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

March 8, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L002 - Thu 8 Mar 1979 / Jeu 8 mar 1979

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR WENTWORTH

INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBER

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR HANDICAPPED

STANDING ORDERS

HYDRO EXPANSION PROGRAM

CO-PAYMENT FEES

HYDRO LOAD FORECASTS

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION

FUNDING OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

HOCKEY VIOLENCE

GRAND RIVER FLOODING

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

VEHICLE LICENCE FEES

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

PETITION

VEHICLE LICENCE FEES

REPORTS

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

APPOINTMENT OF STANDING COMMITTEES

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

COMMITTEE MEETING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

NON-UNIONIZED WORKERS RIGHTS ACT

PITS AND QUARRIES CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

MOTION TO SUSPEND NORMAL BUSINESS

TTC FARE INCREASE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR WENTWORTH

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

INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBER

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

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

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO

This is to certify that in view of a writ of election dated October 30, 1978, issued by the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario and addressed to Curtis A. Scott, Esquire, returning officer for the electoral district of Sault Ste. Marie, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of Sault Ste. Marie in the Legislative Assembly of the province, in the room of John R. Rhodes, Esquire, who, since his election as representative of the said electoral district of Sault Ste. Marie, has departed this life, R. H.

Ramsay, Esquire, has been returned as duly elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election, dated December 27, 1978, which is now lodged of record in my office.

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

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

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

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many of the initiatives in service undertaken over the past decade by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and before us by our colleagues in the Ministry of Health, reflected our increasing appreciation of those abilities. The integration of many retarded people into our communities is a tangible and important example. It is crucial to the evolution of our service that our regional centres for the mentally retarded continue to reflect our concern for the personal and individual growth of their residents.

A major component of our progress to that end will be the degree to which we can enable staff members with direct-care responsibilities to make their special contributions to that growth.

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

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

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

Mr. McClellan: What does this mean?

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

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

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

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

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR HANDICAPPED

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

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

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

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

[2:15]

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

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

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

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

Provincial support will be available as of July 1 of this year and an explanatory policy

summary will he mailed shortly to all municipalities known to have expressed an interest.

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

STANDING ORDERS

Mr. Speaker: Just before we get to oral questions, I want to remind honourable members that we approved and passed the new standing orders on December 14 last. It was a decision taken unanimously by the House, and since we are about to approach the oral questions I want to draw honourable members’ attention to a particular

section of 27 which says in part: “In the discretion of Mr. Speaker, a reasonable number of supplementary questions arising out of the minister’s reply to an oral question may be asked by any members.” Similarly, in putting an oral question, “no argument or opinion is to be offered nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same; and in answering any such question, the member” -- which includes all ministers -- “is not to debate the matter to which it refers.”

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

HYDRO EXPANSION PROGRAM

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

Hon. Mr. Davis: The last rites.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Peterson: I am sorry I said anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Is the Premier saying that the cabinet did not deal with this project by project, and does he not recall having to pass an order in council for every single project of Hydro. Did they not even consider it? Was it cabinet’s decision to overrule the Treasury’s forecast, which was considerably lower than Hydro’s forecast at the time?

If, when doing this, the reason the cabinet overruled the Treasury itself was because the cabinet anticipated difficulty in the Middle East, can the Premier possibly tell the people of Ontario what form of protection we get against the Iranian oil problem by having excess unused Hydro generation capacity? What type of substitution for oil does he anticipate will take place?

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

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

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

Mr. J. Reed: You were there.

Mr. Kerrio: What did you go for?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Makarchuk: But those are private enterprises.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Question?

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

Mr. Speaker: Please put it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I recall the criteria that went into the load forecast of the Ministry of Energy -- I can’t speak for Hydro -- there were some 1,500 assumptions that are made, I would say with respect to the very distinguished member, when you are predicting on the basis of 1,500 assumptions, some of which may not necessarily be right, that one has to be very careful in saying the Ministry of Energy is correct and Ontario Hydro is wrong. I think, with respect Mr. Speaker, surely that’s not what the select committee is looking for in any event. Surely we are looking for a reasonable load forecast.

For me to get up here and say that I have the exact figure, Mr. Speaker -- unlike the distinguished member from Halton Hills, I don’t pretend to have that ability; and with respect neither does he.

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

[2:30]

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

Mr. MacDonald: I didn’t say that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CO-PAYMENT FEES

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: That is not supplementary.

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

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

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

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

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

HYDRO LOAD FORECASTS

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

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

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

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

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

Moving on from that --

Interjections.

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

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

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

Mr. Makarchuk: Start again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thirdly, there is a supposition around --

Mr. J. Reed: Just say you don’t know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

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

[2:45]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Cassidy: What is it?

Mr. Foulds: What is it for the province?

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

Mr. Samis: That is not in the question.

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

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

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

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

Mr. MacDonald: With Peterborough.

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

A new question.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: No. A new question.

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

Mr. Speaker: A new question.

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What we decided to do instead, recognizing, first of all, that the four beds per thousand standard in the south and the four-and-a-half beds per thousand standard in the north has I been in place since 1972 and the 3.5 and four beds per thousand standard, in place for a year, was to begin this year to tie the budget to those bed-planning standards based on the referral populations and with reference to beds actually in service last fall and to ask the hospital association and the Association of Teaching Hospital Administrators to work with us in developing an entirely new budget formula.

Again, if the member will refer back to my January 19 statement, we would like to build in more and more incentives to reward efficiency and to provide the incentive to find ways to save money. Clearly, many hospitals have shown and are showing that there are many ingenious ways, where the incentive is there, to save money.

Mr. Warner: While patients suffer.

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

Mr. Speaker: Question.

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

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

Mr. T. P. Reid: Or die.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mrs. Campbell: That doesn’t happen.

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

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

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

An hon. member: The irreverent.

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

Mr. Breaugh: We are with you.

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

Mr. Renwick: What did you say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Lawlor: It’s a direct quote.

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

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

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: To go back to the statement I made on January 22, which I think is fairly clear, in outlining the steps which led to that announcement of the government’s intention to close the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital on September 1 of this year, I can only say, as I said then, it was not an easy decision clearly.

But given the condition of the building, the capacity available in modern -- in fact, new facilities -- at Queen Street Mental Health Centre, additional capacity available at Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, the fact that capital funds are not likely to be available into the 1980s for more than one hospital to be rebuilt -- and both are in bad condition -- and the fact that Whitby Psychiatric Hospital serves an area that goes as far east, if I remember correctly, as the Hastings-Peterborough county line and as far north as Victoria and Haliburton --

Mr. Eakins: A great area.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: A great Tory area.

Mr. Nixon: It may be federally.

Mr. Martel: Is there a difference?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Foulds: We can build hydro plants.

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

Mr. Warner: The minister is inflexible.

Mr. Gaunt: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Dealing with the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital?

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Go ahead. Try it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: They have been made.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: That is not supplementary.

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

[3:00]

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

Mr. Speaker: No, a new question.

DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION

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

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

Mr. Laughren: He went ahead and did it.

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

Mr. Warner: You read that well.

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

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

An hon. member: That is a pork barrel.

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

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

FUNDING OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

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

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

I think the member should ask a very simple question and should take a position. If he doesn’t feel that we’re being fair to the universities and colleges in terms of our transfers to them, let him say so. Let him get up and say a Liberal government would give them 10 per cent at the same time as it would deprive others. We are distributing to the universities and colleges of this province an equitable proportion of that which we are spending on all our various programs.

I would also say, contrary to the member’s point of view, we think it is not only equitable, but it will give the universities and colleges the opportunity to maintain what is an excellent, high-quality, post-secondary system.

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

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

Mr. Sweeney: Is it appropriate or not?

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

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

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

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

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

HOCKEY VIOLENCE

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

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

Mr. Martel: I am never part of that.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Nixon: That was the Patrick Reid study.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Cunningham: I want to hear from Mickey.

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

GRAND RIVER FLOODING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I got this report a few minutes before I came to the House. I must say that in reading it the inference I take is that the authority discussed with the municipality what might be done, and was under the impression that the municipality was going to carry out whatever it was decided was necessary. However, it is not clear, and I had asked for a little farther information about this, which I will convey to the honourable members as soon as I get it.

If it appears there is something we should be doing in connection with the arrangements we make each year -- as the honourable member knows, the minister writes to heads of all municipalities and all the conservation authorities -- we give twice-monthly snow moisture content reports and we have a pretty good warning system, but it may well be that there can be some improvements made.

[3:15]

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

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

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

Mr. McClellan: You said it was evidence.

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

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

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

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

VEHICLE LICENCE FEES

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

Mr. McClellan: Does the Liberal Party support this?

Mr. Martel: I like that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Eaton: What is the matter, Pat?

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

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

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

PETITION

VEHICLE LICENCE FEES

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

REPORTS

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

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

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

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

Report adopted.

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

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

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

Bill 74,

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

Bill 75,

An Act to amend the Provincial Courts Act.

Report adopted.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

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

Motion agreed to.

APPOINTMENT OF STANDING COMMITTEES

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

section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The standing statutory instruments committee is appointed for the session, to be the committee provided for by

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

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

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

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

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

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

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

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEETING

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

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX ACT

Hon. Mr. Henderson moved first reading of Bill 2,

An Act respecting the County of Middlesex.

Motion agreed to.

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

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes, sir.

Mr. Riddell: That’s the way to go.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this

section is to vest the title of the lands described in the

schedule in the corporation of the county of Middlesex in fee simple. The lands were granted to the county in 1868, subject to a trust that the lands be used for the purpose of a county jail and courthouse. The lands are no longer required for such purpose.

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

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Bounsall moved first reading of Bill 8,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

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

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

[3:30]

NON-UNIONIZED WORKERS RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved first reading of Bill 4,

An Act respecting the Rights of Non-Unionized Workers.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

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

PITS AND QUARRIES CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Warner moved first reading of Bill 5,

An Act to amend the Pits and Quarries Control Act, 1971.

Motion agreed to.

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

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved first reading of Bill 6,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

MOTION TO SUSPEND NORMAL BUSINESS

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, I have received a notice under

section 34 of the standing orders from the honourable Leader of the Opposition that he wants to suspend the ordinary business of the House for a matter of urgent public importance.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Nixon: The NDP has not agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Davis: Go ahead, Jimmy.

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

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

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

You will have noticed, and I am certain that the other members of the House will have noticed, that on the order paper today standing in the name of the leader of this party is a resolution under standing order 63(

a) under

Part X of the standing orders relating to private members’ public business. That rule, if I may draw your attention to it, Mr.

Speaker, states that: “In any session upon proper notice, the official opposition is entitled to not more than three motions of want of confidence in the government; the third party is entitled to not more than two such motions and any other recognized party to one such motion.” I rather regret that we’re required to use up one of our two motions of no-confidence in the government on this particular issue when the official opposition has three, and I’m quite certain at the end of the session in all likelihood all three of their opportunities will remain available to them.

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

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

Mr. Renwick: -- that there is, I submit, no conflict whatsoever between the motion standing in the name of the leader of this party and the motion put by the leader of the official opposition. You will note specifically under the new orders that our motion is a substantive motion under standing order 37(

a) which is under the heading,

part VIII of the standing orders, Substantive Motions. I would like, if I may, to draw to your attention and to the attention of the House specifically the wording of that standing order.

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

Mr. Renwick: “A substantive motion is one which is not incidental to any other business of the House but is a self-contained proposal capable of expressing a decision of the House.” I’d like to emphasize that it is a substantive motion and the conclusive words are, “capable of expressing a decision of the House.” Of course, the motion put forward by the Liberal Party falls under the heading of Procedural Motions under

part VII of the standing rules and is merely a procedural motion which permits a discussion with no decision. Or if we could use baseball parlance, it’s all wind-up and no pitch.

Mr. Martel: It’s called bluff.

[3:45]

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

Mr. Nixon: The motion is political posturing.

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

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

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

Mr. Nixon: Strike three.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with this very briefly. We are quite prepared to debate this matter. I listened very attentively to the Leader of the Opposition and his rationale, which I guess was relevant. We have a concern, and I will express this during my brief contribution.

I wouldn’t say for a moment that the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about the by-election in Scarborough West nor would I say this of the New Democratic Party, although I do find it somewhat difficult to understand its motion of no-confidence in terms of the fare increase when several months ago it was prepared to have the transit riders of Metropolitan Toronto deprived of service for who knows how long. In fact, if they had had their way, there might not be any service today. I do find that a little bit contradictory.

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

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

Mr. Martel: Don’t be foolish.

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

Mr. Martel: I wasn’t here.

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

An hon. member: That would be honest.

Mr. Martel: You know Michael Warren.

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am very anxious. I will have some observations to make on the substance of it, but I don’t want this House to feel that we are not prepared to debate this. We are. It’s a very difficult problem these days in government to assess the priorities. I heard the Leader of the Opposition being correctly quoted yesterday I believe -- well, I won’t, I will save that for my 10 minutes a little later on. Mr. Speaker, we agree to the debate.

We will leave it up to your good wisdom, your good judgement, to assess whether it is in fact an emergency and to deal with the two sides of the issue as presented by the member for Riverdale, which to me didn’t indicate whether he wanted the debate to proceed or not.

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

Shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

TTC FARE INCREASE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

whereas in this instance it is 13.75 per cent plus the Spadina, which brings it to about 15 per cent.

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

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

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

My point would be that that is not an unreasonable position. If Metro is, as it has indicated, willing to put up its $6 million to begin with, then the government should accept that, It should allow the fares to lie frozen and should demand a pro-transit plan from Metro as a condition for which the government would then provide its commitment of $6 million to make sure that the fares could be frozen.

Then we could get under way with a good pro-transit policy, and not just delay it yet another year when it will require even more than a 14.5 per cent increase, because the ridership will have declined yet again and we will be going through this whole exercise all over again but with a smaller chance of eventual success.

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

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

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

What we say in

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

Hon. Mr. Davis: Whose patience?

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

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

[4:00]

Once again, it is not a question of the nickel; most people will be able to afford the nickel.

It is a question of the health of the TTC, the downtrend in the ridership; and the fact that with the government subsidy coming after the Metropolitan subsidy, and that based upon a good plan of transit coming forward from Metropolitan Toronto, we have the opportunity to achieve both ends at once; that is possibly to stem the declining in ridership and to encourage, shall we say, the TTC and Metro to produce a genuine plan of action which will make sure that mass transit will be there in good shape, in good popular acceptance, when we will desperately need it -- and we all know we’re going to need it as the future evolves.

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

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

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Riddell: Never quit dreaming about it.

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

Mr. Eaton: Why don’t you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Eaton: Going the way of the NDP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Gigantes: What about OHIP?

Mr. Swart: What about market value and reassessment?

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

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

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

Mr. Sweeney: Grandstanding.

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

Mr. S. Smith: Sic transit gloria.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4:15]

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

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

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

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