could happen. We see cities in the United States where the policing costs of these white elephant transit systems are in many instances worse than the operating costs. People stop using it; people sleep in the suburbs and use their automobiles.

I know that the Premier shares with me the desire to see a healthy mass transit system in Ontario because a lot of money has been put in by his government, and I recognize that. The concern we have -- and I hope it is understood to be a very sincere worry -- is that the decline in ridership, if permitted to accelerate --

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s not how you expressed it.

Mr. S. Smith: -- with this fare increase might lead us into that downward spiral where the fare box would be expected constantly to make up more and more of the lost revenue due to the decline in ridership. The fact that most riders will still continue to ride despite the additional nickel is not the point. Some will not and that decline in ridership will, of course, reduce the revenues. You get into a vicious spiral in which you either have to reduce your services, Mr. Speaker, or you have to increase your fares even further, and ultimately your services eventually start to crumble.

We put it to you, Mr. Speaker, and we put it to the people of Ontario, that we have put an enormous investment into Toronto already. It is by far the largest metropolitan centre we have in Ontario. Its problems are qualitatively different; and yet in terms of its operating subsidy -- and I hope the Premier will not confuse operating with capital subsidy herein terms of its operating subsidy it receives a percentage less than other large municipalities with a population of over 200,000. Seventeen point five is the percentage subsidy that comes from the province for other large areas, whereas in this instance it is 13.75 per cent plus the Spadina, which brings it to about 15 per cent.

If this could be brought up to the same level as other centres then we might be able to get this one-year fare freeze. Not a panacea, we recognize that, and not a guaranteed solution; but at least giving an opportunity for a proper transit plan to be presented to the people of Toronto and the people of Ontario.

The proper transit plan is a matter of some dispute. For sure, it has to involve new ways of supporting the idea of people riding the TTC rather than taking their automobiles. It is strange: just as we talk about energy crises in oil which we can do nothing about by building electrical generation plants, we can do something about by making sure that people use public transit instead of taking their own automobiles. Under these circumstances, it makes a lot of sense to support mass transit rather than see our tremendous investment in mass transit go down the drain just at the time when the oil crisis finally hits us; that would make the least sense.

The government would have a point, and I must say I have accepted some of them, in saying they want to see a good plan on paper for Metropolitan Toronto before the government’s $6 million goes into that pot. I quote from the letter of Valentine’s day in which it says, “A few tough decisions must be made before our government can responsibly consider additional subsidies.”

My point would be that that is not an unreasonable position. If Metro is, as it has indicated, willing to put up its $6 million to begin with, then the government should accept that, It should allow the fares to lie frozen and should demand a pro-transit plan from Metro as a condition for which the government would then provide its commitment of $6 million to make sure that the fares could be frozen. Then we could get under way with a good pro-transit policy, and not just delay it yet another year when it will require even more than a 14.5 per cent increase, because the ridership will have declined yet again and we will be going through this whole exercise all over again but with a smaller chance of eventual success.

I know that politically it is very easy to go around the rest of Ontario and say that the Liberals want to give something to Toronto. First of all, we want Toronto to get only the same percentage operating subsidy that other large centres get.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are on dangerous ground, Stuart; you are on very dangerous ground.

Mr. S. Smith: Secondly, it should be very clear that most of the other large centres in Ontario do not have this problem of declining ridership, which is now imperilling the system in Toronto. Furthermore, the people from around Ontario have put a tremendous amount of money into the capital structure of this particular metropolitan area. It would not make sense to jeopardize their investment by letting this run down now; which is, of course, what the peril presently is.

What we say in summary -- since I see that my time is running out and I don’t wish to tax your patience Mr. Speaker -- is this --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Whose patience?

Mr. S. Smith: The problem is that we have declining ridership in a very extensive system in Toronto. We must not allow mass transit to fail in Toronto. We must be totally dedicated to it. We need a new structure in Metropolitan Toronto supporting transit and making clear the determination that transit shall be the way of transportation in the future. We require that.

There is a chance that may slip from our grasp if there is a rapid ridership decline. If we can prevent that decline, and at the same time insist that Metro come forward with a good transit plan -- which we can then have a chance to look at here in the Legislature -- we have an opportunity to turn around a very frightening trend. We shouldn’t wait until things bit us in the face. We should be able to anticipate the trends that are occurring and take the action required to remedy the situation.

[4:00]

Once again, it is not a question of the nickel; most people will be able to afford the nickel. It is a question of the health of the TTC, the downtrend in the ridership; and the fact that with the government subsidy coming after the Metropolitan subsidy, and that based upon a good plan of transit coming forward from Metropolitan Toronto, we have the opportunity to achieve both ends at once; that is possibly to stem the declining in ridership and to encourage, shall we say, the TTC and Metro to produce a genuine plan of action which will make sure that mass transit will be there in good shape, in good popular acceptance, when we will desperately need it -- and we all know we’re going to need it as the future evolves.

Mr. Speaker, that is the reason we believe the Premier should rethink his policy of refusing, under any circumstances, the grant which has been requested by the people of Toronto, by the governments of Toronto. We believe he should rethink this, and we say quite openly --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. S. Smith: We say quite openly that to have a $30 million election on a $6 million issue does not strike us as reasonable. The only way this could be an election issue would be if all centres of Ontario became very, very interested in the matter. But ultimately, as years go by, this may well be --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. S. Smith: -- because no one is likely to have an election on one local issue in any locality, Toronto or any other. Therefore, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. S. Smith: -- we will not support the no-confidence motion, but we put forward the request that the Premier change his view on this matter.

Mr. Cassidy: I’m glad to have the chance to participate in this debate, but sorry that it’s only an emergency debate and that we could not go forward to the NDP’s motion of no-confidence on this particular issue.

I have to put on record the fact that we asked today and the government refused to agree --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you breathing a sigh of relief?

Mr. Cassidy: -- that this motion of no-confidence by the New Democratic Party would in fact be held tomorrow in order that we could test the temper of this Legislature before the TTC’s fare increase was due to take effect on Monday. That was the government’s fault. It was the resistance of the government House leader that led to that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You weren’t going to put it until the end of March. Talk about posturing.

Mr. Cassidy: I can say that the Liberal Party was not very enthusiastic either, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. S. Smith: I thought it was going to be the end of March. You changed your mind.

Mr. Cassidy: This is an issue which does not only affect transit in Toronto, but which affects transit operations in 58 communities across the province of Ontario. Because of its intransigence the present government is undermining public transit, not just in Toronto but throughout the province of Ontario.

Since the House rose last December, the city of Ottawa raised its transit fares on January 1. In Brampton the fares went up on February 12. In London they go up on March 12 -- that’s next week, in fact. Metropolitan Toronto is raising its fares on March 12 and Thunder Bay is raising its fares in April. Mississauga is cutting its services by 10 per cent.

Ridership is down in Hamilton, Kitchener, Mississauga, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay and 10 other centres across the province right now. We have not been able to contact all of them.

This is not a one-shot affair, as the previous speaker has suggested. Metropolitan Toronto is talking about a steady, inexorable rise of seven per cent or eight per cent a year in TTC fares. The city of Ottawa is saying that with the current subsidy formula from the province of Ontario they’re going to have to raise the fares annually in that city.

The chairman of the TTC is talking about TTC fares rising very quickly to $1 a ride. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how is the ordinary transit rider in this city going to fare then? What are we going to do? When and at what point is the government prepared to step in and change its subsidy formula in order to ensure that adequate, affordable transit is not just the subject of speeches in the Legislature but is a reality in 58 communities in the province of Ontario?

When the Leader of the Opposition suddenly became interested in this issue a few months ago we thought we could use minority government in order to make the present government respond to the needs of the people who depend on transit in so many communities across the province.

On February 12 the minister announced that the government would refuse Metro’s request for additional funds for a fare freeze while the TTC developed a pro-transit plan. In fact, what’s happening is that the ministry is giving Metropolitan Toronto $6 million less in 1979 for transit than they gave back in 1977.

The announcement that they would not comply with the request, along with a constant refusal to look at the subsidy formula, showed that this government will do nothing more to deal with the problems of urban transit in Ontario.

When we announced that we would have a no-confidence motion on the transit issue we thought that we would have the support of the Leader of the Opposition and that the government would bow to the wishes of the people of Ontario and provide a new deal for public transit.

Mr. Riddell: Never quit dreaming about it.

Mr. Cassidy: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that as far as we're concerned, in the Legislature you have to put up or shut up. You cannot wait until the whole province is aflame about absolutely every issue. You have to draw a line and say --

Mr. Eaton: Why don’t you?

Mr. Cassidy: -- “This is an important issue. We are prepared to go to the wire on this one.” If the other party joined with us then we know that the government would have backed down.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Want us to tell you what choice we would make?

Mr. Eaton: We’re prepared to go to the people.

Mr. Cassidy: We know that there would not have been an election on this particular issue. We know that we would have got some sense from the government in order to ensure that transit riders were protected.

Mr. S. Smith: He is a good politician and he would know what to do with that issue, believe me.

Mr. Cassidy: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition as he says that we must be totally dedicated to public transit and we must not allow transit to fail. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition moves faster than a Yonge subway car in getting off the rails when we are moving towards a motion of no-confidence.

Mr. Eaton: He was smart. You’ve got to give him credit once in a while.

Mr. Cassidy: He left the NDP to be the only voice for people who depend on public transit throughout Ontario. We regret both the retreat of the Liberals and also the stubbornness of the government.

Mr. Kerrio: Mike, don’t you have any material of your own? Why don’t you get on with the debate?

Mr. Cassidy: We ask how the government can have the confidence of the population of the province when it can’t find $6 million out of the $15 billion budget in this province, and it’s the same government that hands out hundreds of millions of dollars to corporations like Ford Motor Company, like Denison Mines, like Reed Paper and the companies which are going to benefit from this new incentive scheme.

As far as we’re concerned, public transit benefits everybody in the province of Ontario. It saves energy, it saves capital expenditure on roads and allows more efficient movement of both people and goods. We say that public transit is vital to the health of our municipalities. We say it’s about time to look to the transit needs of people living in the north who don’t have any at all. It’s about time there was transportation in those areas and not just in the major communities of the province.

We say it’s not the time for the province to back away from transit. If the government had been willing to put some of the savings it realized from its declining commitment to capital expenditures into the subsidy formula, this debate would be unnecessary.

Throughout Ontario the fares are going up and in many areas the service is being cut back or is being frozen at a level that is less than adequate, We all know the trend. If high fares continue and the service is cut back, you get a decline in ridership.

The present situation is that, because of the lack of provincial leadership, the fares will continue to go up faster than inflation and the life of our cities, not just Metropolitan Toronto, is threatened right now because a commitment that may have existed once to public transit, in the days when Bill Davis was the Transit Man of the Year, is going the way of the dinosaurs in this province and the evidence is plainly before us in the government’s failure to come through on this issue.

Mr. Eaton: Going the way of the NDP.

Mr. Cassidy: When working people are forced to put more and more of their income into public transit and the government does nothing about it, it deserves to be brought into account.

At least 40 per cent of the people who ride the TTC earn less than $15,000 a year and that’s the pattern which we find across the rest of the province as well. People in those income brackets can’t afford that increase. People in those income brackets also bear the cost of poor service because they’re the most dependent upon public transit and often have to live in the areas that are the worst serviced.

Back in January, I sent a brief to the TTC and sent a copy along to the Premier. It registered not lust the NDP’s opposition to fare increases in Ottawa, in Thunder Bay, in Toronto and other centres, it also urged that there be a new formula for funding public transit that would encourage innovation and would encourage pro-transit policies in every community of the province. The formula should take account both of population and of the area served. It should take account of operating costs and of the quality and efficiency of the service. It should take account of the innovation of the service, and try to encourage it.

I urge the establishment of a transit ridership improvement plan so that local transit authorities could take action to cut their deficits by getting more people on to public transit. The fact is that many transit authorities cannot do that right now because they are strapped because of the financial situation in which they find themselves. The government has ignored my brief in the same way that they’ve ignored transit riders throughout Ontario. That’s happening. This is all part of a concerted policy by the government of Ontario that extends far beyond transit alone.

How does the government ask a municipality like Hamilton to continue to pay 40 per cent or more of the cost of transit in that area when they are also loading on to that municipality the costs on property tax that are not being met because of provincial cutbacks on grants, because of provincial cutbacks on education, because of provincial cutbacks on social services and because of provincial cutbacks in the area of health care?

Now they are adding transit to the list. The TTC issue is like the tip of an iceberg because this government is dismantling the health care system, abandoning the schools and cutting back on social services. We are committed to fighting those kinds of cutbacks in every area where they are going to occur. We say that the priorities of the Davis government are dead wrong, whether they’re applied to transit or to the other areas of services that are essential to people.

They’re giving away the public’s money to corporations without taking equity on the one hand, and without getting any job guarantees on the other hand, but they haven’t got the money to invest in public transit.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Your friends in the UAW are unhappy with you now.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, you could say that it’s extravagant for the New Democrats to use one of our two no-confidence motions on this particular issue, but we have decided that we won’t shirk our duty to the people who elected us. We are not going to wait until our list of grievances against the government is this long; we’re going to take them as they come one by one and use every device we can in order to bring this government to account.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Cassidy: I call on the official opposition to change their position once again and say that they will support our motion of no-confidence because if they do that between now and 6 o’clock today, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. S. Smith: Why did you change the date, Michael?

Mr. Eaton: You can be sure they won’t on this one.

Mr. Cassidy: -- I can tell you that the government will back down, that fare increase will not take effect on the TTC on Monday and we will have a fair deal for transit riders, not just in Metropolitan Toronto but in every part of the province. All it takes is a commitment from one of the other two parties and we’ll give transit riders a fair deal. We need that action now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’ve got to tell you that I was so overwhelmed by the contribution of the member for Ottawa Centre that I really felt it was unnecessary for me to participate in the debate. He nearly had me convinced that if he carried forward with his no-confidence motion, we would change our minds. I’ve got news for him. You two fellows can get together, you can have your no-confidence motion, but unlike you people, we stick to those decisions we make. We think we’ve made the right one and we intend to stick by it. It’s just as simple as that.

Ms. Gigantes: What about OHIP?

Mr. Swart: What about market value and reassessment?

Mr. Cassidy: Last April you backed down on OHIP. What about senior citizen’s drugs? You’ve done as many flip-flops as the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to say, after listening to the rather limp -- if I can use that terminology -- presentation by the Leader of the Opposition for this additional support, that he really didn’t do it with enthusiasm today. I don’t think he had his heart in it because his mind was slowly telling him that probably the position he was taking wasn’t totally logical. I think he has reassessed it since he made those various statements that were more provocative than that today. I won’t read them back to him; I had intended to do so but that would be a little unfair --

Mr. S. Smith: Transit man of the year.

Mr. Sweeney: Grandstanding.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I wouldn’t want to be unfair to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. S. Smith: Sic transit gloria.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say to the Leader of the Opposition who presumes himself on occasion to wish he were over here, and that’s understandable that yesterday I couldn’t have been more impressed by him.

Mr. J. Reed: Have you nothing to say on the subject of transit?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We were down signing that petition for unity -- this was after he was saying how negligent we are -- in the Lieutenant Governor’s suite. The Leader of the Opposition came in and was in the far end of the room while the television cameras were there, filming the Premier and the Lieutenant Governor. He came around to the side of the room. I was going to call Forrest Gregg of the Toronto Argonauts to say here was a new middle guard for us, Dr. Smith, who was able to push himself into the front of the cameras to see what was happening, et cetera. I thought it was tremendous. He was getting so close yesterday that I was getting nervous.

Mr. J. Reed: Have you nothing to say at all on transit?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have something to say and, if the member for Halton-Burlington will listen very attentively, I will tell him exactly what it is.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Now back to the debate.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My reply to the Leader of the Opposition and to the leader of the New Democratic Party is very simple. They obviously don’t know what it is like to run a government. They don’t know what it’s like to attempt to take positions that are responsible. I would say to those same people who raised with us health issues and the question of our hospitals that I have people in my office every day who wish to extract -- no, not extract, that’s not fair -- who wish to have further support for their legitimate requests.

[4:15]

We have given the TTC an 8.4 per cent increase, probably a higher percentage transfer than to many other areas of government activity. We told them today, when they were in to see us, that we would sit down with them. We have staff available to help them, in terms of their study. The study should come first. We will look at the report; we will help participate in it. That’s the way government should be run.

If you are going to give in to every -- shall we say request -- and I think it was you who said: “Any damn fool can give away money.” I think you said that Tuesday night. Were you speaking about yourself?

Mr. S. Smith: Hayes Dana Corporation of New Jersey.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say, we are human on this side of the House. I didn’t mind all those telephone calls. It would be much easier for us to say to the general manager of the TTC, who is up here listening to all of these constructive suggestions -- I haven’t heard any yet -- Your suggestion was a wild card “bust”; importation again of American culture from the city of Pittsburgh. We don’t have a wild card system in our football league here. Tell your research people that.

Mr. Kerrio: You don’t even have a football system, Bill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, we don’t. I will admit that we don’t have a good one. It will improve.

We also said to Metropolitan Toronto, to its chairman and the heads of the boroughs, that we are prepared to sit down and look at the formula when the study is finished; when we have some solutions. This government is more committed to public transit than any jurisdiction in North America.

Mr. Warner: That’s baloney and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You have studied it in the state of Florida. So have I. You have seen what has happened in Washington, in the Bay area. I can name you Chicago -- you name it.

Mr. S. Smith: You won’t land there. I know it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What do you mean? I go a little further south, that’s all.

This government’s record in public transit is unparalleled anywhere in North America. You show me another jurisdiction that has done as much. Show me another one.

We are committed to it; but we are saying, simply, to Mr. Warren and others: “You have come up with a good report. It outlines the problem. Now, let’s get together and find a solution and let’s find the solutions in an intelligent, logical fashion.”

We also said to Metro today, because I think it is important, that we are prepared to have a separate agreement with the proposed LRT line into Scarborough. We have said to them that we are prepared to look at it on the basis of density over a period of years, rather than a stated three-year period, when it may or may not reach the densities required to make it viable. We have communicate this to them, because we think, as a province, we should --

Mr. S. Smith: You are committed to Scarborough West. You would not be political.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the Leader of the opposition says he is opposed to it and doesn’t agree with it, let him say so. Our job in government -- and it is not very easy to say; I am not looking for sympathy; I am not looking for understanding -- is we have got to allocate resources.

Mr. J. Reed: When are you going to start?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly we could have given in to the pressure, no question about that. You people might have. But our job is to manage the affairs of this province intelligently, to listen to, and be understanding of, the specific requests that are made.

When you are giving an organization like the TTC an 8.4 per cent increase and you are asked for more, it is pretty hard to justify what you say to Sick Children’s, Mount Sinai, Peel Memorial, Hamilton hospitals, or what have you. It is not easy to deal with; to be consistent and to be fair in the process.

Mr. S. Smith: Reed Paper.

Mr. Cunningham: Judy LaMarsh.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say this: in terms of what, obviously, is a political posture on the part of the Leader of the Opposition -- I understand: you have to do it.

Mr. J. Reed: You should understand. You are the master.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But the members opposite have to understand, as well, that the economy of this province is healthy; it is improving; but it is because we have been able to manage it and make the proper decisions and we will continue to do that.

If it means upsetting some people, I apologize. I don’t like getting all these phone calls. Although I have to tell the leader of the New Democratic Party, who helped stimulate the phone campaign, he would be amazed at just how many people phoned and said: “Mr. Premier, you are right. You should say ‘No.’ You should say ‘No?” He would be amazed at the number. He may even have had a few in his office calling him telling him the same thing.

Mr. Cunningham: You said: “You are right, Frank, thank you for the call.”

Mr. Cassidy: Did you ask them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know what every single rural member in your caucus was saying to you, because some of them were saying it to me. They don’t agree with what you are doing here this afternoon. But they understand and they will support it. I understand that.

Mr. S. Smith: Oh, don’t talk nonsense. Put that on the table. Don’t talk nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What do you mean, “Don’t talk nonsense.”? I know the views of my colleagues in cabinet. I also understand that they are men and women of intelligence, logic, who understand that the government has to deal in an even-handed way with all of those people who make representations. That is part of our responsibility.

Mr. S. Smith: And so does the opposition.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In that my 10 minutes has lapsed and I do have other responsibilities, I reiterate -- and I know the general manager of the TTC will take back again what I said this morning -- this province is committed to urban transit.

We have had GO in this province, with increasing ridership year after year. I am sure that TTC will take a look at how we have managed to do that. We are committed to it. We are not going to see the TTC go down the drain.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s been dropping for years.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I meant to say this earlier; I don’t think the Leader of the Opposition, and I don’t think any politician, does any of us a great service by suggesting that because this fare increase will go through that the TTC is going down the drain.

Mr. S. Smith: I didn’t say that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Look at their report. It says without question it will remain the highest ridership or the highest density of any system in North America. It happens to be the best, incidentally, and it’s going to continue that way; and it will do so with the support of this government on a fair, equitable basis.

Mr. Swart: In spite of you.

Mr. Warner: In spite of you, no matter how much money you withdraw.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The members opposite can have all the non-confidence they want. I’ve got news for them; if they fought an election on this issue, even in Metropolitan Toronto it would be disaster for the New Democratic Party of the province, which might be a great thing.

Ms. Gigantes: We will look after ourselves, thank you very much.

Mr. Cunningham: You are trying to tempt them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m trying to tempt them; they are tempted, they’re easily tempted.

They’re tempted when they know that it ain’t going to happen. I mean that’s understandable.

Ms. Gigantes: Look after yourself.

Mr. S. Smith: So are you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But so is the Leader of the New Democratic Party. So is he.

So, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate; we’re committed to urban transit, we’re committed to the TTC, we’re committed to the other municipalities in this province; and no government has been and no government will be more committed to this concept than the government of the province of Ontario.

Mr. Mackenzie: Heaven help us.

Mr. Warner: Turn in your award.

Hon. Mr. Davis: While I’m enjoying participating in the debate, I'm sure that after the logic of my remarks gets through to the members opposite, they will agree the position taken by this government is right, equitable, fair, intelligent, and logical. Members may use any other descriptive words they may wish to use.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has invited me and others to look at the logic of his position, and since he’s leaving I would like to address myself to his position. He is looking at separate funding for the Scarborough extension, the Scarborough use.

An hon. member: It’s by-election time.

Mrs. Campbell: The interesting thing is that he’s prepared to do that in advance of looking at the whole transit plan for Metropolitan Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is consistency.

Mrs. Campbell: It is consistent; it is consistent with Gray Coach, it is consistent with your whole approach.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is consistent with the Spadina subway.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Do you not want the LRT?

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, it’s consistent with the extension north into North York of the subway system.

You know, when you go back and look at the history of this transit corporation, when it was a city corporation it was managed in a business-like fashion. They did expand as they had the money to expand. Then this government imposed metropolitan government into this area in its wisdom. Of course because of that the transit system had to rapidly expand.

There was no overbuilding of the Yonge Street subway, If that’s what was said.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The Toronto Transit Commission was broke because it built the Yonge Street subway.

Mrs. Campbell: Out of its own reserves.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That’s right, and it was broke.

Mrs. Campbell: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Drea: And it was this government that saved it.

Mr. S. Smith: First you throw them into the water, then you throw them the rope.

Mrs. Campbell: What they don’t seem to realize is, and they have actually taken the same position throughout, they have left that municipality to handle this matter of extension into the suburbs -- and it should be extended, I have never questioned that; but it’s that extension which has put us into the position in which we are today, basically. This is I think something that they should look at logically. I think it would be a tragedy if, as a result of these discussions, the decision had to be made to eliminate some of these extensions -- although obviously not into Scarborough.

Hon. Mr. Snow: You have changed your mind; that was a quick change.

Mrs. Campbell: I was thinking of the minister’s position, not of mine.

I do not think we should be dividing up this area into little units of transportation, but I have to tell the minister that the fare box is contributed to very largely by the citizens of the inner city, as it always has been. I do not think there is any dispute about that. What we are saying is, let us have the opportunity for that study without incurring any further problems to ridership. If the Premier finds that illogical, I suppose I have to understand it, since he has made a great statement about youth opportunities while he seems to be deliberately destroying Ryerson Polytechnical Institute. That is the Premier’s logic, and it is logic we do not understand. I agree with my leader; this is not an issue to take to the public across this province. But if we are not able to do something at this point to try to protect that ridership, we will certainly be dealing ex post facto, and the Premier knows it. He wants to start making decisions about Scarborough before he sees an overall plan. Why doesn’t he do what my leader suggests? Accept what Metro says; accept their donation to this system.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That’s not what Paul Cosgrove says.

Hon. Mr. Snow: He was.

Mrs. Campbell: He was; yes, he was. And so have those members in this House who were there.

Mr. S. Smith: Your subsidy on the GO train from Oakville is 97 cents a ride; the minister knows that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Is it? I don’t think so.

Mrs. Campbell: Let me say this to the minister: He knows this situation. He knows the decisions he has made which have hurt the Toronto Transit Commission. He knows what he has done as far as Metro Toronto is concerned. If they are prepared to put up this money, surely it is not unreasonable for the minister to ask for the study, which now apparently he has done -- and we are so glad that the minister accepted at least that portion of our suggestion -- but also to stand prepared to put up the equal portion asked when that report is in his hands.

The ministry, with its expertise, should be helping with that decision in that report, because it needs an overview; it needs to know where it’s going in public transit right across this province. As in every other case, we are handling a situation in a totally unplanned way, in a total vacuum. Why can’t the ministry, this time, actually plan and work with the TTC to try to develop something that will stand the test for other cities right across this province?

Apparently the minister wants to start things and then cut them off, simply because he doesn’t look down the road.

[4:30]

Hon. Mr. Snow: Who is cutting off anything?

Mrs. Campbell: I am talking about the minister’s general scheme.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, you are not.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, yes, I am.

Hon. Mr. Snow: You are talking about something you know nothing about. Let’s be honest.

Mrs. Campbell: In real dollars at a time like this they need that additional money. And you know they do. You know it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: An 8.4 per cent increase is not cut off, and you know it.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member please address the chair?

Mrs. Campbell: I’m sorry. Would the Speaker please ask the minister not to interrupt?

Mrs. Campbell: Paul Cosgrove, I don’t think, is in Metro at this point in time.

Hon. Mr. Snow: You don’t want to be kept honest, Margaret.

Mrs. Campbell: Is this gentleman suggesting I am dishonest, Mr. Speaker? If he is, I ask him to withdraw that remark.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to mean that the honourable member was dishonest. I was trying to correct the figures that she was giving in the House which I do not believe to be correct.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I don’t recall that I gave any figures.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I’ve never heard you so vocal, Jim. You must be getting worried about this --

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, at this point in time, we do need to really study what is happening in this system in Toronto. We need to have the time to do it. Actually what we are talking about is time. There is no time when the fares are going up next week -- no time unless there is a commitment from this government.

Ms. Gigantes: You could have made the time, Margaret.

Hon. Mr. Snow: How come you didn’t mention this during my estimates?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Why are you so uneasy, Jim?

Mrs. Campbell: I don’t recall. I think during the estimates -- I am not quite sure -- I was actually worrying about some of the other moneys the minister was putting in --

Mr. Acting Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mrs. Campbell: -- which he shouldn’t have been putting in at all. I suppose I can’t deal with every subject in every ministry in estimates. Thank you.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, although I come from an area outside of Toronto, I rise to speak on this motion before us for two reasons: First, because I suggest the implications of this go far beyond the boundaries of Metro Toronto; what is decided with regard to provincial assistance to the Toronto transit system will have to be reflected in the other transit systems throughout this province.

I also rise because the issue of public transit -- and this has already been mentioned by my leader -- has never been more important than it is now. We are all aware of the escalation of the world oil crisis at the present time. Even within a few weeks or a few months in North America it is going to have a very real impact on our transportation systems, particularly that of the private automobile. And so the debate. In fact, a decision on the matter of greater assistance to public transit has never been more timely than it is at the present time. Any government that looks to the future, even the short-term future -- even one, two, three or four years -- will be taking steps to assure that there is a shift away from the private automobile to public transit.

The Premier, in his remarks, made the comment that no government had ever done more for the Toronto transit system and transit in Ontario than his government. He said they are committed to public transit. A number of years ago that statement was factual, but that statement at this time is not correct. There is on the part of the government an about-face on public services generally.

Shortly after I came into this House in 1975, there was a document tabled called, Special Program Review, more commonly known as the Henderson report. The document was a reprivatization of the economy in this province and the reprivatisation of the services in this province. I would point out that the chairman of that committee that produced that report was the Honourable Darcy McKeough.

The fact is that in public transit, as in many other services, the government now is reducing its assistance to municipalities. From 1977 to 1978 the amount of public assistance given for transit generally in this province declined -- by only $1 million or $2 million, but it was cut back -- and the estimate is that in 1979 it will be down even further.

I suggest that the Ontario government and the Premier are reprivatizing the transportation system too. By their action in refusing to further subsidize the transit system in Toronto, they are privatizing it by putting more people back in their cars and away from the public transit system.

Coming from an area which has two small transit systems, I am as aware as anyone of the difficulties of public transit. I know how people like to use their own cars to get about; it is, of course, generally more convenient, particularly in the smaller places. I’m aware of all that. But I also say here today that a government has a responsibility to set up the overall policy. Any government now must put emphasis on greater use of public transit, not less. One way of doing it is by providing more public assistance to it.

Again, as has been pointed out by many of the people who have spoken on this issue, if you increase fares, ridership drops and the only alternative is to increase fares again. This shows up very sharply in the smaller cities throughout this province. The statistics we have on Toronto and elsewhere bear this out, that fare increases do cut ridership.

There can be no question about that. Therefore, if the fares are allowed to increase in Metro or elsewhere, this is going to cut the ridership in public transit from what it would otherwise be.

The Leader of the Opposition in his comments said that Toronto was different in this respect; he made the general statement that in the other areas of the province the ridership was not dropping the same as it was in Toronto. I would ask him and his party to take a further look at those statistics, and they will find that the ridership in the rest of this province is dropping or holding, or increasing slightly, at about the same rate as it is in Metro Toronto. We have to think about the whole province, not just Metro Toronto. That’s why I’m concerned about Metro Toronto, because it is the key. If we can get more assistance here, I am sure we can get it elsewhere.

My time is rather limited and is going to run out, but I could point out that in a place like Welland at present they are getting less than 50 per cent of their revenue from the fare box. As they increase the fares again -- and they will, unless there is greater assistance -- that ridership is going to drop further, until ultimately we are going to kill those systems in many of the smaller cities in this province, at the very time when we should be encouraging their expansion.

The same thing is true in St. Catharines; ridership is increasing slightly, but deficits that were 30 per cent five years ago now are 50 per cent, or almost 50 per cent.

Mr. Haggerty: St. Catharines’ streets are jammed with cars, and the buses are empty.

Mr. Swart: That’s exactly what I am saying. We have to take more positive steps to get the people out of their ears and into the buses.

There has to be a reassessment of our attitude towards public transit, and here in Metro Toronto is the obvious place to start. We must ensure that the ridership increases. There is justification for using more public funds from the province. After all, the province in general, in their transfer payments to the municipalities, gives 50 per cent of the cost of building and maintaining the roads. The transit system, to a very substantial degree, is an alternative to building so many roads or the maintenance of the roads.

Hon. Mr. Snow: In your municipality what do the buses run on? Do they not have to run on roads?

Mr. Swart: Of course, they have to run on the roads. But if you can’t --

Mr. McClellan: They don’t have Krauss-Maffei in Welland.

An hon. member: I thought maybe down there they run on air.

Mr. T. P. Reid: They may run on gas.

Ms. Gigantes: That was the way you tried to build it.

Mr. Swart: I’m surprised that the minister is so far removed from the realities of the Welland area that he doesn’t know that buses run on roads there.

I would also think he should know that if you can get 20 or 30 or 40 cars off the road at any given time, particularly rush hour, by having buses in their place, that you don’t need as wide roads, and you don’t need as many roads to transport those people who otherwise would be in those cars.

Hon. Mr. Drea: And how are you going home tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The people of Welland won’t want me to cut down on their roads.

Mr. Swart: At the present time the Ontario government -- the ministry can correct me if I’m wrong -- is still spending something like three times as much in subsidies to the municipalities on roads as they are in subsidies to public transit. I suggest that in this day and age that ratio may not be the proper one and we should be looking for a shift in that ratio.

Here, today, we have the opportunity -- well, we don’t have the opportunity, because all this debate is meaningless; we would have the opportunity if the debate were taking place tomorrow morning -- to determine whether we really mean that we should give greater emphasis to public transit in the future.

I say to the government that the $6 million payment is justified; it’s wise, even short-term but particularly long-term, because now is the crucial time that this additional payment should be made to the TTC and should be reflected throughout the rest of the province.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would like today to clarify my ministry’s position, my position, regarding the additional $6.2 million in operating subsidies that has been requested by Metro for the TTC. That is $6.2 I million over and above the $33.5 million that has already been allocated to Metro. And I might say that is $33.5 million out of a total of $62 million for all of the province.

To begin with, let’s clear some of the confusion which resulted from the statement that provincial grants to the TTC have decreased rather than increased. First, the charge that the total subsidy to the TTC has decreased is perhaps correct. But that includes the subsidy to the TTC’s subway construction, which was dropped from $37.6 million to $34 million, because the only subway construction under way is the work remaining on the east and west ends of the Bloor Street extensions -- the Spadina line, as you know, Mr. Speaker, has already been completed --

Mr. McClellan: All it needs is passengers.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- so naturally our capital subsidy has been reduced.

But the gut issue, that of TTC transit operating subsidies, that amount showed an estimated increase of $2.5 million, or as the Premier has already mentioned, 8.4 per cent increase over last year. That increase was allowed in that area despite the fact that other municipalities across this province were restricted to five per cent increases for many of their programs. That kind of treatment for Metro, I believe, indicates that my ministry, no matter what the opposition members claim, considers Metro and its transit system unique and special.

But, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of getting into a battle of percentages and statistics today -- or tomorrow for that matter. I’ll leave that to those plastic people who like to throw figures around, figures that can be arranged to add up to almost anything the user wishes to prove.

[4:45]

Let’s go back to the latter part of 1976, when my staff came down with a funding level designed to maintain the financial achievements of the various transit systems across Ontario. That funding level grew out of the Treasurer’s concern for restraining general transit expenditures which, quite candidly, were rising at a fast rate. It was decided that operating subsidies in 1976 would not be more than five per cent greater than the previous year. Basically, that funding provided for a definite percentage of operating costs as the province’s contribution.

In the latter part of 1977, the funding level and its application in Metro was agreed on by both Metro and my staff. It was abo agreed at that time that this formula should be in place for the next several years, or until such time as the general fiscal climate had improved considerably. Now Metro and the TTC want to change the pitch, asking the provincial government to provide them with an additional $6.2 million which would enable them to hold their fares at the current level. At the same time, it would allow them to review their internal procedures while they seek a solution to their operating problems.

This is not a realistic position under the circumstances, nor is it realistic to expect the province to reassess its funding levels at this point in time. It further proves that the time for reassessment is not ripe. May I point out that provincial subsidies in such fields as health, education and social services have all been held to that five per cent level.

The funding level for transit was not simply a mathematical equation designed to limit our contributions to operating deficits. It was also designed to accommodate an incentive mechanism, meaning that if a transit system, through a more efficient and cost-saving program, reduced its operating deficits, the number of provincial dollars would remain constant. In short, the municipality would retain those subsidy dollars, thereby enhancing their overall financial picture.

Let’s take a look at how the TTC itself sees this problem of the $6.2 million in 1979.

Some months ago, the commission came down with the Transit in Metro: Some Tough Choices report. I commend the TTC staff for the excellent effort they put into this report. This report reinforces the premise that the success of transit in any urban area depends on many interrelated factors, all of which, or any combination of which, can be critical. It also underlines that none of these factors can be addressed in isolation.

For any transit system to succeed financially and provide good service it requires an adequate arterial road systems proper land use, adequate facilities such as parking and maintenance yards, and personnel, for example. Most critical is the factor that the fare box must provide a realistic portion of the costs incurred.

Finally, the TTC’s own report concludes that the $6.2 million additional asked for would only alleviate the problem the TTC faces for no longer than the 1979 year.

The next logical step is, “Who would make the necessary decisions to correct this situation?” I suggest to you here today that only the members of the city and the Metro councils, backed by the professional know-how of the staff of the TTC, can make such decisions. They will have to come down with solutions which recognize the reality of today’s fiscal restraints.

For our part, in my letter to Metro Chairman Godfrey I outlined an approach designed to provide the TTC with maximum fiscal flexibility when considering their immediate needs.

First, it was proposed that replacement capital subsidies could be combined with operating subsidies enabling Metro to more fully manage their own system. Until now both were considered a separate item, but I think it’s time plant replacement and maintenance and operating decisions should be considered as part of the entire process.

For example, our subsidies towards vehicle replacement costs have been estimated by the TTC to be $6.8 million this year and another $10.8 million for 1980-81. We proposed to Mr. Godfrey that these funds be available for whatever the TTC deemed proper over those next two years. We also proposed that in the future negotiations for any major facility or expansion project -- and this is a totally new approach and has been mentioned today regarding the Scarborough line -- both capital and additional operating costs be considered as part and parcel of the same project, or over and above the operating costs agreed to to cover the older systems which are already in place.

I further suggested the establishment of a joint Metro MTC-TTC steering committee. To this end I met with Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Warren on Monday of this week and this committee is now in place. It will actively pursue all available options with a single objective; to provide solutions which can solve the dilemma facing public transit in Metro and other places today. There are difficult choices ahead but please be assured that we will remain an active partner in this important venture with the TTC and with all the other 58 or 59 municipalities in the province that are running transit systems.

The government of Ontario has made and is making an immense contribution to the operation and development of transit across the province to the tune of $442 million during the last three years -- 1976, 1977 and 1978 -- of which Metro received over $316 million.

Lastly, I think it goes without saying that we want to work with the TTC and with Metro council in seeking ways to enhance the service and viability of their system. At the same time we’ll be continuing to work in the same manner with the full 60 municipal transit systems throughout the province in addition to our provincial transit responsibilities through TATOA.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I’m particularly glad that you are in the chair in so far as I know this is a very urgent matter in Geraldton and other parts of Ontario, including Waterdown where I reside.

I do appreciate the very serious situation that we are in today. The previous speakers have characterized the situation as political and I suppose it has unfortunately degenerated to be somewhat partisan in a political climate. Frankly, I don’t see how it is of major concern to the voter at this time, in so far as I don’t think that five cents at this time makes a great deal of difference to many people. But in the period of a year I would submit that ridership would decline, and this falls into the doctrine of cheap-smart, cheap-stupid.

I think if we could in some way assist with the financing of this operation, with the moderate request that has been put forth by the city of Toronto and Metro, we might arrest the further decline in the operation of the TTC. As you may have heard, the decline in ridership last year was in the area of 17 million rides. We have no reason to believe that rather serious situation would not increase and that it might conceivably reach 25 million or 30 million, thereby further undermining the amount of money that we get from the fare box. At that point the province and Metro will be put in a very difficult situation, one that will require considerably more money than $6 million on the part of the province.

I am disappointed that this issue has been clouded by some element of acrimony. We should accept that the entire TTC system is one that primarily operates on a large fixed cost -- costs that we don’t have a great deal of control over but costs that somehow must be met. The arguments that the ridership will deteriorate and thereby place a further burden on people who must ride the TTC have a great deal of currency. I would suggest that if that trend continues it is not inconceivable that a ride on the TTC might be 75 cents or $1 in the not too distant future. Then we would see, in what is a pretty good system, a decline that would not be uncommon to cities like Boston, New York or San Francisco.

In many ways, I sense the presence of the former Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is still lingering on in the cabinet. It almost seems that the book that Darcy McKeough never published, You Are on Your Own, was distributed prior to discussion of this particular issue in cabinet. This government is a great government for assisting with the financing to get you going but, once you are there, you are caught between a rock and a hard place, so to speak.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is what this government has accused the federal government of doing.

Hon. Mr. Snow: You know that is not right.

Mr. Cunningham: I do know that it is right and you know that I do.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No way.

Mr. Cunningham: Certainly, I don’t think there is an individual here in the Legislature who would suggest a freeze on TTC fares right now as a panacea for its particular problems. The problems are serious. There are a number of things they will do, and I think this current situation will in many ways prompt them to action which might not otherwise have been taken, or at least not taken as quickly. But, again, I say there is a very serious necessity to prop up, for want of another word, the TTC temporarily.

I am amazed at the strange sense of priorities the Minister of Transportation and Communications has with regard to rapid transit and the whole matter of public transit in Ontario. On the same day that the request by Metro was denied, the minister was quoted in the paper as warmly accepting the idea from the federal government that we should have a STOL airport on Toronto Island. What a perverse sense of priorities, in my view.

At the same time, we see millions and millions of taxpayers’ dollars being funnelled into the continuation of UTDC, a system that I could suggest is not going to function in the interests of the province of Ontario and the people of Ontario. It is a large, government-operated company that, frankly, has no future at all, a company that is costing millions and millions of dollars to operate.

If I could I put in context the amount of money being requested by the city of Toronto and by Metro into the perspective of revenue spent in the province of Ontario, we spend $3.4 million per day just to pay the interest on our debt in Ontario. The amount requested represents two days’ worth of debt and then some -- that is, of course, exclusive of Ontario Hydro’s debt which is reaching possibly the same alarming situation.

It has been suggested by the third party that we have an election on this. I suppose a $30-million election on a $6-million request is indicative in a microcosmic sense of the economic policies we could expect from an NDP government.

Mr. McClellan: You don’t understand transit issues at all.

Mr. Cunningham: The minister has just recently suggested in the course of this debate that the possible solution to this particular problem lies in the establishment of a committee of MTC and TTC to supervise the TTC’s activities. In other words, we are going to see a committee to supervise the activities of a committee. That almost seems as if it is a bureaucrat’s dream.

The minister mentioned there was a $33 million commitment out of $62 million spent on rapid transit. I suppose that is a significant amount of money. I have no doubt that it is. But it is also a tremendous amount of money put into an area where half the population of the province resides and where a number of people from outside the city of Toronto and outside Metro utilize the facility. I use the facility from time to time and I must say in many ways the ride I take on that is being subsidized by Metro taxpayers. Frankly, we think that is somewhat inappropriate at the time.

I can only conclude by saying that the amount of money that is being requested now is marginal in comparison to the amount of money that will be required from some taxpayers’ pockets some time down the road if the ridership in the TTC is allowed to decline in the fashion that it has.

[5:00]

Mr. McClellan: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate, although I note the absence of the transportation man of the year. Time does fly, as he does. I note the absence of the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Nevertheless, we are confronted with a major crisis in the Toronto Transit Commission, and those who argue that it is a question of a nickel obviously don’t understand the problem that confronts the transit system either in Metropolitan Toronto or in this province.

As a Toronto member, I intend to deal with the issue from a Toronto perspective but it is not a Toronto issue or a Metro issue; it has to do with the future of transit development in this province, and the government has no more commitment to transit than it does to any of the other human services in 1979.

Mr. Johnson: That’s not so.

Mr. McClellan: What is the crisis is very simple. The fare box cannot support the cost of the system. Up until 1970, the TTC was supported entirely out of the fare box. In 1970, there was a surplus of $1.9 million. By 1973, they were in a deficit position of $17.7 million. By 1978, in a deficit of $51.9 million. In 1979, a projected deficit of $65.5 million.

Those who stick their heads in the sand and say, “Take it out of the fare box; put the burden on the user; put the burden on the property tax; let’s pay for it out of regressive taxation; let the poor pay for it; let those who can’t pay for it pay for it,” don’t understand the issue. They don’t understand what they are doing to transit in this province. They are doing the same thing in every other community across the province and they are not showing any commitment to urban transit whatsoever.

The transit system in Metropolitan Toronto is no longer a local transit service, it is a commuter service over vast areas of the municipality and the costs of that kind of a commuter service cannot be paid out of the fare box, period. Those who argue that it can and should be paid out of the fare box are doing a profound disservice.

Many speakers on the government side have thumped their chests about their commitment to urban transit and talked about the complexity of factors that go into the kinds of problems that the TTC is experiencing, and I don’t deny that it is a complex issue. It is not, as the Liberal transportation critic seemed to imply, a question of five cents. It is an exceedingly complex matter. The government has done nothing on the other factors that have led the TTC into a position of overwhelming deficit, with the prospect of more deficit, more fare rises and more declining ridership down the line inevitably.

In February, the Minister of Transportation and Communications wrote to the chairman of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and talked about the four factors, the four variables that go towards making a viable transit system. I quote from his letter: “For a transit system to succeed: 1, The arterial road system must accommodate acceptable transit service. 2, Parking facilities and policies must be complementary. 3, Land-use policies must be co-ordinated with transportation planning. 4, The fare box should provide a realistic share of the costs of this important service.”

So the minister set out some of the variables and said again today how he understands the complexity and their transit policies are dealing with the overall vector of forces that go into a viable transit system.

Let’s just look at that; let’s just look at that for a minute. The first point, the arterial roads system must accommodate acceptable transit service. So what’s happening in this municipality, Mr. Speaker, is that the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto is proceeding with arterial roads in competition with the transit system. They are proceeding with the widening of Bathurst Street in competition with the subway, the new Spadina subway, a subway that was built at a capital cost of in excess of $200 million and the province is pouring its transportation subsidy money not into pro-transit policies, but into policies of road widening which compete with the subway. Brilliant. Brilliant.

Let’s look at the second point that the minister has cited: parking facilities and policies must be complementary. The city of Toronto has argued and pleaded and stressed with as much urgency as it can muster that the province must intervene to make sure that the park-and-ride facilities are built at Glencairn south of the Allen Expressway and that hasn’t been done; it hasn’t been done since the Transit Man of the Year allowed the Spadina Expressway to be extended down to Eglinton -- I might point out with the support and urging of the Liberal Party members, who are now wearing their rapid transit hat. Where was their transit hat in 1975 when they were clamouring for the extension of an expressway in competition with the Spadina subway? Where were they then? Urging that the expressway be built. So the parking facilities haven’t been built, the second point of the minister’s four factors.

Number three: land-use policies must be co-ordinated with transportation planning. I turn to page 15 of the TTC’s document, Some Tough Choices, and there is a statement at the bottom of the page: “The Spadina subway was opened in 1978 and operating mileage increased as a result, but it did not follow a major demand path, as previous subways had done.” What that means, in a nutshell, is that thanks to this government and its pals at Metro the Spadina subway was built in the wrong place; it was built in the wrong place. Another triumph of urban transit planning. Another little gem in the Premier’s transit crown.

Finally, the fare box. The fare box, says the minister, must provide a reasonable share. For him it’s 72 per cent. Seventy-two per cent of what? Seventy-two per cent of a horrendous operating deficit, a deficit that exists because of botched transportation planning over the last 10 years. That’s why the deficit is as high as it is, because of mistakes made by this government because of inaction on the part of this government and its friends at Metropolitan Toronto.

It now says to the people of Toronto, “Well, it’s too bad that your operating deficit is approaching $70-million. It’s just too bad. You are just going to have to take it out of the fare box.” So we are stuck with the cost of the government’s own mistakes, we are stuck with the price of the government’s own mistakes, and the government says: “Oh, we’re exceedingly generous. We are excessively generous. We are generous to a fault.” They are generous to a fault with respect to lunatic schemes like the Krauss-Maffei project, which cost $55-million.

Mr. Cunningham: You people used to be in favour of that. You were in favour.

Mr. Swart: You can’t have a straight face and say that.

Mr. McClellan: That’s certainly not true, my friend; that’s simply not true.

Mr. Cunningham: Look at the record.

Mr. McClellan: Who would be in favour of magnetic levitation which can’t go around a corner?

Mr. Mackenzie: Only the Liberals would support it.

Mr. McClellan: Only the government would think of a nuts scheme like that to waste $55 million of transit money. I thought that couldn’t he exceeded in the realm of lunatic, nuts schemes, but I was wrong. Now they have a proposal to run some kind of an electric train from Union Station to the CNE.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr. McClellan: What’s the price tag on that one? Perhaps they could hook it up to the roller coaster. It would make as much sense as everything else they have done over the last 10 years which has led us to the present mess.

Mr. Johnson: Sit down.

Mr. Gaunt: Or one of Hydro’s idle power plants.

Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, may I start off by congratulating the member for Humber. You look very dignified in that chair. It suits you to a T, and I am sure you will do a fair job throughout.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. McCaffrey: I can’t start off by being dishonest and saying what a pleasure it is to rise and speak in this debate, because by and large I feel this exercise today is a shoddy use of this room and this place and the members’ time.

Mr. Riddell: Of course, that is the way you look at most committees, too.

Mr. McCaffrey: I started off this morning, like I do most mornings -- and this is the only reason that I am at all pleased to speak on it -- because I am a regular user of the TTC and have been for some years:. But this morning when I got on the Wilson Avenue bus on my way to the York Mills subway, I was joined by a neighbour who had read the Globe and Mail and was anxious to find out if it was true that there was going to be an emergency debate here and a possible vote of no-confidence in the government over this matter of the TTC. I assured him that was my understanding too, that in all likelihood that would be what transpired. He was, like most people --

Mr. T. P. Reid: You don’t always understand, Bruce, but you got that one.

Mr. McCaffrey: -- in my community, shocked that this silliness would have developed to this level. He went on to show, and the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) will appreciate this, that he is about as well-versed in the intricacies of parliamentary procedure as I am, when he said, “Is there not provision, when silly things like this happen, for the government to move a motion of no-confidence in the opposition?”

Mr. Cunningham: It wouldn’t carry.

Mr. McCaffrey: I said that wasn’t true but that I would look into it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That certainly lowers the tone of this debate.

Mr. McCaffrey: From time to time when I do get on the subway and come down here to this elaborate chamber, I talk to people in my own and neighbouring constituencies, and particularly in the last few weeks --

Mr. Warner: That is the $40,000-plus crowd. We know about your constituents.

Mr. McCaffrey: -- this topic of possible fare increase has come up. By and large the attitude has been that even with the fare increase, meaning that the token would then cost fifty cents, it is the best half-a-buck in town. Most of the people of my area recognize that.

I was intrigued when the Leader of the Opposition spoke today. I find him always, quite frankly, a thoughtful individual. I listened quite carefully to what he said. I thought throughout he was both thoughtful and supportive of the government.

I am quite prepared to reread Hansard, but two or three things stand out in my mind. He supported the historical and significant financial support for the Metro transit system that this government has provided. He was very supportive of the Premier’s very clear desire to continue to be a leader in the field of transit. He applauded this government’s stated wish to see a broad Metro transit plan before any additional moneys were given. I couldn’t help but think, as I listened to him wind up, that if I have difficulties with parliamentary procedure from time to time, I don’t have any basic difficulty with the English language, I know what the word emergency means. How he could justify his theme today -- and it is in Hansard -- with this emergency debate, I find quite unusual.

Mr. Riddell: That was debated before the Speaker made a ruling.

Mr. McCaffrey: And to suggest, as has been suggested by some members of the Liberal Party, including the leader, that this would become an election issue only if all the other Ontario centres outside of Metro rose up in support, is frankly just a sad comment on the Liberal Party’s near paranoia with Metro Toronto.

The member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham), who -- I wouldn’t say this, but people who know him better than I say he is capable of being partisan from time to time.

Mr. Eakins: That’s where you part company.

Mr. McCaffrey: I can’t say I have ever seen that.

Mr. Eakins: Is that what sets you apart, Bruce?

[5:15]

Mr. McCaffrey: However, it was intriguing to watch his contribution today. The member for Wentworth North was only disappointed that this issue had become political, and he found that the third party’s desire to have an election on this was somewhat disconcerting. Again I stand to be corrected -- and I would be anxious to go back in my own files -- but I am confident that the Liberal Party not very long ago made it clear they were going to initially support a potential motion of no-confidence. They eased up on that. I wouldn’t use the word “flipflop,” Mr. Speaker, I think that’s sometimes over-used, but let’s say that they just eased up --

Mr. Warner: Call it a reversal.

Mr. McCaffrey: -- pretty significantly on what their position was three weeks ago is an understatement.

Mr. Eakins: Did you ever hit your head on a rifle butt?

Mr. McCaffrey: People have made it clear, I think, by now, and there has been a pretty extensive contribution to this, that a fare freeze by itself won’t affect transit use in Toronto.

Mr. Cunningham: The reason you won’t give it is you haven’t got it. You’ve spent so much money over the years you haven’t got it. That’s the bottom line.

Mr. McCaffrey: The bottom line, it’s a good expression.

There are a number of factors which have influenced ridership on the Toronto transit.

Fare level and fare structure are just two of those factors. The quantity and quality of the service has been a major factor. Auto owner ship in Metro Toronto has been a major factor, and over the last five years the growth in owner-used automobiles to commute has accelerated. Population growth, on the other hand, has levelled off. The size of the work force and general economic conditions have a great impact on how many people use the TTC. The amount and the location of high-density development, parking policies, auto disincentives and land-use co-ordination are just some others. It is clearly not just the five cents, although some have used that while pretending not to use it to get an afternoon wasted in this chamber today.

The problem is significant and I think the record of this government proves their awareness of it. But to blame the TTC and the fare increases, and primarily those fare increases, for the woes of Metro transit completely misses the point. Most riders are aware of increased costs in fuel, salaries and equipment, and they can readily discern the need for a fare increase. What is more important, however, is that most riders are more sensitive to the quality of transit service than they are to its costs and from time to time the public do express their view and their concern, not so much with exorbitant fares but general service conditions.

Transit’s own report, Some Tough Choices, advises that reasonable growth may be expected if certain actions are taken. A fare freeze, interestingly enough, is not listed as one of the prerequisites for this growth. Contrary to some who would leave a misinformation on this, the decline is not irreversible and the retention of ridership is not contingent upon the provision of subsidies.

Projecting a decline in transit usage due to increased fares assumes a loss of a revenue source. However, the net revenue increase, despite what some would have us believe, meets the 70 per cent target figure for fare-box contributions in relation to operating costs. The effect of the increase is not projected indefinitely and the downward spiral that has been referred to does not describe a cause-effect reaction involving fare increases leading to lost ridership. The spiral is much more complicated than that. One inescapable conclusion that can be drawn from the rationale forwarded by the fare freeze components is that they do believe it is the sole criteria upon which we are to judge the TTC success. The plain and simple fact, Mr. Speaker, is that the market for potential riders is not expanding.

On the average, each Toronto resident rides the TTC 156 times a year. This is the highest transit use per capita in North America and one has to question whether that number can be substantially increased without providing additional incentives to use the system, in the form, I would suspect, of better service. Even if the subsidy due to the TTC were increased by $12.3 million, spending these funds to hold fares down may not be the best way to retain ridership. Again the transit report itself suggests that future increases in spending of public money be used as an instrument to increase the level of service to attract riders, nut to subsidize an inevitably declining ridership. This report, Some Tough Choices, outlines a number of factors which could possibly affect the number of transit users. Metro can encourage ridership without having to resort to larger capital expenditures and without going beyond the present financial commitments of subway expansion and light rail development. A land-use policy, including densification at appropriate subway terminals, is the obvious place to begin bolstering ridership.

Mr. McClellan: What is densification?

Mr. McCaffrey: However, a land-use policy does not fall within the jurisdiction of the TTC and, clearly, transit requires an official commitment from Metro.

Mr. Philip: What would you people know about land-use policies? You’ve never had any.

Mr. McCaffrey: Several other transit-related issues fall within the scope of Metro Toronto.

Mr. McClellan: You’ve already got densification.

Mr. McCaffrey: One is completion and improvement of the arterial road system.

Mr. Philip: Where are you going to have the density -- in the Niagara Escarpment?

Mr. McCaffrey: We’re not going to have it wherever there’s an NDP council, that’s a certainty.

Mr. Philip: Maybe we’ll have a little bit of industry where there is an NDP government.

Mr. McCaffrey: Arterial roads are necessary to increase rapid transit efficiency. They are the feeder system for it. Larger transit subsidies coming from the Ontario government will not be offset by providing smaller subsidies for roads, not if the system is going to improve.

Mr. Conway: Reading speeches is improper.

Mr. Cunningham: Especially Darwin Kealey’s.

Mr. McCaffrey: Of course, the more extensive use of surface vehicle priorities such as contraflow lanes -- that’s a good one -- and also a Metro-wide parking policy would increase transit system efficiency.

Mr. McClellan: I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Mr. McCaffrey: But these and other issues remain unsolved because, like many things, they involve a trade-off and in some eases a sacrifice by residents in the immediate areas affected by a pro-transit policy.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr. McCaffrey: To blame fares and fares alone for this occurrence is irresponsible, misleading and represents the kind of buck-passing that is, in the long run, both detrimental to the TTC and unfair to the Metro residents.

Mr. Eakins: You sure threw your heart into that one.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I guess we have no rapid transit in Essex North or around Woodslee.

Mr. Eaton: They say you drive pretty fast through there.

Mr. Ruston: We do have a bus that goes by my door once a day, I believe, but since my car has 95,000 miles on it I suppose I should be able to speak a little about transit.

In some ways I have taken an interest in rapid transit, because I don’t think there is any metropolitan city that can get along without a combination of more than one type of transit system, whether it’s automobiles or streetcars or subway or whatever it might be.

Mr. Makarchuk: Bicycles.

Mr. Ruston: Bicycles, yes. That might come about in time too.

What I think we require to keep a metropolitan area viable is a good combination of more than one type of transit system.

I suppose I can look close to my own area, to a large metropolitan area, the city of Detroit, where they never did go into any rapid transit system. Of course, most people would say the reason they never did was because it’s the automobile centre of the world and, with the automobile industry there, naturally they didn’t want to see the car being second-rate, so they built a more or less ideal system of expressways. The only thing that caused a problem with that in the city was that the people then moved out to the suburban areas and the downtown area was blighted. They haven’t got over that yet.

They may have thought they were helping themselves and the automobile industry -- which I myself am very much interested in because in our area that’s our main employer -- but it just shows that you have to have some of both if you want a city to stay alive.

I have had the opportunity over the last 11 years to attend, I think, all the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation -- it was called the Department of Highways for a number of years, but it’s now the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

I have had a certain amount of knowledge that it is one of the methods of transportation that has helped Toronto and the Metropolitan area, the subway system. My goodness, I would suppose it’s one of the better ones in Canada and maybe even in the United States, built, of course, at a great deal of expense to the taxpayers of Ontario. We all know that. I don’t know what the latest charge is for building a mile of subway, but I think it’s become so expensive that there will probably not be any built in the future.

I think one of the figures I heard was $31 million a mile. Maybe someone could verify that. That certainly isn’t cheap.

Looking at our area, we build highways a great deal cheaper and, of course, we make good cars, so naturally the people are going to use the cars.

I had a fellow tell me the other day that he was reading in the paper about the cost of taking people from Montreal to Ottawa on Via Rail. He works for Greyhound Bus Lines. He said the cost to the taxpayers of Canada by Via Rail was about $30. He said he can take the people on the same route for $11.50 on a Greyhound bus. Somebody is paying a lot of money to have somebody travel around. Maybe we should be looking around for the most economical method of transportation. This fellow, I suppose, had a conflict of interest, but that is what he was telling me.

As far as the subway system in Toronto is concerned there is another odd situation. I was talking to a fellow the other day who said he went down to buy tickets at the subway station. He threw down $2 or $3 and the fellow handed him back all these tickets. He looked at them and started counting them. He said, “That doesn’t seem right.” He turned to the fellow and said, “I think you gave me too many tickets.”

The ticket issuer said, “Oh, no. That’s the rate for senior citizens.”

He said: “I don’t know, but I’m no senior citizen. I’m only 57 years old.” He said, “I just thought you were a senior citizen. You looked as though you should be old enough.”

If they’re doing that, they’re losing a little income. That isn’t the intent of that. I don’t know who it was, but I heard this happened. Somebody had better start looking at to whom they’re selling tickets. I hope it wasn’t the present Speaker. I don’t think he looks that old.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Could have been.

Mr. Ruston: The present Premier has a way of playing around in the political system. Someone mentioned the politics of it a while ago. The present Premier of Ontario has used transit more to his liking in polities than anybody else. He was named Transit Man of the Year. He was going to stop the Spadina Expressway in a great show in the 1971 election. He was doing great things, but nothing very much ever happened. That was just using it as an election ploy, and you couldn’t get anybody who used it more than him.

My goodness, he ran the election saying, “Cities are for people.” He said, “Stop the Spadina Expressway.” We always called it the ditch. People would come down and they would say to me, “What’s that? I said, “That’s the Davis ditch.” He did put a little pavement part way down, and made a little road. They call it an arterial road now, I believe. They don’t call it an expressway.

I’ve come down on it a couple of times, but when you’re coming in from western Ontario, it’s not much help. You come out on to Eglinton and make a left-hand turn and come down Avenue Road. It’s still the Davis ditch as far as I’m concerned. He didn’t really solve many problems with it.

Mr. Nixon: Should have gone right through to Buffalo.

Mr. Ruston: I suppose if the people from Windsor who make cars I had been doing that, they would have made an expressway all the way through downtown, but there again, they would be interested in cars. That’s what they would have done, I suppose, but it would have disrupted many areas of downtown Toronto. There’s no doubt about that.

We have to have a viable expressway system as well as a rapid transit system. It is most important now that we look at rapid transit because we’ve got it built, and we’ve got to use it, because of the amount of money that went into the Spadina line -- the latest one. Apparently, it’s losing money terribly right now.

I understand we need rezoning in that area so they can build highrises along there and then we can get the passengers. This has to be done. After all, we can’t be using the money of the taxpayers of Ontario to build a rapid transit system and then not see that the city and Metropolitan Toronto take their share to see that it’s used properly.

I can agree that our leader is right, on a temporary basis right now. As I say, I have no interest in my own area. I think the two types of transportation have to be used in any metropolitan area if you want to have a good and viable city. That’s why I’m speaking about it, Mr. Speaker.

I am very much interested in a good, alternative system of transportation. You can come in from the airport -- and I’ve done it a few times -- economically. You can get a bus to the Islington subway station, for $1 and then it is 55 cents to come downtown by subway. That’s $1.55. That’s pretty economical. That’s very economical when you look at what we have to pay. I’m 20 miles from the airport in Windsor, and if you had to have somebody drive you there it’s going to cost you $15, I suppose. That’s what we have to pay out in the boondocks, as the former member for Sudbury, Mr. Sopha, used to call it. It’s not cheap for us people in the boondocks.

[5:30]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to emphasize that we need a good rapid transit system in a city the size of Metropolitan Toronto. It needs some funds from all places to make sure it operates viably. The city of Toronto and metropolitan area are going to have to zone these areas so that the highrises will be built in an area where the subway is now built. Maybe it was built in the wrong place. I can’t tell you that. But it’s there now and you’re going to have to use it. If it needs rezoning, then it should be done.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I rise to try to deal with some of the issues that have been raised this afternoon, and to answer some of the debating points, to the extent that they deserve an answer, that have been made against the position taken by this party.

I find it immediately ludicrous that the Conservative government, Conservative Party, and the Liberal Party are joined together in a common determination to avoid a vote in this assembly on the question of whether or not this small amount of $6 million would be available to the Toronto Transit Commission so that for a one-year period the working people in Toronto who use the public transit system would not have to bear an increase of 16 to 17 per cent in the cost of their transportation. I want to make that very clear.

The Liberal Party is on record in the press and in this House that it does not want a vote on this issue, and today the House leader of the Conservative Party, in consultation with the House leaders of the Liberal Party and of this party, has refused this party the opportunity to debate this issue in this assembly as a matter of confidence tomorrow, which is the last sitting day of this assembly before the fare increase goes into operation.

Mr. Sterling: You know what the result is.

Mr. Renwick: I want to say that again. I want it to be very clearly understood in this House and elsewhere in Metropolitan Toronto and in Ontario that the Tory government and the Liberal Party are frightened to have a vote on this issue in this assembly at this time. The House leader of the Conservative Party, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch), has said so by admitting that the vote will not take place on our motion tomorrow. Let’s have that position perfectly clear.

Let me make a second point, and let me make it clearly because the Premier said that if there’s one thing that this government does it is to stand by its decisions. Where did it stand by its decisions on real property tax reform in Ontario and in Metropolitan Toronto? Where did it stand on the question of the punishment that it was going to mete out to the citizens of the province on the OHIP increase? How firm were they in that decision?

Let me just pursue this for a moment. The net result of the failure of the Conservative Party to provide an equitable tax system in Ontario, particularly related to real property taxation, has meant that they played the age-old game of playing the users of public utilities in Ontario, in their capacity as users, against the same people in their capacity as property taxpayers. That’s what has been done by the metropolitan chairman and by the metropolitan government. They have said, almost laughingly, when the chips are down they will make the user of the TTC pay rather than the property taxpayer because they want to make it certain that the property taxpayer in that capacity is the one who will get what little relief is available.

On a provincial basis, what this government should be headed towards doing is providing, out of the progressive tax revenues of the province to Metropolitan Toronto -- from the contributions which Metropolitan Toronto makes to those general revenues of the province -- the kind of money which will, for one year, provide an opportunity for Metropolitan Toronto in some way to get a handle on the TTC, to enable Metro to avoid the disasters which are going to accrue to the ridership of that system, if this government does not change its policy.

I want to say how disappointed I am in the Toronto Transit Commission. One need only read this report, Some Tough Choices, including the introductory memorandum from the chairman of corporate planning to the chief general manager, to see that it was begging. It was begging Metropolitan Toronto, and the government of the province of Ontario, to refuse the moneys which were required to freeze the fare box in the city of Toronto.

I don’t understand all the sophistication of the figures about transit systems. But I do understand one thing: I do understand it when the people who use the public transit system are the ones being punished by this government, because in a large majority they come from the very kind of riding that I represent and that my colleagues in this assembly represent, namely those who use it for practical purposes because they have little, if any, other choice.

One need only look at this report about the use of the subway system and metropolitan transportation, both road and rail -- the 1978 survey on attitudes and uses -- to get some conception of the whole and total point which has been missed in the media, by the metropolitan government, by the Toronto Transit Commission and by this government, and deliberately overlooked and distorted in their presentations to the public. Let me just read from this report which would indicate that, in some way or other, it is an inconsequential matter.

“Among heavy riders” -- those are the people who work and use the transit system for work purposes -- “almost three quarters, 72 per cent, reported they used the TTC to go to and from their work and for other business purposes. Of secondary importance, 18 per cent were attending school and/or university.”

How do you distinguish a heavy user? Well, I’m not going to go into it at great length; it’s right at the very beginning of the report. “Seventy-one per cent of heavy riders live in none or one-car families, while 49 per cent of non-riders are members of two-or-more-car families. Non-riders are found almost always among those whose annual household incomes are over $20,000 a year.”

So, when my friend from Armourdale uses an average figure of 150 rides per year, let me say this: what we are talking about, in this party, in placing our no-confidence motion on the order paper, is the people who use that system 500 and more times a year for the purpose of going to and from their place of work and for whatever other uses they may put it to. In that case, we are talking about $35 a year, at least, as a minimum increase.

All right, I’ve listened for some time to this talk about the nickel -- only a nickel. I want to say to this government that unless it begins to understand that at the cash registers in the food markets and at the fare box ticket offices of the transit system, nickel-and-dime inflation is bearing so heavily on the people in the city of Toronto, it will not be surprising that there is a revolt. Whether it is focused on the property tax or however it is focused, let me assure the government that if it does not pay attention to the people who have to walk up to the wicket to buy those tokens and if it is not prepared to protect them, then I can be certain that we won’t suffer any disaster in the call of an election in Metropolitan Toronto. The Tory government and the Liberal government will suffer that disaster here.

The proof of that is that I challenge the Tory government to reverse its decision, to permit this debate to take place tomorrow and to have the vote taken in order to determine on what side of the fence the members of the assembly stand.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, for some hours this afternoon, the various figures that are relative to the operating deficit, to the ridership and to the future of the TTC have been discussed. I would just like to put on the record, because there has been from time to time this afternoon some talk about cutbacks and so forth, that indeed there have been no cutbacks this year. As a matter of fact, there was an additional $2.5 million to meet part of the operating deficit of the TTC.

Mr. Nixon: That’s not what John Sewell says.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The figure of 8.4 per cent in terms of that increase should be re-emphasized at a time when the general government increase in grants to meet operating costs of municipalities, for a very necessary social service to a great number of very vital parts of our community has been at five per cent. Indeed this government, as the Premier said just this afternoon, is more committed than ever to rapid transit, not just in the Metropolitan Toronto area, but in all the urban centres of this province.

Those who are providing just as vital services for the entire community in hospitals, in all the various social services and in a great many other areas that I have talked about might indeed say that the TTC this year is already a special case.

The record of this government not only in the promotion of but dedication to rapid transit in this province has been demonstrated in the past six or seven or eight years by many twenties of millions of dollars, not just going out to meet the operating deficit to prop up the sagging fare box, as some have suggested, for a short period of time, but to make rapid transit and urban transit a very viable operation.

The bulk of those funds have gone out to buy new equipment -- not just subway cars, rolling stock, or buses for Metropolitan Toronto or Mississauga or the city of London, hut throughout the province. The quality of the product throughout the province, as indeed the quality of the product in Metropolitan Toronto, is unsurpassed anywhere in North America. Everybody agrees to that. The reason for that is that the product has been put in place because the province of Ontario provided the bulk of the capital funds so that the transit rider -- and I say this with all due respect to the member for Riverdale -- has a first-class product to ride upon.

[5:45]

Today the question is, in order at this time -- and I emphasize at this time -- to avoid a fare increase, will the province provide at least an additional $6 million on top of the already more than $98 million it is providing to the TTC this year. But on the other hand I’ve heard more than one today very candidly admit that the fare box alone -- and that’s where that $6 million would go -- is not the answer to declining transit ridership.

As a matter of fact, the fare in the city of Hamilton is remarkably low, and yet it has in proportion the very same problem that the TTC does in not being able to attract or to keep its present ridership. Indeed there have been mentions about smaller communities raising their fares. They are having the same difficulty, as the fares go up, in keeping their riders.

Even the TTC finds this in its own study, and I don’t think its own study is begging. I think that here is a transit corporation second to none in North America standing up, analysing itself and the problems it is encountering, putting them down and saying:

“Look, if we could make the decision alone then we would have done it.” But it has to be done in conjunction with Metropolitan Toronto planning --

Mr. Renwick: They’ve stopped fighting for the riders.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It has to be done in conjunction with the provincial government and they’re putting it out, some tough decisions to take and to make; They’ve outlined the problem, they talk about a sluggish economy and what it does to ridership.

Mr. Renwick: They treat the riders as statistics.

Hon. Mr. Drea: They talk about certain demographic factors -- that there are fewer young people and what that has done to transit riders. They are quite candid about how in some years when they raised fares -- and indeed the amount of those increases in those days --

Mr. McClellan: Finish the sentence, Frank.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, go on.

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- was just about in proportion to what this is -- when they raised fares they actually attracted riders. They pointed out all of these things and they say there are some tough decisions to be made.

Mr. Cassidy: Not since 1975 Frank.

Hon. Mr. Drea: This is true, this is quite true. But the one thing that becomes overwhelmingly apparent is that it is not the fare box. It is not their operating deficit; it is not their fare. It goes far beyond all of this.

As the Premier said today, while the province is committed to urban transit the time has come for the province, Metropolitan Toronto and the TTC to find the solution to declining ridership; and it is not in the fare box. The argument has been said that you can buy some time by freezing, perhaps they won’t lose as many in the short term as they might. If the fare box, by common admission, has extremely little bearing on declining or rising ridership, then I humbly ask how would putting more in --

Mr. Cassidy: So you’ll charge a dollar a ride because you don’t care; that’s what you’re saying.

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- get down to facing the tough decision as how to attract riders. I don’t mean just the people who may have departed from the TTC in the past year or so, but how to expand that market so that rapid transit does play its proper role in a balanced transportation system that is essential in a metropolis of the dimensions of Metropolitan Toronto and environs.

Mr. Conway: Stop picking up hitchhikers.

Hon. Mr. Drea: One way or the other, the person who rides the TTC and puts the token in the machine or the ticket in the fare box or pays cash, no matter what would be the decision today, he or she is going to pay the cost. They are either going to pay it in terms of what they drop into the box or they are going to pay it out of their own taxes.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s under your government, yes. Why shouldn’t the car driver contribute? Everybody benefits from that system. Why shouldn’t they contribute to it?

Hon. Mr. Drea: One way or the other.

Mr. Renwick: Don’t use that simplistic statement; it does you a disservice.

Hon. Mr. Drea: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I say to you that when the member for Riverdale feels I am being simplistic, then for the first time all day I feel very confident not only that I have touched a raw nerve, but also that I am absolutely correct.

It has been the government’s position throughout the day that this whole debate over what would be the impact if one decision were made as against the other in terms of the fare box should have been directed towards the real problem, which is the declining ridership of the Toronto Transit Commission, the lack of utilization of the TTC services. The debate, while it has been meritorious and interesting, has really failed to come to grips with that point.

A debate in this Legislature, another subsidy, begging the question, or buying time isn’t going to do it. Surely the time has come to end the controversy and the politics of controversy around the fare box and to put that energy into working with the TTC in Metropolitan Toronto to come to grips with the problem and with what we are going to do about it.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up where the previous speaker has left off, because what my colleagues and I are trying to suggest to that government is that it is exactly that period of time, that period of grace, to do the kind of in-depth examination that he and other speakers in that party have spoken about, that we are asking for.

We are not asking for a fare freeze for ever. We are asking for a fare freeze for one year for the very groups of people that the previous speaker just talked about -- this government, Metro, the TTC -- to sit down together and examine clearly what the alternatives are. That’s what we are trying to do. That’s why we are having this debate this afternoon. That’s what we are trying, again and again, to bring to the government’s attention .

I fail to understand how members of the government party can get up, one after the other, and say they also believe that this kind of in-depth planning is needed if we are going to solve the problems over the long haul and yet not agree with ns to give this one-year moratorium.

The previous speaker also spoke about the fact that transit in Toronto and in many places in Ontario is among the best in the world. That’s partially true, and it also goes right to the heart of what we are talking about. If we have taken the time, the energy and the dollars of the taxpayers of this province and of this Legislature, if we have built something of which we are proud and of which we want to continue to be proud, then for heaven’s sake let’s not turn our backs at this point. In the grander context, we aren’t talking about an awful lot. You can’t dismiss $6 million; it’s a lot of money. But it has to be taken in the broader context which is that what we have built is worth preserving. That doesn’t apply just to the city of Toronto; it applies also to many other municipalities in this province.

In my own city of Kitchener there is going to be a fare increase this year. Our public transit system is going to be facing a deficit in excess of $1 million; they are seriously examining whether public transit can continue to meet the needs of people. That’s a question that’s being asked London, in Sarnia, in Ottawa, in Hamilton, in Kitchener and, yes, in Toronto. The very kinds of decisions, the very kinds of planning, the very kinds of hope for the future that could come out of this one-year moratorium could have an influence or an impact on those other communities as well.

There is a uniqueness about Toronto, however. Let’s accept that fact. Downtown Toronto, in particular, to a large extent has been planned and structured because of public transit. The kinds of things that now can happen in the downtown core of the city of Toronto happened to a large extent because we do have a good public transit system. Are we going to let that go down the drain as well? Once again, we have accepted here in the city of Toronto, and we are beginning to get that model accepted in other larger urban centres in this province, that there is a life and vitality to the downtown core, and that we don’t want our people fleeing to the suburbs and abandoning the downtown as a skeleton that operates simply during the business part of the day, such as is happening in many American cities that the Premier himself referred to earlier this afternoon.

That is a fact. But surely if we believe that is something that we want in our urban downtown centres, then we must also reflect that the vitality of the public transit system makes it possible. It won’t happen by itself. Are we prepared to lose that as well? This is really what this debate is all about this afternoon. It is looking at the heart of what we believe we want to maintain. Everybody here says he agrees with that. Then, for God’s sake, why don’t we give them that moratorium? Why don’t we give them in the broader context a relatively smaller sum of money? Why don’t we give our cities and our public transit systems a chance to show that they can do it?

If a year from now they haven’t come up with the answers, then we will have to start asking other kinds of questions. But I would suggest that the questions we are asking today, the issues we are raising today and the recommendations we are making today at least are worthy of consideration and at least are worthy of a year.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Scarborough Centre might appreciate this. He knows as well as I do what is about to happen to transit in Scarborough because of the decision of this government. As the fares increase, because of that fare increase we will not see any increase in the bus service in Scarborough. He knows that as well as I do. Further to that, he knows from the studies that were tabled along with some tough choices -- the document from Michael Warren -- that ridership will decrease with fare increases.

Mr. McClellan: That’s what it says.

Mr. Warner: That is what has happened historically. We know that is going to occur. When it does, the TTC has no choice but not to increase service in Scarborough and in the other boroughs as well. What we’re facing in Scarborough is deteriorating service not increased service. We don’t have adequate service in Scarborough right now, and this government has made sure that we won’t get any better service.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Scarborough is getting a new subway for $61 million and a new LRT. Everything comes to Scarborough.

Mr. Warner: What bothers me is that when we faced the hospital closing decision earlier, we knew that a combined opposition could force a reversal of the government.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Why don’t you ask the Mayor of Scarborough? He thinks everything is just fine.

Mr. Warner: The Liberal Party knew that, but when we come to another circumstance where a bad decision of the government can be reversed by opposition pressure, what happens? The Liberals bail out faster than one can bat an eyelash. They are gone, and not only are they gone but they supported the arbitrary decision by the government not to allow this party to have the important vote on confidence, the important vote that needs to be taken tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Drea: You know if they hadn’t, you would be defeated.

Mr. Warner: That arbitrary decision is going to haunt this Legislature for some time. You cannot tamper with the parliamentary system the way this government arbitrarily does and get away with it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: You are tampering with it.

Mr. Warner: I will close off. The government members like to talk about the five-cent issue. This government isn’t worth a plugged nickel.

Mr. Speaker: The time for the allotted item has expired.

Mr. Cassidy: Let’s have a vote.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: By agreement, there is no business statement today. I believe there might be one tomorrow. Before moving the adjournment of the House, I would indicate that tomorrow we will be dealing with Bills 74 and 75 in committee.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the procedure. The temporary government House leader or temporary minister has indicated we will deal with Bills 74 and 75 tomorrow. We do not normally deal with legislation on Friday. Is there some explanation for not dealing with the routine proceedings?

Mr. Speaker: There is really no explanation required. The government House leader determines the order of business in the House.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Grossman, the House adjourned at 6 p.m.