Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PUBLIC TRANSIT POLICY

Mr. Cassidy moved motion 1:

That as the government of Ontario has refused to provide $6 million to the Toronto Transit Commission to maintain present transit fares for one year and has failed to revise its public transit subsidy formula, thus undermining public transit in Ontario; and as this refusal reflects the government’s policy to permit public transit fares to increase in the province; therefore this government no longer enjoys the confidence of the House.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion of no confidence in the government and it arises out of the situation concerning the Toronto Transit Commission and concerning the situation of transit in the province generally. I’ll read the motion for the edification of the government and in case it hasn’t absorbed its import:

“That as the government of Ontario has refused to provide $6 million to the Toronto Transit Commission to maintain present transit fares for one year and has failed to revise its public transit subsidy formula, thus undermining public transit in Ontario; and as this refusal reflects the government’s policy to permit public transit fares to increase in the province; therefore this government no longer enjoys the confidence of the House.”

Mr. Turner: You don’t believe that, do you?

Mr. Cassidy: The New Democratic Party has brought this motion of no confidence in the government for three reasons. The first reason is that the New Democrats have had a long-standing commitment to mass transit and all it means for the health of our cities, and we could not let the Conservatives back down, not just on the city of Toronto, but also on Ottawa and London and Thunder Bay and all the other communities which have recently had fare increases, or which are facing fare increases, because of the inadequate transit subsidy formula which we have in the province of Ontario; not only that, but all of those cities where transit is now being squeezed by rising fares and declining ridership and all that means for the future life of those particular cities.

This motion is not just about the TTC; this motion is about transit in 58 cities and towns across Ontario. In our opinion what is happening to transit is also happening to OHIP, to hospitals, to schools, to day care, to mental health centres for children, in fact to every imaginable service which is provided by government, services which in our opinion are essential to people but which have come under the axe because of the priorities of the province of Ontario. They don’t put grants to Ford Motor Company and the pulp and paper industry under the axe, but they put every imaginable service which is important to the working people of this province under the sledge-hammer in 1979, and first on the list was transit when we came back into this Legislature on March 6.

Mr. Johnson: What about western Ontario?

Mr. Hennessy: This is John the Baptist.

Mr. Cassidy: When we were faced with all the cutbacks now being made to these services by the Davis government, we felt we could not stand by and let the working people of this province take it in the neck. Given the apparent determination of the Liberal Party to hang tough on this issue, we felt this was one of those rare occasions in a minority government situation where if we took the leadership we could get support from the official opposition and make the government back down on a decision which we felt was a bad decision in itself and which set a dangerous precedent as far as the future life of our cities is concerned.

We know what happened. The Liberal Party proved once again to have the backbone of a jellyfish.

Some hon. members: Shame, shame.

Mr. Foulds: You flatter them; you flatter them too much.

Mr. Cassidy: I hope I don’t exaggerate. Even last Thursday in the emergency debate they could have stood with the transit riders in Toronto and across Ontario and they could have forced the government to back down on its decision about transit fares in Toronto and the rest of the province by announcing they would support our motion of no confidence, but they failed to do so.

You know, Mr. Speaker, that on an issue like that if both of the parties of the opposition had pushed the government, the government would in fact have changed its mind. But one of the opposition parties was not prepared to stay with the transit riders and the ordinary people of the province. In fact, the Liberals and the Conservatives combined in order to make sure that this particular motion was not debated last Friday. In the House leaders’ meeting the two of them ensured that the debate would not be held until after the fares went up on Monday.

An hon. member: Do you want your crying towel now?

Mr. Cassidy: After all the crocodile tears have been shed by the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith). by Conservative Paul Godfrey, the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, and by the Conservatives generally, we are now faced with a situation where the transit fares in Toronto have gone up.

We’re not worried by the fact that this debate is, so-called, “after the fact,” because the fact is that under the Conservative policy transit fares will continue to go up. We have been warned that TTC fares will soon go up to a dollar or so a ride. They are rising inexorably by seven and a half per cent a year, and similar formulas are being imposed on transit authorities in every other part of the province.

As far as we are concerned, therefore, this debate today is not just a debate about what happened in Toronto, it is also symbolic of whether or not we will continue to have decent public transit in our cities in the years to come. It is no different than voting in December on a budget where we move that it is a no-confidence amendment after the budget is brought down in April.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) said to me last week when we had the emergency debate that my friends in the UAW must be unhappy with what we are saying. I want the Deputy Premier to take word back to his leader that back in 1975 Dennis McDermott, then the Canadian director of the UAW, came before the Ontario government with a brief which said specifically, and I quote --

Mr. Turner: This is 1979. You are only four years behind, Mike, which is normal?

Mr. Cassidy: “Mass transit: There must be greater government subsidization of mass transit. We recommend that the province raise its subsidization of operating costs from 50 per cent to 75 per cent.”

But that, he said, was not alone, because we have to change the planning of our urban system in order to ensure that it is no longer controlled just by business interests that want to give free sway to the automobile.

The UAW said that the automobile is not about to disappear. We agreed. They said what we need is an urban environment where a car is not an absolute necessity, but where we have a sane, balanced, private and public transportation system; and of course that is what we are in danger of losing in our cities because of the kinds of policies the government is pursuing at this time.

When the government could find $300 million for Rio Algom and Denison Mines, when it can find hundreds of millions of dollars for industry of all kinds, for them to say that they could not find $6 million out of a $15 billion budget is rubbish.

Mr. Sterling: Only equitable, only fair.

Mr. Cassidy: It is simply not the case. As far as we are concerned, public transit benefits everybody in the province of Ontario. It saves energy. It saves capital expenditure on roads. That means we benefit if public transit is good in Ottawa and good in Thunder Bay. The people in Thunder Bay benefit if there is adequate public transportation in Toronto, in Windsor and in London.

We believe that public transit is vital for the health of our municipalities. We say, as well, that it is about time that the government looked to the needs for transit not just to people in Metropolitan Toronto and the surrounding municipalities, not just in cities like Ottawa or Thunder Bay, but also to the people in villages like Amherstburg, which we were talking about today, where there are no doctors to go to unless you can ride on the bus and there were no buses to ride because there is no transportation system in the smaller communities of this province.

We say it is not the time for Ontario to back away from transit. If the government had been willing to put some of the savings it has been realizing from its declining commitment to capital expenditures on transit into the subsidy formula this debate today would not have had to occur. If the Liberal Party had been prepared to join with the New Democratic Party in pressing the government to take action this debate would not have had to occur.

If the government had any compassion, any sense about services that are essential to people, this debate would not have had to occur. If the government had had any commitment to maintaining the life and vitality of the great city of Metropolitan Toronto and the other great cities and towns of this province, this debate would not have had to occur.

It is therefore more in sorrow than in anger that I am moving this motion of no confidence; asking the Liberal Party to join with us, and asking the government to announce even at this late date they are prepared to recant, that they are prepared to move in now on behalf of transit riders in Metropolitan Toronto and that they are prepared to take the steps that are so essential in order to protect the life of our cities and make sure that we have public and not just private transportation in our cities over the decades to come.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Turner: Mike, you have got to be kidding.

Mr. Sterling: As a member who lives outside of an area which is serviced by public transit, I felt we should speak up at some point in the debate. Unfortunately, the other afternoon we weren’t given that opportunity.

I would like to remind the House that the majority of the people in this province come from without the boundaries of Metro Toronto. It upsets many of the members from outside the boundaries of Metro Toronto that the mayor of this fine city and the council have tried to blackmail the provincial government into giving $6 million to that particular city.

An hon. member: No, no.

Mr. Ashe: What else would you call it? It’s the end of the no-down-payment party.

Mr. Sterling: Especially, Mr. Speaker, when they now receive 70 per cent of transportation subsidies that this province now pays and the rest of us, six million out of 8.4 million people, settle for 30 per cent.

Ms. Gigantes: You can’t even add up the population of Ontario.

Mr. Sterling: We are discussing a nickel --

Ms. Gigantes: Can you subtract?

Mr. Hennessy: Give it to him, Evelyn.

Mr. Sterling: -- a nickel per ride increase in TTC fares --

Ms. Gigantes: He added wrong.

Mr. Hennessy: Give it to him.

Mr. Sterling: -- in Metro Toronto.

Mr. Haggerty: Like 90 cents a month.

Mr. Sterling: The member for Ottawa Centre has pointed out increases in other areas of the province, including a hike to the good people of Ottawa-Carleton. They are paying 60 cents per ride for OC Transpo and OG Transpo doesn’t have nearly the transportation system that Toronto has.

Ms. Gigantes: How much?

Mr. Sterling: Sixty cents per ride.

Mr. Wildman: Well then why aren’t you fighting for more money for them?

Mr. Eaton: Neither one of them said any. thing about it. Where’s Cassidy? He has been away from Ottawa so long he doesn’t know what’s going on there.

Mr. Sterling: Where were they on January 1? Where was the leader of the third party?

Mr. Cassidy: We were waiting for your government to bring the Legislature back, that’s where we were.

Mr. Sterling: That didn’t stop you from making other statements before the press.

Mr. Cassidy: You’ve got a Premier who could have acted.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Ottawa Centre has just spoken. I’ll listen to the member for Carleton-Grenville.

Mr. Sterling: Let’s examine what our government presently gives to Metro and the TTC. Since 1974, $472.8 million in provincial subsidies have gone to Metro and the TTC out of a total of $658.4 million, 70 per cent again. This year, in 1979, they’re getting $98.1 million. They’re getting an 8.4 per cent increase in subsidies for operating deficits within their system. What does the rest of the province get? Five per cent.

Mr. Philip: They also pay for all the additional roads and expressways that we have. Are you going to abolish those also?

Mr. Ashe: Just the NDP.

Mr. Sterling: The member for Ottawa Centre, in his remarks, has said that the government is making cutbacks in the transit budget now. I submit that this isn’t a cutback that we’re talking about, it’s an add-on.

I think the Brockville Recorder and Times has expressed how the rest of Ontario views what this Legislature is debating at this time and what it debated before in the emergency debate. This reflects on the whole Legislature. The members for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith) may both talk about the whole transit situation, but that is not the way it is perceived outside of these boundaries. It’s perceived as $6 million going to Toronto.

Ms. Gigantes: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Wildman: Why aren’t you correcting that perception?

Mr. Sterling: The Brockville Recorder and Times quoted the Globe and Mail as saying:

“‘The health of Toronto is of concern, not just to its residents but to those areas of the province which depend upon it for their wellbeing. In our opinion, the only area in Ontario that depends on Toronto for its wellbeing is Toronto itself. The rest of the province is too often hampered by the provincial government looking out for Toronto’s wellbeing.”

Ms. Gigantes: That’s your problem.

Mr. Sterling: Unfortunately, by raising this debate, by calling it an emergency --

Mr. Makarchuk: You sound like you should be working for Lougheed. You’ve got the same kind of perspective.

Mr. Sterling: -- by calling it a matter of confidence, that is the kind of attitude the members opposite have engendered in the rest of the people of the province of Ontario. Those members have little support out there and I only wish we would go to a vote on this particular issue because we’d be sitting back here with more than 58 seats.

Mr. Makarchuk: Lougheed is running an election on the same basis.

Mrs. Campbell: I am really rather sad listening to the last speaker, because it does seem to me that this matter is one of importance for the whole province --

Mr. Eaton: It sure is.

Mrs. Campbell: -- and I don’t quite understand what I see. I see it with great regret, I may say, as a parochialism which I don’t understand.

[8:15]

Mr. Sterling: That’s the way Ontario looks at it.

Mrs. Campbell: In the first place, I don’t know whether the member for Carleton-Grenville knows who the mayor of Toronto is or the circumstances. Of course the mayor of Toronto is concerned about his citizens, and I think that this is his right.

Mr. Eaton: He is concerned about the gay people of the province. That’s what he is concerned about.

Mrs. Campbell: The fact that the Metro chairman doesn’t care is a tribute to the government’s influence. May I say also in this debate that the Liberal position was stated quite clearly on Thursday?

Mr. Eaton: Vote against us.

Mrs. Campbell: We asked for the emergency debate prior to the increase in the hope that we might create in the government an understanding of the problems of transit.

Mr. Johnson: In Toronto.

Mrs. Campbell: Not just in Toronto, no. We did indeed want to try to get an understanding of what we have developed. In a way something like Hydro, I suppose, we have a large operation of transit in this area which has expanded faster, without question, than the ability of the people of the city to handle it.

Mr. Johnson: Who pays?

Mrs. Campbell: Who pays? Let’s get to that. In the first place, I pointed out the other day the history of this transit corporation, otherwise named. This was originally a Toronto operation and the subway was financed out of the reserves of that corporation.

Mr. Eaton: With a lot of money from the province.

Mrs. Campbell: When this government brought Metropolitan Toronto into being there was a demand for an extension of those services, which could not be met out of those reserves. That was the point at which the government came into the picture. The trouble is that quite basically what Mr. Sewell has been saying is rather well demonstrated, that is that the fare-box operation is very largely supported by the citizens of the inner city. That is not to say that others don’t use it; but basically, if members look at the Spadina subway fiasco, they will understand a little bit of what we are talking about.

Mr. Hennessy: There are other fiascos too.

Mrs. Campbell: We have stated consistently that all parts of Metro ought to have a proper transportation system, but we have equally said that this should not be financed municipally to a greater extent than the financing allocated to Hamilton, to Ottawa and to other major centres. In other words -- and I am open to be corrected -- I believe our percentage is something like about 13.7 as against 17.5 for Hamilton, Ottawa and those other areas.

Mr. Hennessy: Thunder Bay.

Mrs. Campbell: When we went to the emergency debate, what were we asking? We were asking for time in order that a study might be done. Because of the decline in ridership which had taken place prior to this particular situation, we felt that it was important not to allow the situation to worsen while we did that study. I may say that we are very happy that we had, I think, a great role to play in the government’s decision to undertake that study. We accomplished that much in our emergency debate. It was never a nickel issue, the issue was simply the declining ridership.

Having said so, I maintain that Scarborough is as entitled to as decent a system as North York or anyone else, but I wonder why it wouldn’t have been better, and certainly more logical, to deal with the percentage funding situation and then for the government to move into its special project subsidy for the Scarborough light rail transit; but that was not the way the government went.

We concede that this is not an issue on which we are prepared to bring down this government. We do concede that the accumulation of issues is what is important to the people of this province. Those issues are emerging and will continue to emerge. So for us the stances are not the reality. The reality for us is to come to grips with the problem and to try to seek a solution to that problem. There is no reason, really, why Metropolitan Toronto should be disadvantaged on a percentage basis over other major cities.

One of the arguments used is that other cities do not have the population on so dense a basis and, therefore, they need the additional subsidy in order to make their systems viable. I would like to say that I could understand that position if it related solely to the inner city, the city of Toronto, but it doesn’t. When one gets into the suburban areas of this metropolitan area one finds very much the same conditions as prevail in these other cities to which this special consideration has been given.

Unfortunately, we did not prevail on Thursday. I would now take the position as a responsible member in this House that I personally want to see what those studies indicate. Perhaps at that point in time we will be able to reach those solutions which are imperative, in my opinion, but which, unfortunately, we cannot usefully discuss in advance of the study. Our position is that we have entered into the debate. We do not take second place to any in this House in our concern for this problem of transit. We are not being parochial about it. We do believe that Metropolitan Toronto does have an impact financially on the whole province. I am sorry other members feel that we have no such impact, but I think if you examine the record we really do put a great deal into this province; and of course so we should.

I cannot add anything further. I have stated our position as best I can and I thank you.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the no-confidence motion. I find it very regrettable that the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) is not present in the House during the debate on such an important transportation matter.

Mr. Eaton: Oh come on, he was here the other day.

Mr. Sterling: Where is your leader now?

Mr. Philip: I find it even more distressful that at least those people who are close advisers to him are not even in the galleries, and I would like that on the record.

Mr. Sterling: Where is your leader now?

Mr. Philip: I would like to refer members of the House to an article contained in the February 22 issue of the Toronto Sun.

Mr. Eaton: Where is your leader? He is gone.

Ms. Gigantes: He is on his way back.

Mr. Philip: The headline reads: “Liberals and the TTC Hike May Bring Down the Davis Government.”

Mr. Eaton: They chickened out again.

Mr. Philip: The article states that, “Liberal leader Stuart Smith does not rule out the possibility of introducing a no-confidence motion.”

Mr. Eaton: That’s when he was in Florida playing tennis though.

Mr. Philip: It goes on to quote the leader of the Liberal Party directly: “‘If the principle of public transportation is at stake, then this issue becomes a provincial one.’”

Mr. Van Horne: What principle are you working on now?

Mr. Philip: The issue of public transportation is at stake. This is an issue that is a provincial issue; it is a province-wide issue.

Mr. Kerrio: How come Michael Cassidy only spoke for 10 minutes about it?

Mr. Philip: I would like to refer the Minister of Transportation and Communications, if he ever does return to this House, and perhaps the Premier who also is not present, to the article in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record for Saturday, March 3. The headline is:

“Mayors Team Up to Pressure Davis.”

Mr. Van Horne: You guys don’t know what your target is.

Mr. Philip: The municipal politicians out there recognize that it’s a provincial issue --

Mr. Eaton: How many other mayors teamed up?

Mr. Philip: -- and the Davis government had better realize this. The fact is that the public in this province is a lot smarter than this government gives it credit for, or that the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) gives them credit for. In fact, there is the growing realization that the struggle tonight is not over $6 million; it is over the government’s failure to develop a systematic and cohesive transportation policy in this province.

I found it interesting that 10 days ago I was listening to a radio station in Peterborough -- hardly a Toronto area -- and a series of man-on-the-street interviews came up with something rather startling even to the interviewer. In fact the majority of the people interviewed in downtown Peterborough recognized the need to preserve the public transit system in Toronto and condemned the Davis government for not doing so.

Mr. Eaton: Why don’t you test him at the ballot box then?

Mr. Philip: We are dealing with a government that has no identifiable transportation policy. We go from one crisis to another. As transportation critic in my party I find it difficult to watch TV or listen to the radio without being jolted out of any relaxed mood by some new transportation crisis coming over the medium.

An hon. member: Where is the crisis?

Mr. Philip: First we have the Gray Coach fiasco: there’s transportation policy in this province. Then you turn on the radio and there are dump trucks parked in front of the Legislature: that’s transportation policy in this province. Then there is the inquiry during the last few weeks into the transport board by the resources committee, If the minister were here -- perhaps he is conferring with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) over the seizures that were made yesterday of papers owned by one Mr. Secord; perhaps that’s transportation policy in this province.

Then we turn on the radio or the TV and we find out that the driving school instructors are calling for policy, because there is no policy in this province even in that field.

[8:30]

I can’t even turn on my TV set on Sunday night, as I did last Sunday, but I find there is another crisis in transportation in Ontario. It is something that we have been talking about, but W-5 has to zero in on the tow truck industry and show what a rip-off the consumers are having to endure because this government has no transportation policy in that field either. The tow truck operators have not been brought under a public commercial vehicle licensing system.

There is absolutely no transportation policy in this province. That is what is wrong. It is the Minister of Transportation and Communications who gets the no-confidence motion tonight. He is the one who should be here; he is the one who should he listening to it; he is the one who should be resigning as a result of the fiasco we have. Not only with regard to the movement of people in Toronto, but in the movement of people throughout this province and the movement of goods throughout this province there is no identifiable policy.

Thus the vote of no confidence tonight is more than a vote on the TTC issue. It is a vote on the failure of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Mr. Speaker, it is possibly because there is no policy that the Minister of Transportation and Communications does not recognize that the concept of the Toronto Transportation Commission has changed over the years. Transit is not being used now as in the past, as a means of simply moving people on a very small, local level; transit is being used as a means of influencing land-use planning. The costs related to this are bound to be higher than was experienced in the past when the TTC had the responsibility to merely provide limited local service, limited local movement of people around a limited area.

The TTC now also has the responsibility of providing what amounts to commuter service, but it hasn’t provided it adequately and that is fairly obvious to anyone who lives in the Scarborough or Rexdale areas. In fact, the minister still doesn’t realize that it is a greater distance to the centre core of the city -- downtown Toronto -- from the area of Albion Road and Highway 27 where I live, than from Port Credit GO station to downtown Toronto; yet the provincial government will subsidize a rider on that system 97 cents, while the commuter from my area, from my neighbourhood, gets a measly six cents for what amounts to a commuter transportation system.

I found the statement contained in the minister’s letter to Paul Godfrey very interesting. This letter I am talking about is dated February 12. The minister states: “I am sure you would agree that the fare box should provide a realistic share of the costs.” I challenge the minister to define what is a realistic share for the fare box.

In order to do so, he must first of all tell the House what his objectives are in transportation. He hasn’t done so. He must tell the House how his government sees the role of the TTC and other transportations systems vis-à-vis land-use planning and development. What services they are to provide and what is their role in that area. He must tell us how he sees the TTC in terms of providing commuter service. Until those kinds of questions are answered he cannot define what is an adequate funding.

We find a 13.75 per cent subsidy for operating costs entirely inadequate. The Minister of Transportation and Communications has no satisfactory rationale for demanding that 72 per cent of the costs be covered by the fare box. Consider the fact that 48 per cent of operating costs come from the fare box in Montreal and only 35 per cent in Vancouver; and consider, too, that most Ontario systems are facing increasing deficits. It should be abundantly clear that this system of subsidization, whereby TTC riders are expected to pay 70 per cent of the operating costs, is simply inadequate.

I was appalled to learn, again in looking at American figures, that Americans are much more generous with their public transportation systems than we are.

Mr. Eaton: Yes, but where has it got them?

Mr. Philip: If we look at Ontario, what we are talking about in terms of the fare box --

Mr. Eaton: Show me a public transportation system in any American city --

Mr. Philip: If the member will be quiet for a minute he just might learn something. He hasn’t learned anything about the movement of goods, now maybe he will learn something about the movement of people.

Interjections.

Mr. Philip: This is the parliamentary assistant to the minister who wants to deregulate the trucking industry and put all that industry out of business; maybe he would like to put public transportation out of business?

Mr. Eaton: Tell us about the American city transportation systems you are talking about. If you are going to compare them, tell us about them. There is not a city in the United States that can compare with it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. M. Davidson: The city of Washington, 40 cents.

Mr. Philip: In Ontario, the fare box operating revenues in cities over one million are expected to equal 72 per cent; in cities of 200,000 to one million, 65 per cent; in cities of 150,000 to 200,000, 60 per cent.

We take a look, then, at the American figures -- and I would be glad to supply this to the parliamentary assistant to the minister or to the minister. We look at New York, 52 per cent --

Mr. Eaton: Talk about the transit system in Detroit and how they get to work.

Mr. Philip: -- Los Angeles, 41 per cent; Chicago, 55 per cent; Philadelphia, 48 per cent; Detroit, 45 per cent --

Mr. Eaton: How many of them have subway systems like we have?

Mr. Bounsall: You’re trying to destroy it.

Mr. Philip: -- San Francisco, 40 per cent; Boston, 20 per cent; Washington, 52 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, the government clearly is not only interested in not providing the kinds of service, the kinds of subsidy that other Canadian cities provide, it can’t even equal the American subsidy; and the Americans have hardly been the greatest advocates of public transit.

Mr. Eaton: When you’re subsidizing nothing it isn’t much, is it?

Mr. Philip: I found the remarks from the member for Carleton-Grenville rather amusing. I guess amusing is the only word one can use to describe them.

Ms. Gigantes: Pathetic.

Mr. Eaton: You are the only amusing thing around here, Philip.

Mr. Philip: What we have to do is to look at the history of the kinds of subsidies in this province. One of the keys to the province’s big splash in transit in November 1972, the unveiling of the GO Urban, was a commitment to pay 50 per cent of the operating losses in the municipal transit system. That commitment was reinforced in John White’s 1974 budget, in which the Treasurer made transit grants conditional on keeping fares constant during the 1974-75 fiscal year.

Shortly after that the commitment began to fade. The province put considerable pressure on Metro to put up fares in March 1975 and again in February 1976. In fact, the rapidly increasing deficits followed. Finally, in the fall of 1976, the province changed its support formula from 50 per cent of operating deficits to -- in the ease of the TTC 13.75 per cent, which is the figure we have been talking about.

The letter from the minister to Mr. Godfrey is also kind of interesting. He says, and I quote: “As you are aware, reflecting on our commitment to public transit the government of Ontario will provide substantial support for the TTC during the coming fiscal year. According to the TTC estimated needs under present subsidy arrangements, we will likely contribute $8.7 million for demonstration program; $21.4 million for surplus capital; $32.8 million for rapid transit construction” --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Would honourable members carrying on private conversations please refrain?

Mr. Roy: I agree with you.

Mr. Philip: Thank you, Mr. Speaker -- “and $33.5 million for operating subsidy.”

For the sake of the member for Carleton-Grenville, then, I will go over those figures. I see he has left already; well those are the breaks of the game, perhaps he will read it.

Let’s deal with those figures; first the $8.76 million for demonstration program. This is the 1979 payment of 100 per cent of the cost of the 75 LRVs and fulfills an obligation the province undertook years ago. Last year, $11.2 million was transferred under this agreement.

If we look at the $21.4 million that is quoted for surface capital in the minister’s letter, this refers to the $16.4 million towards 75 per cent of the cost of 125 LRVs purchased by the TTC as a result of the agreement noted again just before, and $5 million for the other surface improvements, such as escalator expansion, purchase of buses and trolleys.

Last year the amounts were $15.8 million and $3.2 million. So the total increase is from $19 million to only $21 million.

The $32.8 million is for rapid transit construction. Again, this refers to money budgeted for subway construction, the Kipling and Kennedy extensions in the Scarborough LRT. Last year this transfer yielded $38 million.

The $35 million for operating subsidy was an increase from the year’s subsidy of approximately $30.9 million; and this projected transfer is what the present formula was expected to yield in 1979 and 1978. Just as the municipalities learned on the breaking of the Edmonton commitment that the commitments made by the then Treasurer and Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs were not to be relied on, so too they have learned that the government cannot be relied on to provide even consistent financing in transportation, let alone any kind of consistent policy.

We are facing a crisis in public transportation in this province. I find it shocking that the Liberals have decided to do another flip-flop. Just as they sold out the women in the family law reform bill and as they recently sold out condominium owners in the condominium bill, so too are they about to sell out transit riders throughout the province on this particular motion of no confidence.

Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP provided a very constructive proposal for alternatives in the brief that we made on January 9 before the Toronto Transit Commission regarding the transit problem in Toronto. In that brief we pointed out that fewer people rode public transit last year in Toronto, Hamilton, Kitchener, Mississauga, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay and at least 10 other Ontario cities.

In this time of sharply rising fuel costs it is absolutely irresponsible to allow public transit to go down the drain. Besides enriching the transportation grant formula we would encourage experimentation and innovation in transportation in this province. We suggested a fund that would grant or loan start-up money to any Ontario transit authority which presented an innovative plan to increase ridership and efficiency. That would be a lot more innovative, and a lot more constructive, than the $55 million the Minister of Transportation and Communications poured off on some pie-in-the-sky Krauss-Maffei. It would be a lot more constructive than an awful lot of the other millions and millions of dollars that are fed to resource companies to exploit our resources and ship them to other countries.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Liberal Party to change its position. I urge the Liberal Party, for once, not to do another flip-flop, not to sell out the people in Toronto. Vote with us on this issue.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, as a member for a riding located in the newest and fourth largest city in Canada -- which is quickly proving itself to be the senior partner in the Metropolitan Toronto corporation -- I am pleased to participate in this emergency debate this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that without question -- and I challenge any member in this House here this evening on this point -- the Toronto transit system is the finest public transit system in the continent of North America. Without fear of contradiction, I say to you, that the reason this transit system is the finest in North America is because we have, without question, the most efficient system, the cleanest system, the best organized system, the most heavily-funded system anywhere in the country. You only have to talk to people visiting Toronto who will say that among the first impressions left with them of Metropolitan Toronto was that of the public transit system in this jurisdiction.

[8:45]

I must say that perhaps one of the reasons our system continues to receive awards around the country, both for safety and for efficiency --

Mr. Kerrio: Because you give all the awards.

Mr. Williams: -- of operation, and for its cleanliness of operation, is because of the leadership given by the Toronto Transit Commission itself. I look back to the days of Ralph Day when he was the hard-nosed leader --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Does Michael Warren live in your riding?

Mr. Williams: -- who helped bring the transit system to where it is today. I guess one could consider Ralph Day --

Mr. Eaton: Do you want an election on this?

Mr. Williams: -- as the Fred Gardiner of the public transit system of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. T. P. Reid: If you ran him up in Rainy River, Bob, I would vote for him.

Mr. Williams: His successors since that day have also performed well, along with the senior administrators and stall --

Mrs. Campbell: Then there’s Mr. Hurlburt.

Mr. Williams: -- and operators of the transit system to make it the fine system it is today.

Obviously this is the very reason the Toronto Transit Commission has the highest per capita ridership in North America.

Mr. Riddell: What do the people of Middlesex think of the TTC, Bob?

Mr. Williams: The reason for this success is not --

Mr. Foulds: No thanks to you.

Mr. Williams: -- through uncertainty or because of luck. It’s been because of good planning, strong leadership and the strong financial backup of the province of Ontario.

Mr. Kerrio: And Gray Coach.

Mr. Williams: As other speakers this evening and previously have stated, this province has generously donated over 70 per cent of its total transit subsidies to the Toronto transit system.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Donated? Where the hell do you think the money comes from?

Mrs. Campbell: Not from you.

Mr. Williams: In making that extremely generous donation to Metro Toronto transit they have provided --

Mr. Kerrio: What are you talking about?

Mr. Breithaupt: Whose money is it?

Mr. Williams: -- over 33 per cent of it in operating subsidies. And in so doing for this coming year, they have enriched the ante by 8.4 per cent, up from $31 million to $33.5 million. If that isn’t a generous enrichment of the program I don’t know what is.

Mr. Van Horne: Do you really believe that stuff?

Mr. Cassidy: You measure the whole world by percentage points. You’ve got an accountant’s view of the world.

Mr Williams: There’s no doubt that Metro Toronto is not suffering; it has strong financial support from the provincial government. After the Premier (Mr. Davis) has announced there would be no further additional moneys in the --

Mr. Foulds: When was the last time you took the subway?

Mr. Williams: -- amount of $6 million forthcoming, members will recall that the mayor of the city of Toronto and some of his colleagues --

Mr. Foulds: Have you ever been on the subway?

Mr. Williams: -- decided to come to a caucus of the Metro Toronto members to discuss the matter again and ask if, through them, the Premier would capitulate and reconsider. When the mayor of Toronto, with some of his members, came to the Metro caucus --

Mr. Cassidy: And you all tuned your back on the people of Metropolitan Toronto; all but two of Metropolitan Toronto Conservative members.

Mr. Williams: I said to him: “Explain to us why you should be coming to us with cap in hand asking for another $6 million -- “

Mr. T. P. Reid: Did you say that to Paul Godfrey?

Mr. Williams: “ -- when we’ve already enriched the subsidy by another 8.4 per cent.” And I listened carefully to what the mayor of the city of Toronto had to say.

Mr. Cassidy: Where were the Toronto Tories when the transit riders were looking for your help?

Mr. Williams: He said to me that he was there because the nickel was the issue, that there would be six million fewer riders using the TTC --

Mr. T. P. Reid: You should have understood that.

Mr. Van Horne: Was it a Blue Jay cap, John?

Mr. Williams: -- if the nickel addition was put on. That was the sole reason for his coming there with cap in hand.

I said to him: “Mr. Mayor, you explain to this caucus this evening how you conclude that there will be six million fewer riders the day after the nickel increase comes about. Show me the statistics.” The mayor of the city of Toronto didn’t have an answer. He couldn’t give me the statistics.

Mr. Bounsall: You couldn’t read them anyway.

Mr. Cassidy: If you could read we would give them to you.

Mr. Lawlor: You can’t give statistics in advance.

Mr. Williams: I said give it to me in black and white. “Where is the backup information from all the experts at the TTC?

“Is this a guesstimate or is it based on cold hard facts?”

Mr. T. P. Reid: What did you say to Paul Godfrey?

Mr. Cassidy: You are not only illiterate, you are “ill-numerative.”

Mr. Williams: He said there were no cold hard facts to back it up. This was a guesstimate made by the TTC.

Mr. Foulds: It’s called a load forecast. If it’s good enough for Hydro it’s good enough for the TTC.

Mr. Williams: The interesting fact is that in 1975, when the TTC increased fares by 33 per cent not 14 per cent, the ridership went up by 10 million.

Mr. Bounsall: You supported that too.

Mr. Williams: In 1976, when they increased the fares again --

Mr. Cassidy: The ridership went down.

Mr. Williams: -- by 20 per cent, the ridership went up by another three million.

Mr. Cassidy: It went down.

Mr. Williams: All refuting the statistics that the mayor of the city of Toronto was trying to give to the Metro Toronto caucus.

He could not substantiate the facts.

Mr. Cassidy: Are you ever misrepresenting the facts.

Mr. Williams: I asked: “Where are the six million riders going to go if they’re not going to continue to use the TTC and pay the extra nickel?”

Mr. Cassidy: They’re going to clog the roads.

Mr. Williams: He put himself right into a corner. He said: “Oh, they’ll start using their cars. They’ll pay to park downtown.”

Mr. Kerrio: With a Tory government they don’t have any cars.

Mr. Williams: The fact is that with the new increase it will cost them a dollar a day to ride back and forth to work; if they took their cars to work it would cost them twice that or three times that just to park their cars downtown, let alone pay for the increase in gas. He had no answer for that.

Mr. M. Davidson: If you guys keep going, we won’t be able to afford tickets.

Mr. Havrot: Down with socialist riders.

Mr. Foulds: Maybe, like you, they’ll fly.

Mr. Havrot: You guys don’t know the value of a nickel.

Mr. Williams: I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the statistics just did not support the arguments they brought to the Metro caucus.

Mr. Foulds: In your private plane. Where do you park your plane?

Mr. Eaton: How do you get around the province? Who subsidizes that?

Mr. Foulds: Where does he park his plane?

Mr. Eaton: Who subsidizes that when you fly in from Thunder Bay? Who subsidizes you? Nobody.

Mr. Foulds: What are you talking about? I take the subway more than he does.

Mr. Williams: The point at issue is that it’s not just a nickel issue. The mayor of the city of Toronto was looking at it with tunnel vision, when he said that it was only the matter of the nickel. The provincial government felt -- and the Premier very clearly spelled it out the other day -- that it was a much broader issue than simply the $6 million and the nickel increase.

Mr. Havrot: That is a typical NDP view.

Mr. Williams: The mayor of the city of Toronto, while he was there with his cap in hand, already knew that the newspapers were going to press with his ad slanted towards putting the blame for the fare increases on the provincial government.

Mrs. Campbell: Shame on him.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s exactly where it belongs.

Mr. Van Horne: His cap was in his hand because he was a sacrificial lamb. He didn’t know where the Tories were going to stick it to him next.

Mr. Williams: While he sat there talking to the Metro caucus he knew of their little scheme of trying to get the people emotionally involved and upset and go after the provincial government, instead of looking at the Metro people with whom the buck stays for looking after transportation in Metro. It backfired on him. The whole thing fell apart because the people in this city recognized there was a broader issue and it wasn’t just the nickel increase.

Mr. Van Horne: Godfrey and Davis and all your friends.

Mr. Williams: It’s the old story that no matter how long you talk to the people, and try to mislead them perhaps --

Mr. Breithaupt: Mislead them?

Mr. Williams: -- or give them a story that isn’t totally accurate or complete, you can fool some of the people some of the time, as they say, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

Mr. Van Horne: It’s getting pretty thin there.

Mr. Williams: The people in Metro Toronto and beyond recognized that when they did take the mayor up on his proposal and phoned in and completely turned the tables on him.

Mr. M. N. Davison: You sure know about being foolish.

Mr. Williams: The people of this city aren’t as dumb as they’re made out to be by those who would suggest --

Mr. Van Horne: You’re saying the people in Toronto are dumb, are you?

Mr. Cassidy: Are you calling them dumb? Are you calling your own constituents dumb?

Mr. Van Horne: Are you calling Torontonians dumb? Spell it out.

Mr. Williams: -- that they could be conned by that type of proposal, that it’s the nickel and only the nickel.

Mr. Van Horne: Spell it out. Are you calling them stupid?

Mr. Cassidy: Another slur on the ordinary people of this province.

Mr. Williams: The people of this city are much more astute, than they’re given credit for by the mayor of the city of Toronto, let me assure you of that.

Mr. Van Horne: You didn’t say that a minute ago.

Mr. Williams: In speaking of the broader perspective --

Mr. Conway: Spare us that.

Mr. Williams: -- the leader of the third party touched on it when he referred to that well-known labour leader, Dennis McDermott --

Mr. Cassidy: A fine fellow.

Mr. Williams: -- who said we must continue to have a balanced transportation system within Metro Toronto, as we must have in any urban area.

Mr. Breithaupt: Does he use the TTC too?

Mr. Williams: That indeed is really the sum and substance of what this issue is all about.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. Well, stop pushing the fares up every year.

Mr. Williams: We must continue to have a balanced transportation system within Metropolitan Toronto. I think it would be interesting to compare the private transportation, if you will, in Metro Toronto with the public transit system. It’s interesting to note that in fact there are more miles of subway lines in Metropolitan Toronto than there are metropolitan expressways. The fact is that far more has been done to expand the public transit system in Metro Toronto in the past five years than has been done to improve or expand upon the arterial road system within Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Breithaupt: So what?

Mr. Williams: In fact, expansion of the arterial road system in Metro has virtually come to a standstill because the emphasis has gone so far the other way, to the point where this balanced transportation system that the leader of the third party talks about is starting to deteriorate; but I would suggest not negatively against the public transit system, rather perhaps against the private transit system.

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: The pro-expressway faction rears its head again. Roads before cities, cars before people; you are off again. The old instincts have come to the fore, you just give them a chance, they will --

Mr. Williams: Let me point out to you what those real broad perspectives are that the opposition hasn’t even considered because all they have talked about is the nickel, the nickel, the nickel.

Mr. Conway: Get out your purse, John.

Mr. Williams: And what those broad perspectives are is what the Toronto Transit Commission itself pointed out in its white paper produced in January. There, Mr. Speaker, the transit commission clearly pointed out that, while fares are important, there is no question of that, they do not alone determine ridership.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh but they do have a bearing.

Mr. Williams: In that white paper, the transit commission pointed out that in fact three major ingredients were having a possible adverse effect on the Metro transit system. Those three major factors, as was pointed out, are these:

First, fare and fare structures, which is what this debate has been largely limited to, to date.

Mrs. Campbell: Precisely.

Mr. Williams: Second, the level of service provided; and third, external factors.

Those latter two considerations, I suggest with respect, have barely been touched upon by the other speakers in this House who have restricted themselves strictly to that five-cent image in the increased fare.

In order to give this the proper perspective, I would like to --

Mr. Ziemba: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Last week you could get seven tokens for three dollars, this week you can only get six; it is not a five-cent increase, it is a seven-cent increase.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order, it is a point of view.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It is a point of information.

Mr. Cassidy: It is a fact, Mr. Speaker. If you had counted it in fact you might have voted with us.

Mr. Roy: No, no; we are not that foolish.

Mr. Williams: The transit commission has pointed out, in its white paper, that there are perhaps three options left open to it; options which the committee has agreed to undertake to review. This province is anxiously waiting to see the results.

The Premier the other day did offer to assist this study in any way possible. While the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) seems to have lost patience with this idea, I think she herself suggested that we must see the full story which will be presented by this in-depth study.

Mrs. Campbell: That’s what we asked for in the emergency debate.

Mr. Williams: She herself is supporting that concept. It is the very concept that this government is proposing; that we in fact wait to see what the results of this study are so that we can see the total picture.

Mrs. Campbell: We said “before the increase” and you said “after.” What is the difference?

Mr. Williams: There are three options left open to us, as pointed out by the TTC. One is to continue the status quo; another is that we favour transit more but without capital expansion; and the third is that we favour transit more with a rapid transit grant.

What I would like to do for a moment or two is --

Mr. Haggerty: Sit down.

Mr. Williams: -- to highlight to you the consequences of continuing the status quo.

Mr. Samis: When you get Ray Haggerty saying that, John, you are in trouble.

Mr. Williams: And the transit commission points out what the negative effects of doing so would be. Three of them are related to the fare and fare structure factor. They are, and I will point them out in point form:

First, the status quo would mean to continue with the 1977 financial formula, retaining a constant revenue cost ratio through incremental fare increases as operating costs increase.

Second, there would be minimal or no expansion in surface transit service.

Third, there would be no expansion of rapid transit beyond current commitments.

[9:00]

Those three status quo factors would obviously fall within the area of jurisdiction and control of the transit commission itself. But there are three other considerations that the commission points out that are of equal importance and concern, I suggest to you Mr. Speaker, and once again which have been minimized or not even touched upon in this debate.

What is, first, they point out, the status quo would mean a minimal priority for transit on the roads. Second, there would be limited transit-oriented redevelopment along rapid transit lines. Third, there would be minimal improvement to their arterial road system.

One of the major problems in making our public transportation system more efficient in Metropolitan Toronto is the fact there has been a down attitude towards improving the arterial road system within Metropolitan Toronto. Because the anti-road people can only equate the use of roads, the expansion and the improvement of roads, to the use of those roads by private vehicles.

The fact of life is the public transit vehicles have to use those roads as much as the automobiles and the commercial vehicles. That’s a point that’s lost sight of and never touched upon in the debate. The buses, the extended new larger vehicles that will be coming on stream in the near future, have to have adequate roads to utilize just as much as the private vehicles do themselves.

Unless we can maintain and ensure there will be an adequate arterial road system within Metropolitan Toronto that can accommodate the public transit vehicles, whether they be the trolley buses or the gas-driven vehicles, that system is not going to move any faster than the private motor vehicles through this city.

Anyone who suggests the whole Metro Toronto public transit system is wrapped up in the subway system has lost sight of reality, because the large bulk of our system is still tied up in the rolling stock on the surface, using the roads that a lot of the people here would like to see closed down. In fact, I think the greatest thing the mayor of Toronto would like to see is the roads in this city rolled up and everybody walking to work --

Mr. Renwick: Oh that’s not fair; that’s not fair, John, and you know it.

Mr. Williams: -- or taking the subway.

An hon. member: Or riding a bike; he rides a bike.

Mr. Williams: The fact of the matter is the very reason --

Mr. Renwick: Don’t be ridiculous. The opening of the silly season.

Mr. Williams: -- that the transit system --

An hon. member: He’s right on.

Mr. Williams: -- cannot improve as far as the rolling stock on the surface is concerned is because of some of the bottlenecks that exist in our arterial road system. I can speak with authority on that subject having come from a riding where I’ve seen the detrimental effects of those who would not permit reasonable road improvements to take place for necessary road extensions to occur; or even for road widenings to take place so that bus-only lanes could be developed on existing roadways.

I point specifically to Bayview Avenue where there was a debate at the time I was on Metro council over the widening of Bayview Avenue by one foot on either side so a third lane could be accommodated and they could put a bus-only lane in. The people in that area said: “No, we don’t want any improvements to our roads. It will interfere with the community. Take it away.”

The people in North York didn’t want the Lawrence Avenue diversion corrected, so the buses that would normally go straight along Lawrence Avenue from Scarborough-Ellesmere and from Scarborough West, and from Scarborough Centre and Oriole over to the Lawrence Avenue station, can’t go that way. They have to take a two-and-a-half mile dogleg down Leslie Street along overcrowded Eglinton Avenue to get to the Eglinton subway --

Mr. Warner: Talk to your friends at Post Road about that one.

Mr. Williams: -- simply because the people in the area wouldn’t permit Lawrence Avenue to be straightened out --

Mr. Warner: What people?

Mr. Williams: -- and the diversion removed --

Mr. Cassidy: The working class is standing in the way of that one.

Mr. Williams: -- so it could accommodate the public transit buses in Metro Toronto.

Mr. Warner: What people, John? What people?

Mr. Williams: The transit commission supported it but the people in the area would not support it.

Mr. Warner: Those rich folks on Post Road, John.

Mr. Williams: In the same fashion, Mr. Speaker, I point to the Leslie Street diversion, a road that could provide the much needed relief to the traffic congestion in northeast Metro that the Bayview extension provided many years ago.

Mr. M. Davidson: It’s the workers who live in the $100,000 homes in that area.

Mr. Williams: The Leslie Street extension wouldn’t remove one existing house from stock, it would go through open lands and valley lands very much like the Don Valley Parkway does; and yet the council of the city of Toronto has continually opposed the Leslie Street extension, as have some of the radical members of the North York council. But I’m telling you, Mr. Speaker, so long as there’s this negative attitude not to build any roads to help accommodate and move the public transit vehicles as well as the private vehicles --

Mr. Warner: We’d build one for you; one way south.

Mr. Williams: -- then this is one of the exterior factors that the transit commission talks about that they have no control over and which they point out is going to inhibit improvement of the system. Until we start to realize those facts of life, that we have to assist the transit commission in that type of fashion --

Mr. Warner: Southward extension of Yonge Street.

Mr. Williams: -- we will not be able to assist them in improving the system.

And this goes beyond providing capital dollars from the province. The Metro politicians have got to face up to these facts and they have got to start making some of these hard-nosed decisions and realize that it’s not just the bucks involved. They have got to be able to divert other energies and support to the system in dealing with these external factors over which the TTC doesn’t have direct control.

Mr. Speaker, so long as the city of Toronto has got the extra $3 million they were prepared to throw into the system, I would suggest that the mayor of the city of Toronto, in a gesture of goodwill, put that $3 million into the building of the Leslie Street extension so we can run a decent bus line down there, so the people can take an express bus from northeast Metro to the downtown area without having to make two or three transfers to get down there.

That’s the kind of improvement we need to help the Toronto Transit Commission and, Mr. Speaker, until we start waking up to these broader considerations and perspectives we are going nowhere. No matter how much we subsidize the TTC, there will undoubtedly be a loss of ridership if, when they should be at their place of business in 15 minutes, people are going to sit on a bus for half an hour because of jammed streets and uncompleted roads and unwidened Bathurst Street and Leslie Street -- did the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick hear that, Bathurst Street?

Mr. Cassidy: You keep going. You will diselect all of your colleagues.

Mr. Williams: I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, until these things come about and the Sam Gasses and other professional traffic people can have their hands untied so they can provide the solutions they have been offering to the people of Metro Toronto for so long but who are being hamstrung by the politicians who think it’s good politics to oppose these things -- until this attitude changes amongst the politicians and the public at large, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to be able to assist the transit commission to the full extent to which it’s entitled.

Mr. Lawlor: You won’t give them the money and you tell them I how to spend theirs.

Mr. Williams: It’s more than giving them subsidies. The Metro politicians have got to grow up and start dealing with these problems in a meaningful and mature manner. So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that in these few comments that I have brought a --

Mr. Van Horne: A few comments? You have talked for half an hour and said nothing.

Mr. Williams: -- broader perspective to this debate, Mr. Speaker, and I have pointed out the fallacy and the mess that surrounds the debate so far that it’s been strictly the nickel --

Mr. Van Horne: Gave Tom Wells a migraine.

An hon. member: It’s not a nickel; it’s seven cents.

Mr. Williams: -- and that people are going to walk away from it because of the nickel increase.

Mr. Van Horne: We would like to walk away from you but we can’t. Just sit down. Quit pointing your finger at us.

Mr. Sargent: You are almost as bad as Grossman. Why don’t you sit down?

Mr. Williams: And if the member for Owen Sound had been on the transit system in Metro within the past few years, he would realize we now have a subway system in Metro Toronto, that we are heavily subsidizing.

Mr. Van Horne: How often do you ride on it?

Mr. Williams: Quite often, as a member from Metro Toronto -- and I am proud to be able to use the system.

Mr. Van Horne: Most of your Tory members ride in limousines. How come you are riding in the subway?

Mr. Warner: Try riding under it.

Mr. Williams: It’s the safest, cleanest transportation system on the continent and we should be supporting it in all ways, not just through the subsidy at the provincial level but the Metro politicians should be getting out there --

Mr. Van Horne: You have got more limousines flying around over there than Dodd’s got kidney pills.

Mr. M. Davidson: Were you the guy who was buying up $50 worth of tokens before Monday?

Mr. Williams: -- and supporting them and in eliminating the negative exterior factors that are so clearly dealt with in the white paper issued by the transit commission. So, Mr. Speaker, if I might conclude, I would like to simply state --

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: Are you going to start all over again?

Mr. Williams: I feel encouraged, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Eaton: Don’t encourage him, you guys.

Mr. Williams: All I have talked about so far, Mr. Speaker, is the option one proposal under the transit white paper --

Mr. Martel: Wind him up again. Mr. Williams: -- which is to maintain the status quo. I have pointed I out many of the negative aspects of maintaining the status quo, but if the members of the House would encourage me, I would be glad to speak further on the other two options which are favour transit more but without capital expansion; or the third option, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Makarchuk: Have you considered taking the bus yourself someplace?

An hon. member: You take a one-way, Mac.

Mr. Makarchuk: A one-way bus, John.

Mr. Williams: -- or the third option, which is favour transit more with a rapid transit grid. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that’s the one that I personally support; and I hope that when the study is completed the transit commission will give great emphasis and support to that third option, because we indeed do need --

Mr. Cassidy: He won’t trifle over $6 million.

Mr. Martel: Would you repeat that again?

Mr. Williams: We do, indeed, Mr. Speaker, need to give strong support to public transit in Metro. One of the ways in which we can accomplish that is by improving the rapid transit grid, as is suggested in the third option presented in the Toronto Transit Commission white paper. So, Mr. Speaker, I’m hopeful when this study does come out, as the Premier himself has stated, that we will then take a closer look at it. While it may mean that additional subsidies may be needed in the future, it will not be done without this province and the Metro politicians collaborating with this government to assist the TTC in implementing programs --

An hon. member: By increasing the fares.

Mr. Cassidy: The way Paul Godfrey collaborated for us.

Mr. Williams: -- that will not only deal with the dollars but improve the delivery of the system by improving the arterial road system within Metropolitan Toronto.

So, Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I think that with the broad perspective clearly now before the House, it’s clearly understood why it would be inappropriate at this time for the government of the province of Ontario to further enrich its already very generous add-on contribution this year to the operating subsidies of the Toronto Transit Commission. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. M. Davidson: You haven’t told him a thing, John.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Niagara Falls.

Mr. Kerrio: Thank you very much, I Mr. Speaker. I have two or three comments to make as they relate to this debate. The first one I have to make is, naturally, that we’re not supporting the asinine, no-confidence motion of the socialist party.

Mr. Martel: What did Stuart Smith say the first day?

Mr. Kerrio: And for a very good reason. Our leader made a commitment that we would not bring an election on the people of Ontario that might cost $30 million over a $6 million issue.

Mr. Martel: What did Stuart Smith say the other day?

Mr. Kerrio: There was no misunderstanding about that position.

Mr. Martel: What did Stuart say?

Mr. Havrot: And that’s socialist financing.

Mr. Kerrio: The suggestion that we should, in fact, put some dollars into TTC, if they were willing to come up with some viable transit plan, was the way we might consider going. The problem with the people on my left is that they never face the realities of life.

Mr. M. Davidson: You had better believe we are on your left.

Mr. Bounsall: You brought it.

Mr. Kerrio: They think we can do so many grand and glorious things and then someone else will pick up the tab. The someone else happens to be the taxpayers of the province of Ontario, and they’re the same people in every instance.

Mr. Martel: Margaret, are you listening to him?

Mr. Cassidy: The member for St. George doesn’t agree with you.

Mr. Kerrio: I’d like to suggest to you that if this was a valid and important issue the leader of the third party would have spent a great deal more time than the few minutes he gave in trying to make his case. He didn’t see fit to do that. He wants to let every one of those people get on the record so they can print 10,000 copies --

Interjections.

Mr. Kerrio: -- and distribute them across this great province of ours suggesting that they’re the only people interested in the transit problems of the people of Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: And your speech as well.

Mr. Kerrio: I would like to suggest something to members that might be very meaningful. Even though I’m a proponent of the free enterprise system, I would have to take exception to something the government did that might very well have helped this whole transit system --

Mr. Eaton: Why don’t we see what you have done for the people of Brantford, Mike?

Mr. Kerrio: -- and it has nothing to do with taxing the people in the rest of Ontario. It has to do with the government of Ontario deciding to allow Greyhound to overrun Gray Coach runs on intercity --

Mr. Cassidy: If you keep on we will take your Ferris wheel away from you.

Mr. Kerrio: -- the only paying proposition in transit that the people of Ontario share. I suggest to members assembled here tonight that there was a time and the time has now passed, and I would like the government to --

Mr. Makarchuk: The CNR is making money, Vince.

Mr. Kerrio: -- reconsider the position in that matter. You cannot and you should not ask the taxpayers or the people of Ontario to pick up the deficit financing of transit within the cities and give the inter-urban transit to the private carrier. That should not be done. So I say, with respect, if members want to do something meaningful, they shouldn’t posture like the socialists and decide that somebody else is going to bail them out of a situation.

Ms. Gigantes: No wonder you have one seat in Toronto.

[9:15]

Mr. Kerrio: Members have to do it in a meaningful way; they have to address a situation. I think it’s time, if we’re going to move the people within the cities of this province at a loss, it’s about time we decided that the inter-urban has to be coupled in with that so that we can move the people around the whole province and take the load off the taxpayers.

Mr. Charlton: I rise in support of this motion of no confidence tonight. Those of us in this party used to have a very sure way of knowing when we were right, namely by how loud the former member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. McKeough) would yell at us when we had something to say.

Mr. Martel: The bellwether is gone.

Mr. Charlton: Thankfully, we have discovered tonight that although he’s left us, we still have quite an effective way of knowing when we’re right, namely by low loud the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) yells and by how much hot air comes out of the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams).

Mr. Makarchuk: It’s a regional problem over there, isn’t it?

Mr. Samis: It’s worse than the Sudbury Inco stack.

Mr. Charlton: The motion of no confidence which we placed tonight --

Mr. Kerrio: Why don’t we vote now? You know you have lost.

Mr. Charlton: -- says quite clearly that not only is this government undermining public transit in Metro but in the province of Ontario as a whole. I find it quite ironic that in his speech tonight the member for Oriole spent so much time lauding the public transit system in Metro, talking about it being the best in North America, talking about it having the best ridership in North America, and then proceeding to find ways to dismantle it because ridership losses will do just that. Increased fares cause lower ridership. Lower ridership causes increased deficits and increased deficits eventually end up in increased fares again. One just gets into a cycle that never ends.

We have problems province-wide, not just here in Metro. In Hamilton, we are presently into a very difficult situation. The city council and the regional transit commission in Hamilton have done a very effective job over the past two years in keeping transit fares in Hamilton the lowest in the province, as well as implementing the best social rate structures in the province for seniors, students and so on. At present, the city of Hamilton is paying 43.7 per cent of the cost of our transit system and the province only 17.5 per cent.

The money is running out in Hamilton. This fall the fares go up. Next year they are going to go up again. That’s going to mean decreased ridership in Hamilton, the same as the proposition in Metro. It is going to mean the start of the decline of a reasonably efficient transit system with the lowest fares in the province. It is going to mean the end of a serious commitment to the public in Hamilton and of the ability of the public to count on public transit, especially those who have no other form of transit to rely on. It always those who have the least resources to provide themselves with the alternatives that get hurt the worst in these kinds of crunches.

I have a resolution from the city council in Hamilton which is requesting essentially the same thing as what Metro is requesting, that is money so that they can hold the line on fares in the transit system in the city of Hamilton, which they have been trying on their own to do substantially in the last few years, and which they are fast losing the ability to do. This whole debate tonight is not only about Metro Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa-Carleton and all of the other major centres in this province, but is about the lack of serious commitment on the part of this government to see that we’ve got transit systems in those centres that are meaningful and useful.

The member for Oriole mentioned the need to substantially improve arterial roads. At the same time that this government is holding the line and cutting back on its commitment to public transit, it is also holding the line and cutting back on its commitment to municipalities and theft ability to do just what he’s talking about. It’s all a part of the same game and it has no end except down.

Mr. Kennedy: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly to this question, though I am not sure why any of us are speaking to it here this evening.

Mr. Martel: I can tell you why; your House leader wouldn’t let us bring it before the fare increase.

Mr. Warner: It should have been done on Friday.

Mr. Kennedy: Members opposite could start basically with taking a look in the dictionary and finding the definition of an emergency. This thing has been going on for a long period of time; then suddenly we have an emergency, and they push and push and push.

Mr. Martel: Don’t give us nonsense.

Mr. Kennedy: I just wonder if we would be here if there wasn’t a consultation over in Scarborough West in two or three weeks.

Mr. Eaton: Grandstanding is all they are doing.

Mr. Kennedy: Grandstanding is right. I think if this issue came to a vote and the government was defeated and it led to an election, it would be immediately dubbed the five-cent election.

Mr. Martel: What about two per cent?

Mr. Kennedy: Members opposite would be laughed right out of their seats because the public would realize the irresponsibility of bringing it on in this form and taking two days of the Legislature’s time to deal with an issue where there is nothing left to be said.

Mr. Makarchuk: What was the election you called in 1977? You have four $7 million members over there. It cost $7 million a member to elect four men in 1977. Don’t forget that.

Mr. Kennedy: And worth every nickel.

Mr. Riddell: If ever they lose their seats maybe we should have an election.

Mr. Acting Speaker: I would remind the House that the member for Mississauga South has the floor.

Mr. Kennedy: In full consideration of all the factors involved in this nonetheless very important debate and issue, there were two ways for the government to go when it got down to the final decision on it, either give the grant or don’t give the grant.

Mr. Roy: That’s pretty clear.

Mr. Kennedy: The judgement of the government in declining this -- not hastily and not out of hand, but after very careful consideration -- was correct, and very correct. If $6 million were added in subsidy, what do we do next year and what do we do the year after that? Where do we go? The result would be a widening disparity between Metropolitan Toronto and the rest of Ontario. There are bus and transit systems in areas across this province other than in Metro, like Mississauga.

Mr. Kerrio: Gray Coach. That paid but you scuttled that.

Mr. Kennedy: This party has demonstrated on so many occasions its belief that there should be equality, equity and fairness for each person in this province. If one went through our great system and went through the budgets of the various ministries, one would see that one of the end points was to take into account the welfare of every individual within this province.

Mr. Kerrio: And Gray Coach.

Mr. Kennedy: As my colleague from Oriole has said, the province has been very generous with transit grants. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) said it wasn’t the nickel he was concerned about, but the downward spiral in the ridership. This is one of the things that has emerged tonight. I want to deal with this for a moment from the TTC paper, which is an excellent report. A person who hadn’t followed this issue in detail from day to day could read this and the Hansard of Thursday and he wouldn’t require any more statistics. It is all there, there is nothing to be added. What was said in this report should be put on the record for once and for all.

“The ridership projections for mid-1977 have not been met, but at that time the optimism seemed justified. In 1975 and 1976 ridership exceeded expectations by 10 million and three million trips respectively, as apparently a fare increase in those years affected ridership less than expected. Since 1975 there has been a steady, although small, decline in ridership, from its all-time peak of 358 million trips in 1975 to a projected 340 million in the current year without a fare increase.”

Mr. McClellan: What’s the deficit? Is it not 65 million bucks?

Mr. Kennedy: There have been other periods of declining ridership. Between 1954 and 1961 it dropped from 282 million to 240 million. There was also a plateau and slight decline in the 1968-71 period.

It goes on to say: “Declining ridership is not unique to the TTC. Vancouver and Montreal both had significant drops despite fare freezes, while Calgary and Edmonton have had ridership increases coincident with fare hikes. Economic growth seems to be at least as important as the fare level in determining ridership.”

To say there is a downward spiral, implying that at some point down the road the transit vehicles are going to be empty or nearly empty, is not the way, evidently --

Mr. McClellan: Why don’t you ride the Spadina subway and see if you can find anybody on it?

Mr. Kennedy: -- that historical statistics indicate. It appears there could be a cyclical nature to ridership numbers. Perhaps it is economic change. Whatever it is, I don’t know; but I don’t think we should draw the conclusion from this that the end of public transit is coming upon the TTC and upon the system.

Mr. Grande: What is your conclusion?

Mr. Kennedy: I want to touch on the grant system of MTC, the ministry, for a moment. We mentioned that it is very generous. It is. But I want to touch on a couple of things that have been referred to recently. One is the program for the handicapped, which again will receive substantial funding by the ministry; and of course the Easy Rider program, which is to be expanded.

I was interested in rereading the comments of the member for Riverdale. He made reference to this small amount of $6 million. I immediately thought of the late C. D. Howe, adding significant inflation. Maybe they are both out in left field together. It may not be of great significance over there, but it certainly is to me, being a frugal individual, and it certainly is to people across the province.

Mr. Martel: Right; and in Minaki Lodge too.

Mr. Kennedy: Certainly. That’s an investment.

Mr. Eaton: Wasn’t that where the people ran Stephen out of?

Mr. Mattel: You spent $18 million and you still haven’t got it open. You tried to give it away and nobody will take it from you.

Mr. Havrot: That’s where you got beaten.

Mr. Kennedy: There is one thing that should be stated as well. My colleague the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) mentioned the economical ride that individuals using Metro transit receive, and they do. In 1973 the single zone fare for anywhere in Metro was established. One can go from Long Branch to Scarborough, from downtown as far north as the system goes -- and that for five cents more than the former rate. There isn’t a better bargain if one is going to use any other type of transit, unless, as the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) said, it is the bicycle or some mode such as that. It is a very good bargain.

I heard a CBC-AM program where a learned individual, editor of a transit journal or some such publication, was interviewed -- by the CBC no less. He knew transit systems all over the world. He was loud in his praise of the system we have here in Metropolitan Toronto.

Also, the other night, I saw some TV man-in-the-street interviews, where the issue wasn’t ridership, nor total subsidies; it wasn’t the amount of deficit or any of these things. The question really was, “What about the increase, the five-cent increase?” Several were somewhat concerned about it, but two or three said that in the light of the way the economy is it seemed only reasonable. I think it says something for the common sense and intelligence of the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto.

I wanted to touch for a moment on another point.

[9:30]

Mr. Conway: Please do.

Mr. Kennedy: It is to help the members opposite. They should listen, because it involves their cousins on Capitol Hill down there.

Mr. Kerrio: You are doing the same things they are.

Mr. Eaton: The ones you want to disown.

Mr. Kennedy. The ones those members don’t acknowledge. It is a couple of their sins that I want to touch on.

The member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) mentioned commuter services. Members will recall the great fanfare with which the federal government, prior to 1975 -- 1974 I guess was their last time out to consult the electorate -- was going to help out with something like $500 million for urban transit. This was to include half of what might be needed to modify union station to help this province bring in commuters. It was to help opening up GO Transit on the CPR line out through Dixie, Cooksville, Streetsville and Malton; and to the north and to wherever that system brings riders in and converges on Toronto. The total cost was something in the order of $58 million. We were hoping and were promised a significant contribution at that time, but later Ottawa reneged on the deal.

I just want to tell the members opposite, if they would go down there to take a look at Union Station right now, this government didn’t accept that and roll over and let it lie. They allocated $7 million, they have gone alone in the modification of Union Station to enable that commuter service to proceed and bring all those additional riders into Toronto and relieve the burden on our highways. We are going it alone; and it was $7 million for the first phase and a total of some $37 million committed. There was not one nickel from the feds, and that is a breach of the promise we received from them.

The only other point I want to make on this is that though this brings commuters into a central point they are not all from outside the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto. They pick up at least from Long Branch, and then of course Scarborough, and in the north as far as Metro goes. So it is not a project to help commuters from out in the suburban areas. It’s part of the integration of the whole transportation system. At the moment we’re having some conversations with Ottawa in the light of an article in the Montreal Gazette in January 27.

Mr. Conway: Are you reading Quebec newspapers, Doug?

Mr. Kennedy: We are these days.

Mr. M. N. Davison: It is a clipping; dispense.

Mr. Roy: Dispense.

Mr. Kennedy: We won’t dispense with anything. The fact is that article in the Gazette, with great trumpeting from Marc Lalonde, announced there would be $63 million allocated to transit in the Montreal suburban areas. It just happens that about $33 million of that allocated now is just about what was promised for Union Station downtown. That is what we are asking, ironically: how come they get it at this time? The $500 million originally promised goes out the window; whole new ball game, fellows, but we’re starting down in Montreal and there’s nothing for Metropolitan Toronto, and nothing for the province of Ontario. There’s some answering to be done on that issue over the next few weeks.

It is my belief, as I said at the outset, the government, has made the proper judgement, the proper decision in this instance. In the knowledge of all the factors that have been brought out at this time, I am sure it will be acceptable to the riders who use the TTC in this area as a fair, just, good business decision and the very best solution to the problem with which we are confronted.

Mr. Roy: After listening to our leader’s address this afternoon in reply to the throne speech and listening to an individual set out policies -- in detail, alternatives to governments --

Mr. Hennessy: Leader? Charlie Chaplin.

Mr. Roy: Will I have to put up with him? Or shall we invite him to meet up with a transit boss or something?

Mr. Speaker: Just speak to me.

Mr. Eaton: He would win, Roy; he would win.

Mr. Roy: He set out the policies, he set out alternatives. I think tonight is an opportunity to bring out the bankruptcy, or to see long-term contradictions of the party on the other side, the same party whose members over the years have prided themselves as being real managers, of knowing the province, of looking to the province’s future. We’re seeing, as the years go by, the bankruptcy, the contradiction in these policies.

I listened to the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams). It’s interesting to hear the expression used by some of these members, members of a party who have been in power 30 -- some years. When he talks about taxpayers’ money coming from the province to the municipalities, he talks about it in terms of “donations,” as though he were donating his pay cheque, something that was coming out of his pocket.

You hear it across the province, as you travel, whether it’s Wintario funds or whether it’s grants which should normally flow to municipalities, the people on the other side masquerade as though these funds are their funds; that they’re not taxpayers’ funds, that in fact they’re doing this out of some altruistic gesture. They take the approach that it is their money rather than the money of the taxpayers of the province.

Mr. Havrot: We never gave you that impression.

Mr. Roy: I think it’s indicative when members use words such as “donated.”

He was followed by the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Mancini: He was worse.

Mr. Roy: Then again, we get the old scenario of why they did not give a grant or a subsidy in this particular case.

Mr. Kennedy: Are you apologizing for Ottawa?

Mr. Roy: The approach, first of all, is Ottawa. When in trouble, blame the feds.

Mr. Kennedy: Blame the feds. Ottawa said it, we didn’t say it.

Mr. Roy: It’s the feds’ fault.

Mr. Eaton: Isn’t that what you fellows did after the election? That’s why you separated your party. Why did you separate your party, Albert?

Mr. Roy: It’s the old refrain. We see it all the time. If something goes wrong it’s not their fault; somehow the federal government is involved in reneging --

Mr. Kennedy: That’s because of Ottawa’s broken promises.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: At least we don’t disavow our party.

Mr. Roy: -- on a deal, somehow, with the municipality of Toronto, and that’s why the subsidy couldn’t be given. How often we’ve heard that refrain.

There is another refrain which is popular. I was surprised that the member should read the Montreal Gazette. One could almost predict what was coming when he mentioned the Montreal Gazette. It’s just like Rene Levesque in reverse, some of the things he’s saying. He’s saying that not only is it the feds’ fault we’re not getting the money for the municipality, but the money that should generally be coming to Ontario has been given to Quebec. How often we’ve heard that refrain.

Mr. Kennedy: There is nothing wrong with that because that’s the way it is.

Mr. Roy: How does he justify it? Poor Levesque in Quebec City has been spending the last three years convincing the people of that province that one of the reasons he wants to separate is that all the money is coming to Toronto, that all the money is coming to Ontario.

Most of us know the truth is somewhere in between, that the money is not all going to Quebec and the money is not all going to Toronto, and that in the long term there is a balance.

Mr. Hennessy: What are you talking about?

Mr. Roy: It’s not good enough. The people on the other side, when their policies are as bankrupt as theirs are, when there are inconsistencies and contradictions in their policies --

Mr. Rotenberg: Speak on the TTC.

Mr. Roy: -- they have to accept responsibility. If they don’t want to accept responsibility, they should get out and let somebody else govern.

Mr. Kennedy: Why did they say they would give it?

Mr. Villeneuve: People don’t want to leave us.

Mr. Roy: The irony of this issue and this situation is that the subsidy should he refused by the same Premier who staked his whole political reputation on being a man of public transportation, of being Mr. Transportation Man of the Year.

Mr. Peterson: Hurray for him.

Mr. Roy: He follows in a long line of Premiers who started as far back as George Drew.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Great man. Great man.

Mr. Roy: I happen to have here -- Mr. Speaker, you’d be interested in reading this -- what is called the Constructive Platform of the Conservative Party in the Province of Ontario --

Hon. Mr. Walker: You got it right.

Mr. Roy: -- approved at a general meeting at Toronto, July 3, 1943. It’s all laid out there. My leader this afternoon talked about --

Mr. Hennessy: The ayatollah.

Mr. Roy: -- the party which masquerades as managers -- the same party. We talked about the economic strategy of this province. We talked about the bankruptcy in their policies vis-à-vis Ontario Hydro. Let’s listen. Now we’ve got bankruptcies in public transportation.

George Drew, back in 1943, was saying this --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Are you kidding?

Mr. Roy: “It can be done wastefully or it can be done as part of a great plan.” That’s what he said, “part of a great plan.”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Where is the Mitch Hepburn stuff?

Mr. Roy: He said: “We will need more power.” This is what he was talking about back in 1943. “We will need more power. We will need better transportation.”

Mr. Hennessey: You need more brains.

Mr. Rotenberg: How about sticking to the TTC?

Mr. Roy: You see, it starts as far back as 1943. “We will need new buildings.” My former leader, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), knows what we’re talking about with these buildings. We’ve got one not too far away.

“Plans for all of these should be done in advance.” That’s to say you’ve got to have policies and you’ve got to have strategies.

Hon. Mr. Crossman: What are you talking about?

Mr. Roy: So the scheme is under way.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What did Drew say about the subway fares?

Mr. Roy: I recall back in 1971, as a new member, seeing the transformation of Bill Davis. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that this was part of the overall plan to change the image of the man. Dalton Camp and the boys were saying: “Look, Bill, your pant legs are too wide. Your hair is not quite right. You have to change the image. You have to find an issue.”

Mr. Hennessy: That is not a subway train. Dalton Camp is not a subway train.

Mr. Eaton: Get back to the topic.

Mr. Roy: You recall the issue, Mr. Speaker, the Spadina Expressway. You recall the famous speech. Mr. Speaker, I think you were in the House back on June 3, 1971.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What was your party’s position on that? Take your week and then tell me what your position is.

Mr. Roy: He talked at that time of the Spadina Expressway in terms of a capital city, of his views on a capital city, the capital city of Ontario and what the overall plan should be.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Give us Phil Givens’ position on that.

Mr. Roy: It’s interesting to read Hansard, page 2280.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Vern Singer.

Mr. Roy: It says: “The issue of the Spadina Expressway is not only a substantive one, but it has become symbolic among the population at large, whose legitimate concerns for the planning and development of the capital city of their province, their communities and their transportation facilities are all keenly felt, and whose interests in conserving their urban amenities and environment have become one of the highest priorities. The government of Ontario does not propose to proceed in support of the plan for the Spadina Expressway.” Members will remember that famous -- I unfortunately was not here at that time --

[9:45]

Ms. Gigantes: Do you have confidence in them now?

Mr. Roy: Confidence in them? Of course not.

Ms. Gigantes: Well, vote against them; vote with us.

Mr. Cassidy: Ah, you got caught on that one, Albert; right on.

Mr. Peterson: We have less confidence in you.

Mr. Roy: It is true I don’t have confidence in them. I just want to say to the member for Carleton East --

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, you got caught on that one. Do you stand with the riders in OC Transpo?

Mr. Roy: The NDP members should wait their turn. They will get their turn next.

Mr. Cassidy: We are talking about you and the buses in Ottawa.

Mr. Roy: We will talk about the bankruptcy of the policies of the people to my left. Let me finish. Don’t be impatient.

Mr. Martel: You got caught, Albert.

Mr. Hennessy: Is that a promise?

Mr. Roy: And so the famous decision was made on the Spadina Expressway back in June 1971. He goes on:

“We do propose to co-operate with the appropriate municipal authorities in the development of alternative transportation facilities in which we shall offer appreciably greater provincial financial assistance for rapid transportation service.”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Read me your party’s position.

Mr. Sterling: Only $7 million in the last four years.

Mr. Roy: Here is what we were getting hack in 1971.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Keep reading.

Mr. Roy: I can recall it was probably the single most important decision in the Premier’s whole political career.

Mr. Makarchuk: He didn’t make it; it was Dalton Camp who made the decision.

Mr. Roy: He probably didn’t think of it, but he obviously convinced him to make the decision. So the question that followed from that decision was, what was their alternative?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The large majority.

Mr. Roy: I can recall the famous announcement. I recall trooping over to the science centre where we were going to be given alternatives to the automobile -- public transportation. Members will recall that spectacle; it was obscene. My colleague from St. George will recall that. Everybody who was anybody in the municipality was ordered to come up there and watch this film --

Mrs. Campbell: Bowed three times to Mecca.

Mr. Roy: -- of the Krauss-Maffei system. At that time it was interesting that the Premier said of his Minister of Transportation and Communications --

Mr. Villeneuve: Never mind grandstanding.

Mr. Hennessy: Sit down.

Mr. Roy: -- the honourable Mr. Carton -- do members remember him?

Mr. Kennedy: Great fellow, we sure do.

Mr. Roy: Back in 1972 the Premier said of him, “I have a great deal to do with him. It is quite obvious after yesterday’s announcement” -- and that was the announcement at the science centre -- “that particular minister will emerge as the foremost leader in the world as far as rapid transit is concerned.”

Not only did we have to suffer the spectacle at the science centre, but they came to Ottawa-Carleton and they went down to London, I am sure, and Hamilton and all over. There was background music and all at once you would see these rapid transit vehicles --

Mr. Kerrio: Magic carpets, Albert, magic carpets.

Mr. Roy: Yes, it was fantastic. There were no wheels on these things. It was beautiful. No driver; no one driving.

Mr. Cassidy: Just like the Liberal Party; there are no wheels on your party either.

Mr. Kerrio: Just like the government.

Mr. Hennessy: Albert, you are sick.

Mr. Roy: What did I hear from that member? He’s getting sick?

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s one of the $7 million members over there. By the pound he is about $40,000 a pound.

Mr. Roy: But then things started going sour with the whole Krauss-Maffei system. Some of my colleagues have said that in a city when you are talking about public transportation you may have a problem if you have a vehicle that will not go around corners. That could be a problem in the city. Then there was some concern about not having a driver in there. We mundane and narrow-minded people sort of like to see someone up front in charge.

Mr. Ruston: We like to see someone running the store.

Mr. Eaton: You’ve got nobody up front in charge of your party.

Mr. Roy: For you that may not be a problem. For us, we think it’s important.

Mr. Ruston: They’re used to it, Albert. They’re used to nobody up front.

Mr. Roy: Anyway, it’s soured, and so we’ve got the project now out in Kingston, as far away as possible from the Premier. You recall, I go a step further, what was it, 1972? The Premier trooping off to Florida; he got a medal.

Mr. Makarchuk: Miami.

Ms. Gigantes: What are you going to do tonight, Albert? Do you have confidence in them tonight?

Mr. Roy: Yes, transportation man of the year. So, Mr. Speaker, we have it all. You know, the chickens come home to roost. Here’s the man who’s built his whole reputation on public transportation. Here’s the same individual who denies the city of Toronto a subsidy at a time when they are in an important phase.

Mr. Sterling: They are already getting more than anybody else.

Mr. Roy: When they have arrived at a fine line between increasing the rates and increasing the number of passengers.

Mr. Wildman: Nobody’s getting enough.

Mr. Roy: It’s got to be studied, it’s got to be looked at. The approach that we’ve taken is to say, “Look, defer it for a year to allow the TTC to review the problem to see that we can have a study so that we’re in a position really to chart the course of the public transportation system of this city.”

The Premier is not without knowing that even in the city of Toronto possibly he may win votes on this issue and he knows full well that across the province it’s a no-lose issue that he will in fact win. I think it’s sad that for political reasons the very man whose reputation was made on public transportation is the one who here today or last week in fact undermined it by refusing to give a subsidy that we may chart the future of this important system for the capital of the province.

There’ll be an election at some time in the future where he’ll be made accountable for some of the things -- on Hydro, on economic policy and on the public transportation system.

Now I have to look at the socialists’ position.

Mr. Kerrio: Get them on the buses, Albert.

Mr. Roy: We’ve got to review it.

Mr. Makarchuk: You are ahead so far.

Mr. Roy: I’m sort of a kind soul. I would not of my own initiative attack my friends to the left.

Ms. Gigantes: Smile when you say that.

Mr. Roy: That’s not my style and the member for Carleton-East knows that; it’s not my style. But I was provoked into it by an editorial which appeared in yesterday’s -- Monday, March 12 -- Ottawa Citizen. I think it’s important; the Citizen is an important paper. The leader of the NDP reads the Citizen; that’s an important paper for the leader of the NDP. It’s taking him to task a little bit. In case you haven’t read it, Mr. Speaker, I’ll read it.

Mr. Martel: Well, he was here, but you never are on Monday.

An hon. member: He was at home writing his speech. Leave him alone.

Mr. Roy: That’s true, Mr. Speaker. Some of us spend more time in the riding. I listened to the leader of the NDP and if he’s going to spend his time doing foolishness like he’s doing tonight, maybe he should spend more time in the riding.

Here’s the editorial. It says ”A Sweet Election Issue.” That’s the title of it.

It says: “Michael Cassidy and his New Democrats are stretching a point of philosophy to a point of absurdity.” And that’s his local paper. It goes on to say --

Mr. Cassidy: You fellows are going to move a motion of no confidence.

Ms. Gigantes: Read the whole editorial. I have it here too.

Mr. Roy: Okay, I’m quite prepared to read it together if you like.

Let’s carry on. It says: “They are prepared, if we take their actions at face value -- “and even the Citizen knows sometimes that you don’t always do that with the NDP -- “to force an election because of the Ontario government’s refusal to increase subsidies to the Toronto Transit Commission.” Then it goes on to say: “They want to head off the same fares for Toronto that Ottawa-Carleton residents are already paying.” And who is one of the members from Ottawa-Carleton?

Ms. Gigantes: Read about Mr. Smith’s hot air; read the paragraph about Mr. Smith’s hot air.

Mr. Cassidy: The present rate in Ottawa for long-term riders is the old rate for Toronto.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, it goes on:

“Wouldn’t that be a sweet election issue for Premier Davis?”

Mr. Kerrio: Self destruction.

Mr. Ashe: Maybe we should vote for the no-confidence motion.

Mr. Roy: In every little town and village across Ontario, he would keep hammering away: “We are having this election because the opposition wants to give more money to Toronto.” That’s exactly what he would do. He’d win. We would have shades of 1971. He would win the election for sure. But then it goes on to talk about the sanity of the official opposition, and that’s a plus.

Mr. Sterling: Read that part. It isn’t too complimentary, is it, Albert?

Mr. Roy: If I may have your attention, please. I am I sorry, my friends are impatient; let me proceed.

It says: “But of course we won’t have the election on this issue and Cassidy knows it. That’s why it was perfectly safe for his party to introduce its motion of no confidence in the government for failing to provide the $6-million subsidy to TTC. The motion will pass only with the help of the Liberals” -- but the Liberals know a lot better; I’m sorry, I’m getting ahead of myself -- “and the Liberals won’t support it because they realize that the pursuit of the issue would be suicidal outside of Metro Toronto.” Right? We know that.

Interjections.

Mr. Ruston: Larry, why don’t you vote with the NDP?

Mr. Roy: “Liberal leader Stuart Smith gave himself two options to show concern without actually risking an election.” And that’s smart leadership.

Mr. Eaton: Why don’t you be honest and admit the rest of the members got to him?

Mr. Roy: I am bound to read this word for word, Mr. Speaker; the member for Carleton East, I am pledged to it. It says:

“His first choice was an emergency debate which meant a lot of words and hot air in the Legislature without ever holding a dangerous vote. His second out was to say that he was opposed to an election on the issue unless he sensed a lot of public support.

Well, that makes sense too. We are not going to go into an election and lose it.

“He knows full well that there will be no public support outside of Metro and there are a lot of signs in support even within Toronto. The NDP’s no-confidence” -- this is good, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Van Horne: It would bring a tear to your eye, wouldn’t it, Albert?

Mr. Roy: Yes, turn up your hearing aids. It says: “The NDP’s no-confidence motion is about as risky as playing Russian roulette without bullets.”

Hon. Ms. Grossman: Interesting simile he selected.

Mr. Roy: “But Cassidy,” it goes on to say -- you probably think I am making this up; straight word-for-word here.

“But Cassidy’s own constituents in Ottawa Centre might well wonder why he was so comparatively mute when OC Transpo fares rose to 60 cents cash, the very fare that he’s trying to block in Toronto.”

[10:00]

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Resign.

Ms. Gigantes: Keep talking, Albert.

Mr. Roy: It goes on: “He didn’t play around with no-confidence motions then; why is he so concerned about Toronto?”

Mr. Warner: Where was your voice?

Mr. Havrot: The five-cent fiasco.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I may complete this: I want to finish. There are just two short paragraphs here.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Take all the time you want.

Mr. Roy: “His weak answer is that the line has to be drawn somewhere.” It wouldn’t have anything to do with by-elections here, would it? I don’t think they’d do that, would they, for political purposes? If Toronto can get more subsidies for public transit, then so can other municipalities. Obviously, the line was not about to be drawn in defence of transit riders in his hometown.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: And I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the member for Ottawa Centre would deny the rumour that he plans to run in Toronto; that he still represents the riding of Ottawa Centre and he will for the next election.

Mr. Cassidy: And I represent it well. I am going to keep on representing it long after you leave this place.

Mr. Roy: If the member gets too exercised, we will send out Brian Cameron.

Let’s face it: the political and media power in this province is in Toronto, although the choice of the TTC riders -- the outspoken tabloid Toronto Sun -- has sided with Davis against the subsidies: “Cassidy and Smith are both anxious for support in Toronto, even at the risk of alienating the rest of Ontario, or maybe they thought we wouldn’t notice.”

So the point is this: I say to the member for Ottawa Centre and the people on that side: where were you when OC Transpo in Ottawa increased its fares?

Mr. Young: Where were you?

Mr. Peterson: Where were you when they increased the fares in London, Ontario?

Mr. Roy: My colleague to my right said:

“Where were you when they increased the fares in London, Ontario?”

Mr. Cassidy: Where were you when I was talking about transit subsidies across the province in January?

Mr. Renwick: Where was anybody in this House?

Mr. Roy: Did they increase the fares in Windsor? I’m sure they did in Niagara Falls, St. Catharine’s, Kitchener. Where were you when they increased the fares in Kitchener?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They were out working for the federal Grits.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I think the best evidence of the logic of their position is that this same party is prepared to spend $30 million --

Mr. Nixon: Start over again, Albert, start over. Let’s have that editorial one more time.

Mr. Roy: I am not sure that the camera can focus sufficiently to pick this up but I say, Mr. Speaker, we know that the party to our left is posturing.

Mr. Cassidy: Speak for yourselves. We are voting with the motion.

Mr. Roy: As my colleague said some time ago, if we said to them now, “We’ll support your motion,” they’d have a heart attack.

Mr. Warner: Try it. Why don’t you try it?

Mr. Peterson: It might be worth it. It would get rid of them once and for all.

Mr. Roy: As I said earlier, in due time this party -- the official opposition -- will make these people account for their policies. But I think it’s important that the public of this province --

Mr. Cassidy: You are going to get your big brother in Ottawa to help you, eh?

Mr. Roy: As I said a year ago, we’ve got to give the people of the province some time to get to know the leader of the NDP -- just a bit longer, the way we know him in Ottawa.

With the policies that we’re putting forward and the reasonable positions that we’re taking here I am sure that even the people of Toronto, even the transit riders, as frustrated as they are about the policies of this government” would be the first to say there shouldn’t be an election on this issue. The approach of this official opposition is one that is responsible and it’s not a matter of posturing.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to join in the debate on my leader’s motion that this government no longer enjoys the confidence of this House because of its recent decision to withhold provincial funding to maintain current fares for riders of the TTC and because of its continued refusal to provide an adequate funding formula to public transportation systems throughout Ontario. While I listened to the member for Ottawa East accuse us of having weak hearts, I would suggest that perhaps one might tell the Liberals that people who have weak hearts shouldn’t accuse other people of having heart attacks.

Throughout the weeks of discussion and lobbying and hard bargaining which have led up to this motion of no-confidence the Conservatives have attempted to convince us that the issues involved can be simply put and we hear them echoed again tonight by the Liberals. “It’s Toronto versus the rest of the province,” they tell us, “the pampered Toronto transit system versus struggling public transit systems in other Ontario municipalities.” It is the old Conservative game, which the Liberals are trumpeting again tonight: Keep the locals fighting with each other and the provincial government can east smiles of benign neglect over the resulting fray below.

It’s strange to say, as the member for Ottawa East has quoted, there are still some in this province who get taken in by this old divide-and-rule gambit. The Ottawa Citizen, for example, which was widely quoted by the member for Ottawa East, ran the editorial to which he referred and chastised the member for Ottawa Centre for moving no confidence on Toronto transit fares and said he was comparatively mute when fares in the OC Transpo system rose to 60 cents. Of all the profound character analyses concerning the member for Ottawa Centre that pundits have indulged in, the accusation that he is comparatively mute is surely one which would stretch even the most credulous mind.

The editorial went on to suggest that my leader was running the risk of alienating the rest of Ontario by expressing our lack of confidence on this issue, and I should mention also, for the benefit of those who didn’t hear through the buffoonery of the member for Ottawa East, that in fact the Ottawa Citizen accused his leader of the same error. I think this kind of analysis is just what Conservative policies have been designed to produce and I feel these policies must be challenged.

I am one of those from the Ottawa Valley who gets occasional relief from time to time by saying things like, “Toronto is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live here,” or, “Some of my best friends are Torontonians, but I wouldn’t want my sister to marry one.” That’s the way we hinterland residents let off steam. It’s a natural enough way of expressing our frustration, less with the city itself than with the 36-year-old government that has its power centre here in this city. But there is a limit to my willingness to indulge in this kind of anti-Toronto sport, especially when spitting in Toronto’s eye means spitting in the eyes of other municipalities of this province who are struggling with similar urban transit problems, municipalities such as Ottawa-Carleton, Mr. Speaker.

I hope the member for Ottawa East will stick around to hear some information about the Ottawa-Carleton transit system. The Ottawa-Carleton regional municipality is one of the fastest-growing areas in Canada, let alone Ontario. The riding of Carleton East, which I have the great honour to represent in this Legislature, encompasses the eastern and southern urban and suburban communities of Ottawa-Carleton and includes about 20 communities separated by many miles from each other and from the employment centre, the city of Ottawa.

Carleton East is served by the buses of the Ottawa-Carleton transportation system, OC Transpo, as we affectionately call it, and we have a very strong appreciation in Carleton East of how important that service is. Most of us can remember how isolated and difficult life was in the days before OC Transpo took up the promise of provincial government support and began the difficult and deliberate job of extending service to our far-flung communities.

That was back in the early 1970s when the transportation man of the year had promised provincial income tax moneys for three quarters of capital costs and one half of operating deficits. The transportation planners -- and we have some good ones in Ottawa-Carleton -- and the local politicians -- and we have some creative ones -- set to work with those provincial promises and began the slow and careful extension of public transit in Ottawa-Carleton. Every suburban line they opened was filled to peak-hour capacity in no time flat, and the same is true for every new line today.

But because of the limits this government has placed on its promises, OC Transpo may soon be heading into difficulties. Our regular adult fares are now 60 cents. Because of the imaginative planning on routes, express surcharges and bargain-basement monthly pass packages, the average fare in Ottawa-Carleton is only 32.4 cents. The ridership continues to grow as the system is extended, but the signs of trouble for this system are clear. Last year the OC Transpo deficit was $1 million higher than expected. The warning signs are in.

What is the reason? It is simple enough. Although the system is expanding, ridership is not expanding as fast as might reasonably have been expected. In turn, the most probable reason for that is that the off-peak adult rider has to pay 60 cents a trip. Sixty cents a trip is a deterrent for an awful lot of people who live in Ottawa-Carleton. It is another bitter and sad fact of life in this province.

The provincial subsidy to OC Transpo would be the promised 50 per cent of operating subsidy if, and only if, OC Transpo were raising 65 per cent of its revenue from the fare box. But OC Transpo discovered in 1978 that its ridership growth started to flag when public transit in Ottawa-Carleton was raising 60 per cent as opposed to 65 per cent of its revenue from the fare box. If we raise revenues from the fare box to 65 per cent in OC Transpo to meet the provincial government quota, our ridership will grow even slower. The increasing operating deficit will mean that in an area which is undernourished as far as public transit is concerned we may have to plan to cut routes instead of increasing them. So much for the Conservative policy of support to public transit.

Mr. Grande: The Premier finally came.

Mr. Cassidy: He came to see the government fall?

Hon. Mr. Davis: What did they do for urban transit in Saskatchewan?

Ms. Gigantes: While I am on my feet, I would like to remind the members of the Conservative government about a candidate they ran in a by-election in the riding of Carleton East in 1974. He was the mayor of the city of Ottawa and was well respected for his work in that role. The Conservatives thought they could elect him in Carleton East, but they didn’t understand how people in Carleton East, who had practically no public transit, would feel about a mayor of Ottawa who didn’t want expressways built over the communities in his cities.

He was right and so were the people of Carleton East. He wanted to protect communities in the city; they had to get to work. He would have had a much easier time as a Conservative candidate, if the people of Carleton East had been well sewed by public transit. It might be a good idea for members of this government to consult with him now on this question because I am sure he would confirm what I am saying.

I don’t like divide-and-rule politics. I don’t like to see the city pitted against the suburban area. I don’t like to see Toronto pitted against the province. It is cheap, miserable and self-defeating. It is the kind of politics this government indulges in and promotes, and it is supported by the Liberals.

Mr. Turner: You’re not supposed to be reading.

Ms. Gigantes: This government will ultimately be judged on its miserable record. In the meantime, I join with Mayor Marion Dewar of Ottawa, Mayor Morley Rosenberg of Kitchener and the other progressive mayors of Ontario --

Mr. Peterson: What about Jane Bigelow from London?

Ms. Gigantes: -- and my leader and NDP colleagues in this Legislature to express my distaste for a government that promises public transport support but fails to deliver it. I am in support of this motion.

[10:15]

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, in rising to conclude what has been a debate on such a major issue that it could cause an election, such a major issue here in this town that the galleries are full tonight --

Mr. Kerrio: Sit down while you’re ahead.

Mr. Eaton: A major issue the NDP say. Well, one hardly thinks so when they don’t come. We’ve had major issues in this House when the galleries were full.

Mr. Cassidy: They’re waiting for us to knock on their doors.

Mr. Makarchuk: They can’t afford to ride the subway to get here. What was the major issue in 1977?

Mr. Turner: You should know.

Mr. Eaton: Working with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, I know the dedication of the people of this ministry to the support of public transit. The past decade has been one which has made us the most progressive area in North America as far as public transit is concerned. We are one of the forerunners of public transit, and we have visitors coming here at all times to see the public transit system that we set up in this province.

We have considered all of the elements of public transit. We have included programs of surface capital; of rapid transit; of operating capital; of studies; of development and demonstrations. We have increased our operating subsidies in this province from $6.7 million in 1971 to $60 million in 1978; and the total subsidies have increased this year sevenfold to that time. That is a dedication by this government to public transit.

The member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) made some references to other areas of transit. Yes, this ministry is involved in a number. We provide some of the best roads in North America. We have the soundest trucking industry in North America in Ontario. We have the safest public transit in North America. And on top of that we have the best connecting systems to that public transit.

I use the public transit coming in from London -- the railway. The member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk) does, too, at times -- and a lot of his constituents do; but did I ever hear him speaking up for subsidy for them from the federal government on the railway coming in? Never.

The London transit increased its rates just about two weeks ago to 50 cents. Did we hear the members from London speaking up, or the NDP? No; not at all.

Mr. Cassidy: You certainly heard us.

Mr. Eaton: Because they are realistic. They know that a 50-cent fare is a realistic ride to work. The people in my riding would give anything to be able to get to work for 50 cents like all the people in Toronto can.

Mr. Villeneuve: Best bargain in the world.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Six tickets for three bucks.

Mr. Eaton: That 50 cents means $5 a week. You can’t park downtown for $5 a week in Toronto. It’s the best bargain there could be. The ridership has dropped a little, and very little, because some people are using their cars more. A very foolish move, really, when you see that even at 50 cents they can’t park for that price. And you people are trying to get us to put more subsidy into that. How ridiculous.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Could the honourable member wind up in 30 seconds?

Mr. Eaton: I can do that. The only member of the Liberal Party from Toronto talked about reality. Well a 50-cent ride to work is reality. It is a fair ride to work. The NDP have grandstanded, and they have grandstanded greatly on this issue. If they thought other members were going to vote for this resolution, or if they voted for it, they would need somebody behind them to clean up.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order. The 30 seconds have expired. It is the duty of the Speaker to allow 10 minutes for the possibility of casting a vote on the motion before the House.

The House divided on Mr. Cassidy’s motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Bounsall, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Davison, M. N., di Santo, Dukszta, Gigantes, Grande, Lawlor, Lupusella, MacDonald Makarchuk, Martel, McClellan, Philip, Renwick, Warner, Wildman, Young, Ziemba.

Nays

Ashe, Auld, Baetz, Belanger, Bernier, Birch, Blundy, Bolan, Breithaupt, Brunelle, Campbell, Conway, Cureatz, Davis, Drea, Eakins, Eaton, Epp, Gaunt, Gregory, Grossman, Haggerty, Hall, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Johnson,

Jones, Kennedy, Kerr, Kerrio, Lane, Leluk, MacBeth, Mancini, McCaffrey, McCague, McGuigan, McKessock, McNeil, Miller, G. I., Newman, B., Newman, W., Nixon, Norton, O’Neil, Peterson, Pope, Ramsay, Reid, T. P., Riddell,

Rotenberg, Rowe, Roy, Ruston, Sargent, Scrivener, Smith, G. E., Snow, Stephenson, Sterling, Stong, Taylor, G., Taylor, I. A., Turner, Van Horne, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Worton, Yakabuski.

Ayes 22; nays 75.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.