Legislative Assembly of Ontario

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION

CONTENTS

Tuesday 22 October 1991

Ministry of Transportation

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South PC)

Vice-Chair: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South PC)

Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)

Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L)

Farnan, Mike (Cambridge NDP)

Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings NDP)

Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville NDP)

McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)

McLeod, Lyn (Fort William L)

O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York NDP)

Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview NDP)

Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands NDP)

Substitutions:

Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent NDP) for Mr Farnan

Klopp, Paul (Huron NDP) for Mr Perruzza

Mancini, Remo (Essex South L) for Mrs McLeod

Turnbull, David (York Mills PC) for Mrs Carr

Clerk: Carrozza, Franco

The committee met at 1538 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION

The Chair: We have five hours and three minutes remaining to complete the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation.

Before I proceed, Mr Lessard has asked me if he may raise a matter for the committee's attention.

Mr Lessard: I have one brief matter I would like to raise. Yesterday, I got this big envelope from the standing committee on estimates and it was filled with briefing books all in French. Although I realize the importance of having materials available to persons in French, they are not much assistance to me, at least not at this point in my career.

I was wondering whether the clerk gets many requests for briefing books in French. If not, then I wondered why they were prepared and whether they are sent out in French to all members as a matter of course. If so, they are not much use to me. I suggest they only be sent out to members if they request them. That is my point.

The Chair: Would the committee like me to clarify or do you want to comment?

Mr Farnan: Like the member, I am not personally very fluent in French. However, I have to say that I really appreciate having this in French, because for many of my constituents French is their first language and it is used in their homes. We have very often been able to respond to our constituents by providing this material in French and they very much appreciate it. I think that material should be available.

Mr Mancini: This will be the only time during these estimates that I will defend the minister. I believe it was appropriate for the minister, or whoever sent them out, to have sent out the documents in French. I think it is appropriate for the ministry to have the documents available in French. As critic, I know the information is going to be useful and used.

Mrs Marland: I cannot say how delighted I am to support the question raised by the member for Windsor-Walkerville. The reason I am delighted that a government member has raised this question is that several months ago I wrote to every minister of every ministry of this government and requested that all future material sent to my Queen's Park office or my constituency office be only in English. I did that because, after being a member for six years representing Mississauga South, I have never received a request for any government publication, press release, document, regulation, anything, in French.

The response from the various ministries has been very interesting. I have had a standard response wherein the minister, through his staff, has been very courteous and accepted the fact that it made more practical sense not to waste taxpayers' money sending me material for which I had no use and that only ended up being disposed of in the recycling bin. It made far more sense not to destroy more trees than necessary, because the material was being wasted. Some of the ministries, however -- and I do not recall what the answer was from the Ministry of Transportation -- adhered to my request very courteously and others gave the insulting response of referring me to the French Language Services Act, with which I am fully familiar.

The Chair: Mrs Marland, I would ask you to stay to the point of the estimates books. In the interest of the task before us, I would ask you to summarize your comments so that I can advise the committee of the facts of the question that was raised.

Mrs Marland: As far as I am concerned, Mr Chairman, whether this material was distributed by the clerk or the ministry is insignificant. What is significant is that we waste money printing materials in French which may or may not be used by members. In this particular instance, I think it is the first time I have ever seen an estimates book published in French.

The fact is that with today's system of communication, if I need something in French, I can get it instantly from any office of the government through my fax machine. I suggest that this question is well raised by an intelligent member of this committee who has a right to question material that he has received, which in my opinion is a waste of taxpayers' money, if it is not going to be used by that member. Every ministry, including this Ministry of Transportation, should watch very carefully the distribution of material in both languages if it is not required and is not going to be used. Certainly in the case of both my offices, I have no constituents who require that any of their material be in French. Thank you.

Mr Farnan: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I noticed that the member who has just spoken wants to put it in the garbage. I think if you are not going to use it, you should --

The Chair: What is your point of order, Mr Farnan?

Mr Farnan: It should be sent back to the ministry.

Mr G. Wilson: A good point.

The Chair: It is not a point of order. Thank you, Mr Farnan. I would like to respond to the question raised by a member of the committee. I have allowed for comment from each of the representatives of each of the parties.

Mr Daigeler: Mr Chair?

The Chair: Mr Daigeler, briefly please.

Mr Daigeler: Since we happen to have the minister responsible for francophone affairs at the table, I would be interested in his response to this question asked by a member of his own caucus.

The Chair: Before the entire question that Mr Lessard raised is put out of context, I would like to respond, first of all, that I asked the clerk of this committee to advise me of those ministries that this committee had selected, which had their estimates book completed in French. I must reassure all members that it has been the policy of this and the previous government to have the estimates books prepared and printed in both English and French. I simply asked the clerk to advise me of those ministries which were able to complete the task of preparing them in both languages.

We apologize if some feel it was inappropriate that a copy was sent to them, but I want you to appreciate that in no way was additional expense borne by the government as a result of the decision to send every member of this committee copies of a report that has been published and printed and is available in accordance with the policies of the government.

I hope that matter is resolved. This is not the day nor the forum to discuss the government's policy on providing government services in English and French. Having said that, unless there is a motion to present, I would now like Mrs Marland to proceed with the estimates of the day.

Mr Daigeler: I have not had an answer yet from the minister. Given the nature of the --

The Chair: That may be your opinion, but it is my ruling that the --

Mr Daigeler: Mr Chairman, right now I still have --

The Chair: No, you asked me for a ruling as to how I was handling your request.

Mr Daigeler: No, I have not asked for a ruling. I have simply indicated that I have not heard yet from the minister for francophone affairs, and I look forward to hearing something from him.

The Chair: Mr Daigeler, I am going to suggest that the minister is here to do his estimates. If you felt so impelled to pursue this issue, the Liberal caucus could have asked, as part of its regular rotation, the office of francophone affairs to present before this committee.

Mrs Marland: It was not raised there.

Mr Daigeler: That is true, Mr Chairman. It was not raised by this caucus. It was raised by a member of the minister's own caucus.

Mr Farnan: The Chairman has ruled.

The Chair: Order, please. The member simply asked the question as to why the documents were sent to him. I allowed, perhaps wrongly, a very brief discussion on the subject.

Mr Daigeler: Quite properly.

The Chair: Then I explained to the member exactly what had happened. Now I have answered the member's question. If the other members wish to pursue this matter further, they can pursue it with their House leaders. They can pursue it as additional business for this committee. But at this time, I recognize Mrs Marland to proceed with the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation. My rulings, as always, are subject to question. If there is not a call for a question, Mrs Marland, please proceed.

Mr Farnan: Your rulings are impeccable, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

1550

Mrs Marland: I am actually here this afternoon, not as the critic for our caucus for the Ministry of Transportation, but until the critic is able to arrive from another commitment. However, I have a number of questions, and I would like to start with a parochial question for my own riding dealing with the redesign and reconstruction of the interchange at Dixie Road and the Queen Elizabeth Way. In dealing with that project the overall provincial question is, how does the ministry prioritize for this kind of major construction project in the province?

Hon Mr Pouliot: As always, the member for Mississauga South raises questions that are relevant and filled with validity, whether they are parochial or not. We are talking in terms of a most important and crucial service, and to anticipate and act on the needs of the people whom you represent is a normal reaction with you. Therefore, suffice it to say that this kind of relevant question deserves all the attention the question commands and addresses, so to address the question in more than a normal fashion, in a meticulous fashion, I will ask Mr Carl Vervoort, who is with the Ministry of Transportation, to answer your question.

Mr Vervoort: Mrs Marland, the basic process, I believe, that would apply to all projects in the ministry with respect to capital investments and improvements, is to consider matters related to demand, the volume of traffic and the projections for future traffic at the particular location; to examine what the safety and operational requirements are for the site; to determine if there are any existing deficiencies that need correction; and at the same time to look at the availability of funds to determine what may be the most appropriate investments to be made with those scarce resources.

Perhaps the last comment I can make with respect to factors that would influence the setting of priorities would have to do with work in the vicinity, and frequently work has to be scheduled on the basis of impact on traffic. Perhaps by way of example I can illustrate that point. A lot of the work we would do of a regular rehabilitation nature would be for widening or structural rehabilitation. To do that work there is frequently a requirement for detours, so the staging of many projects is related to the ability to provide appropriate detouring and staging for the construction work. That would be a supplemental consideration in the sequencing and prioritizing of improvements to the highway system.

Mrs Marland: The problem develops where the priorities apparently get changed from year to year. I have seen that happen where we were told where the priorities were for the construction of noise attenuation barriers along major highways in the province, and then the prioritization of individual projects would be shuffled.

It is very significant when a community has been looking at the redesign and reconstruction of a major interchange for over 20 years. In my particular case this is a project I have questioned for each of the last six years, so you are only the last minister to receive this question. The Dixie Road-Queen Elizabeth Way interchange is known to be a hazardous interchange because it is antiquated in design and we would never design an interchange like that today.

It remains a point of discussion and review every year by the ministry. I have asked every minister to at least commit it to the five-year capital budget, or even, at worst, the 10-year capital budget. Every single minister writes back an identical letter. I can understand why, because the identical letter is probably written by the identical staff each time.

In this particular case, we have a situation that should be reconsidered by the ministry because it is adjacent to the Dixie Mall, which is under major renovation, with a proposal for a further addition. This mall has already received a major addition and it made the function of that interchange even less desirable than it was before. Now they want to build a second addition and in my opinion, speaking as someone who knows the community and the lack of function of those roads involving a service road, the QEW and Dixie Road, which is a regional road, it would seem to me that the ministry should be very much involved in the discussion of any further addition to the Dixie Mall at the same time, instead of just talking about this project and always putting it on the back burner.

I understand now that the final design for this project has pretty well been agreed to, both by the ministry and the community, and of course it involves four quadrants, four different communities.

I fail to understand why there cannot be a commitment to do this project once and for all. It has been required and discussed with the community, as I said, for over 20 years. When you go west from there, you now have the ministry doing a survey of what the community would like in terms of the redesign and reconstruction of Highway 10, Hurontario, and the QEW. I know the ministry has a resolution by the city of Mississauga council concerning another very unsafe interchange at the QEW, Southdown Road and Erin Mills Parkway -- Southdown Road on the south side and Erin Mills Parkway on the north side. That interchange is also antiquated and has a very heavy volume of traffic. There is a litany of major serious accidents at that location. So here you have a situation where Dixie Road was identified for reconstruction 20 years ago, when you know who was the government.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Was Hazel McCallion in office, though?

Mrs Marland: Not quite. I am talking about the provincial government.

In the middle you are starting to spend staff time and resources on the Hurontario interchange. Frankly, the community is saying it is not interested in talking about that interchange, it is interested in getting one of the other two built, Dixie Road first and then Erin Mills and Southdown Road.

I think it is unfair to lead the people of Mississauga around by the nose, promising them that these projects are seriously being considered, and then we cannot get any minister of any government, no matter what party, to put these projects in the capital budget of this ministry.

Hon Mr Pouliot: You have been pointing this out again and again -- and you hide the length of your tenure very well -- to three different governments, including the administration you have served so well.

If you have some facility that suffers from structural obsolescence and needs replacing, it has to enter the wheel. You feel that all has been documented, all has been said, but nothing has been done. One interchange and then you bring on another interchange, and the point is valid indeed: you have more than one problem there. Before I ask Mr Carl Vervoort, because he is most familiar with the status of the project you have mentioned, let me say that some proposals are filled with complexities. We are talking about land ownership, partnership, and ratio: who is going to pay what percentage of what project. We are also talking about some timetables that are lengthy, be it environmental assessment, design engineering and massive capital spread over so many years at times. You are right, patience becomes virtuous indeed. But there is forward momentum. Carl, would you like to add to what I have said?

1600

Mr Vervoort: There is recognition for the three sites that have been identified by Mrs Marland. In fact, we share her view of the priority of those improvements. At the Queen Elizabeth Way, Southdown Road and Erin Mills Parkway interchange, the preliminary design is complete and the ministry is at present protecting property on the basis of that design.

With respect to the QEW and Dixie Road, as Mrs Marland may be aware, the preliminary design study is currently in progress and is just about complete. I am not aware of the extent to which the matters of the improvements to the Dixie Mall have been brought to the attention of the planners. I will certainly take that forward from this deliberation to the appropriate staff to ensure that the staging and those improvements are included and recognized in the design.

Mrs Marland: Mr Vervoort, would you be interested in meeting with the city planners and project planners for the expansion of the mall to consider where there might be a cost-sharing from the developer of the mall to improvements at that interchange, possibly even to consider a slip-off or a slip-on lane from the mall to the Queen Elizabeth Way similar to Yorkdale mall and Highway 401? Would you be concerned enough that you think your staff should be part of a discussion dealing with any increase in traffic in that area with any addition to the mall?

Mr Vervoort: Yes, I believe they should, depending on the nature of the entrances. I am frankly not familiar with the detail of the site. In a general way, the location of major traffic generators -- and a mall is obviously one of those -- the location of entrances to such malls, to and from arterial roads and the proximity of those intersections with the ramp terminals of exit and entrance ramps for the freeways are crucial items in the efficient operation of the road system in the immediate vicinity.

Mrs Marland: So you would be willing to meet.

Mr Vervoort: I expect the discussions have already taken place, but I will ensure that there is a special meeting with the mall developers to ensure that their future plans, both in initial stages and in the ultimate stages, are recognized.

Mrs Marland: My question is very specific, though. Would your staff, Minister, be willing to meet with me, as the MPP for that area, and the city and regional staff, obviously, because a city road and a regional road is involved, together with the developer of the mall and executives of the area residents associations?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I do not wish to answer on behalf of the staff of the ministry, but they would see it as an obligation and a duty and therefore very much look forward to it. Carl, I would appreciate it, not to add to the credibility of your contribution, for it is flawless, if you would not say, "Yes, Minister." Can we have a better rapport? Can we strike this?

Mr Vervoort: Understood, minister.

Mrs Marland: Is Mr Vervoort going to be the person responsible? Do you agree to that kind of meeting?

Mr Vervoort: Yes, I will make sure it is arranged, that there is opportunity.

Mrs Marland: Thank you. I am happy to leave that subject now that I have the assurance of a meeting involving those parties. Thank you, Minister.

The ministry lists as one of its initiatives the development of a framework for a corporate financial purchasing and supply systems study. Why is this an initiative, and what will be the cost of developing such a framework?

Hon Mr Pouliot: One of our very talented and knowledgeable staff, Norm Mealing.

Mr Mealing: I am the assistant deputy minister in charge of corporate services. I think you were referring to the development of the framework for purchasing and financial management, that particular study, and your question was, again, please?

Mrs Marland: Why is this an initiative and what will be the cost of developing such a framework?

Mr Mealing: I cannot answer the question in terms of the eventual cost. So far we have commissioned a consultant study in the order of about $250,000 to examine the various aspects of the system.

Why is it an initiative? The ministry is in the process of trying to bring to the proper levels in the organization the ability to make decisions across a variety of areas. Most specifically in the purchasing area, we have a system that is at this point fairly centralized and not particularly automated, and it is our sense that there are significant opportunities to improve the service we provide through the purchasing area and through the financial information area by implementing a system of this sort.

Mrs Marland: I would like to ask another question that is probably not directed at the same staff person. Unfortunately, I do not have these questions in a specific order, which would have been more helpful, I realize. I would like to ask about details of the St Catharines relocation: the exact site of relocation and the cost of construction and the hard and soft costs of the move.

Mr Mealing: You have the right person. At the present time there are three sites in St Catharines that we have examined in concert with the city and we are doing a number of studies with respect to soil conditions and things of that order. Those sites are primarily central to the city of St Catharines because one of the purposes St Catharines has articulated for the move is to assist in downtown redevelopment.

As for the cost of the move, the present estimate for the move to St Catharines is in the order of $337 million, of which about $240 million would be for the construction of a new building.

Mrs Marland: If you do not have the $25 million for my interchange, why would you want to spend $330 million on this project? Why is this move a priority?

1610

Hon Mr Pouliot: Why the government of Ontario does not have $25 million for your project to serve your constituents, I am sure, is a matter -- the budget of the Ministry of Transportation is $2.8 billion in its entirety. Fully $1.1 billion is spent on provincial highways. A sum exceeding $800 million, on top of the $1.1 billion, is spent on transfer payments or for municipal roads, if you wish, which is a significant increase over the previous years. What we have, for instance, is $1.28 billion identified over a five-year program. We are right on track. If you are in the wheel, you will get it; it is a matter of time.

No government ever had, or I suspect ever will have sufficient funds to satisfy the appetites. We have a $30-billion investment in terms of infrastructure. It is the highest it has ever been, and we hear, "Why don't you have the $25 million?" I come from a special part of northern Ontario where I hear that and, "Why not?" I have been hearing it for seven years on a daily basis and I heard it for 10 years before at the municipal level as well.

The Chair: And you are still hearing it today.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, of course.

The Chair: I just wanted to indicate to Mrs Marland that was the end of her session. I would like to recognize one of your members when you are finished, Minister. Excuse me for interrupting you.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I was under the impression I had written down 4:20, Progressive Conservatives, distinguished Margaret Marland 4:25.

Mr Mancini: Not that distinguished.

The Chair: No, her time is up.

Hon Mr Pouliot: It is a matter of conflicting priorities, but no project is left unaddressed.

Mr O'Connor: I sat here last week as you gave us your remarks and found it very interesting when you told us about the size of your riding and how eloquently you spoke; but more particularly, on page 4 of your remarks you talked about developing a more cohesive approach to long-term, long-range transportation planning and how we can focus on transportation for the future. On the bottom of the same page you state: "Ontario's highways, rail, air and water transportation systems are an investment in the future. Our planning is a dynamic process that takes into account new technologies, issues and social changes."

Over the course of the past 100 years, there has been a significant link, a network of rail transportation developed right across the whole province. Now we are seeing deterioration of this, for a number of different reasons. Some lines became redundant, going to places that no longer needed that type of access and service. My question is, what about trying to protect and save some of these corridors for the future? If we take a look, for an example, in my riding we have the GO train that goes to Stouffville. The other end of that line runs on to Uxbridge and Lindsay. Is the government looking at any way of trying to protect some of those rail lines for the future?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Go Transit has expressed an interest in the corridor from -- you do not mind if I refer to my notes? There are 836 municipalities in Ontario.

Mr O'Connor: I only have five of them, so by all means refer to your notes.

Hon Mr Pouliot: My notes indicate to me that MTO's initial cost estimate, done by the Ministry of Government Services, of the right of way is $2.4 million. Go Transit has expressed an interest in acquiring the corridor from Stouffville to Goodwood, approximately five miles, or eight kilometres. The region of Durham expresses an interest in seeing the corridor preserved. The Durham Heritage Railway Association has been working to establish a rail museum in Uxbridge and wishes to initiate a tourist train between Stouffville and Uxbridge. The town of Lindsay -- I am sure you are familiar with the township of Lindsay -- and the township railway committee have had representatives from both parties, local industries and municipalities, who would like to see the corridor retained for rail transportation towards finding tourist rail potential.

What does it mean? It means $2.4 million has been identified as the cost estimate. MTO has requested that the track remain in place, and it is to this day, so we hear you loud and clear and in the process of building our budget for next year that is going to come under review.

Mr O'Connor: So the track will remain there.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes.

Mr O'Connor: Further on that question, as we slowly see an increase in the network of GO Transit, rail transit, and the trains accessing different communities within the greater Toronto area, as they expand, bus services are eliminated because they are no longer needed. Has anything been looked at to expand bus services to some of the smaller municipalities? For example, in my riding up around Lake Simcoe they are on a side bus route and what not. It does not look like they will be looking at GO Trains going up to Sutton or Keswick in the near future. Could you comment on that?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I am going to stay away from political commitments that were made by whatever regime over the decades. You are aware of the Toronto Transit Commmission in Metropolitan Toronto. You have GO Transit that goes through the GTA, and you also have forces that are asking that GO Transit be extended, for instance, to Barrie, and as far as Niagara Falls, in some cases to pick up the slack left by Via Rail and by other modes of transportation. Off rail, where rail does not go, you are also asking that more buses be added to the GO Transit system. We are also asking that fair competition be the order of the day, somewhat regulated, but with the private entrepreneur, people who provide that essential service in the private market. You have all those competing forces.

You also have the responsibility of determining where you get your best value for money. For every dollar in the fare box, the taxpayers of the province are subsidizing it, plus they pay for the equipment, so you are always asking them to pump more and more money in to extend the service and to go another 15 miles, another 20 miles.

Given the size of the province, sure, we are cognizant that 4 million people out of 9.8 million reside in the greater Toronto area, which is less than half in the province. When we look at the amount of money allocated for public transit, both in terms of capital and in terms of operating, we have to be able to justify that, first, the taxpayers of Ontario are getting value for money, but that all parts of Ontario are served equally, given some criteria. It is difficult sometimes to reconcile, and you have to say, "What is the cost of your infrastructure?" You still have less than 50% of the people, but do you take 60%, 65%, 70% of the money allocated to GO Transit, both capital and operating?

I know that in the special part of Ontario I come from, I for one try to be quite diligent, more vigilant, and look long and hard at all those figures, especially when I look at the TTC and at GO Transit, and when I look at other special parts of Ontario as well, northeast, northwest, the north. The point is well taken in terms of --

Mr O'Connor: When we expand GO Transit, rail transit, to different communities, is there not a way that the Ministry of Transportation can utilize the buses that are then surplus -- all of a sudden, we have a yard full of buses.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Tom Smith is the general manager of GO Transit, and when it comes to a presentation and knowledge of GO Transit, this committee and other audiences are not privileged, they are blessed indeed. Tom, would you please help us?

Mr Smith: Yes, Minister.

The Chair: This means you are better than Lou Parsons ever was.

Mr Smith: Really, Lou should be here to answer some questions maybe.

Was your question specific to service to the southern part of Lake Simcoe, or was it a general question?

Mr O'Connor: I use that as an example because I can relate to it. So many of my constituents have to take the roads because there is no bus linkage for them to go to, say, Markham and some of the new industrial and commercial areas there.

1620

Mr Smith: The simple answer to your question is yes. As we make changes in rail services and buses are available, then we would look at additional locations where we could use them. One of the areas we are looking at is greater use of the Highway 404 corridor. There are a number of municipalities along that, and we would possibly go as far as the southern part of the southern shore of Lake Simcoe. That is being examined. You might anticipate some changes in the not too distant future.

Mr O'Connor: I have never seen a GO bus on Highway 404, but I would think one bus could substitute for an awful lot of cars and commuters.

Mr Smith: Yes. One of the concepts is to make greater use of the freeways, both 400 and 404.

Mr Lessard: I have some questions, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Trying to get back in the minister's good books, are you?

Mr Lessard: I will try.

The Chair: Go right ahead.

Mr Lessard: I know during the spring there was a review being done with respect to bicycle transportation and I was wondering what the status of that review is?

Hon Mr Pouliot: So that you will get value for your question, I will ask Mr Dave Guscott, who is the assistant deputy minister of policy, to answer your question.

Mr Guscott: I would like to update you on the status of the bicycle review policy that Mr Lessard was referring to. We were faced with the situation a year ago last August of having a policy in the ministry which essentially said that bicycles were not a viable form of transportation and that we would not subsidize any of the works that go with them, unlike what we do for the automobile and for transit. This seemed to be a policy that was well past its reasonable stage and deserved a careful look, and to that end we explored the question.

We also noticed there was increasing concern over bicycle safety and bicycle ridership had increased substantially. Over and above that, it was becoming very clear that environmental concerns, especially related to emissions and a reduction in transportation, were an ongoing and serious concern to all parties.

We decided to undertake this review essentially from a standing start. We had gone 11 years without any review of the policy and felt we needed to cover the province and, in a comprehensive manner, all those with an interest in the particular issue. To that end, we decided on a consultation approach that would involve municipalities, interest groups, the general public and some international review of the literature on what was happening in other jurisdictions around the world.

We set forward a work plan that involved five public meetings. We were able to come in direct contact with over 600 interested parties throughout the province in meetings that were held in Ottawa, Toronto, Thunder Bay, Sudbury and London.

During the course of the meetings, the public brought to our attention greater concern about other issues such as the enforcement of legislation related to bicycles and the Highway Traffic Act. They talked about urban and interurban needs. There was perhaps a surprising amount of interest in examining ways that bicycles could be seen as interurban transportation, at least in a recreational sense. Over and above that, bicycle theft and the interaction of bicycles and pedestrians were some of the items brought to our attention. There was apparently a clear lack of space for bicycles as our urban centres were developing. We were widening curb lanes, we were widening shoulders, we were making sidewalks more pedestrian-friendly, but we were not doing anything for bicycles per se.

We conducted that study and those public meetings over the past year. The report is at its final draft stage now and we expect to be receiving it in the next few weeks.

Mr Lessard: Great. In the city of Windsor, before being elected, I was involved in the preparation of a report. In fact, that is a report that has won a number of awards in Ontario and Canada. One of the recommendations of the report -- and I am sure this came out during the review process -- was with respect to cost-sharing for road construction. An argument that was always given to me by my municipality was that we cannot add any extra asphalt on the side of the road to accommodate cyclists because we do not get any provincial money for that purpose. I wonder if that is something that is addressed through the review as well?

Mr Guscott: Yes, the issue of how the provincial government and even the Ministry of Transportation can assist the utilization of bicycles as a alternative form of transportation is included. The report has explored a number of options for financing those measures because there have been barriers within our own policies which have made it more difficult to develop bicycle transportation.

Over and above that, we have also looked at non-financial measures, things that can be done through the planning process and planning guidelines, standards that could be used by municipalities etc to improve the capability. Not all the measures will require more money, but certainly we have had barriers to implementation because of that.

Mr Lessard: One of the things you mentioned was enforcement of the Highway Traffic Act, and I suppose amendments to the Highway Traffic Act were part of the submissions as well. I know there is legislation that has been introduced with respect to requiring the use of bicycle helmets by cyclists. Is that something that is addressed in the review, and if not, I was wondering whether the minister has any opinions with respect to that requirement.

The Chair: Minister, do you wear a helmet when you go bicycling?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Suffice it to say, before I was appointed Minister of Transportation I wore my seatbelt all the time. Now I wear it even more often.

Mr Guscott, on bicycle helmets for Mr Lessard, please.

Mr Guscott: Perhaps I could comment on how that issue came up during our public meetings around the province. There was concern about safety aspects. There was some caution raised when it was suggested that the way to enforce it was just to require people to wear helmets, as they do on motorcycles. The difficulty is that bicyclists cover a lot broader age range, and it is difficult to enforce the wearing of a bicycle helmet by a six- or eight-year-old bicycling on the street.

Having said that, it is recognized that it is absolutely imperative that through education and other means we find ways of showing the public and making parents well aware of the safety aspects of wearing a helmet when bicycling.

The Chair: My brother once got a ticket when bicycling for not stopping at an intersection. He lost three points or something at the time. He just came home shaking his head. He could not believe that his insurance went up by $500 because he was riding a bicycle and went through an intersection. I think it is an item that has been well raised and worthy of a fair amount of discussion.

Hon Mr Pouliot: The member for London North, Dianne Cunningham, has moved a private member's bill on bicycle helmets, and it is going to committee. The bill is asking mainly for increased use of the bicycle helmet. It would be good to keep our eyes open in terms of where the bill is going and when it does go to the committee, and to make it a point to be present and to participate in that debate.

1630

Mr Mancini: I want to remind the minister that a number of questions were put forward by myself, and it looks like we may have the answers. Before I take up my questioning where I left off last week, I would for a very brief moment like to pick up on the member for Windsor-Walkerville's questions in regards to the wearing of helmets for all bicyclists.

I remember very carefully, and almost as if it was yesterday, the debate in the Legislature. The private member's bill introduced by the member for London North was one calling for mandatory requirement of anyone riding a bicycle to wear a helmet. While I think calling for the wearing of helmets on bicycles is needed, I was not prepared on that particular day, as the critic for Transportation for the Liberal caucus -- everyone knows it is private members' hour, so members could vote as they wished. I remember very carefully asking three or four questions that no one wanted to answer. As a matter of fact everyone who spoke refused to answer, particularly the proponents.

Not having received any answers in the Legislature, I would like to pose two or three questions to the minister which he can answer at his convenience, either by memo or in the same fashion as he has prepared some answers today.

Has the minister had some discussions with the police forces of Ontario as to how much more human resources, how many more personnel would be needed to police this new mandatory requirement? Have you had discussions with the police forces? They may be interested to discuss this with you.

Second, if as I believe they are going to require greater resources to do this, who is going to pay for it? Are you going to force the municipalities to pay for this even though it will be provincially mandated?

Last, and just as important, how are you going to provide helmets for children in situations where their families are unable to financially supply helmets? If you have a large family or if you have an unfortunate economic circumstance due to a layoff, plant closure or an economic institution being wooed from one province to another, as we saw in the recent election goings-on in Saskatchewan, I want to know from the minister his views on how we are going to provide these children with helmets. Are we going to tell poor children or children who are in economic circumstances that are less favourable than others that they should not ride their bikes?

These are questions I have put forward in the Legislature, which no one wanted to answer, but now that we have you before us, minister, and now that we know how seriously you are taking this whole issue of bicycling, I think we need answers to these questions. I believe the public would be most interested to know, as would other interested parties I mentioned earlier on.

Unfortunately, I cannot devote any more time to the trucking industry because we have so many other issues to cover. It is too bad because the issue is of such great importance. I guess "crisis" is the only word to describe the industry, but I believe the questions I put forward the other day may be useful if we are able to elicit any type of substantial information from the minister.

I want to ask, though, one related question in regard to what seems to be the regular occurrence of blockading the Ambassador Bridge that is used by literally tens of thousands of people every day. It is an international bridge used to transport literally tens of millions of dollars' worth of products in each direction and is extremely important to the economic viability of our province.

Members might recall that the first time -- at least in my memory, and my political memory goes back almost some 20 years -- the bridge was blockaded, unfortunately, a New Democratic member of the House of Commons was part of the blockade. It is very difficult for me to criticize truckers who are fighting for their livelihood when they see people such as MP Steven Langdon blockading the bridge. I thought it was wrong when he did it. Other members who were at the scene, such as Howard McCurdy and your own government House leader, refused to take part in the blockade and I commend them for that. They could have taken the short-sighted view of some political advantage that might have been gained by blocking the bridge at that particular moment, but anyway it happened.

Since that time, I believe six or seven other blockades of the bridge have taken place, some of them more significant than others. This situation has gotten so severe and its repercussions so dangerous that the city of Windsor council adopted a resolution at its September 23 meeting. I asked our critic, Monte Kwinter, the member for Wilson Heights, to raise the matter in the Legislature with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and I believe he may have referred the question to you. I want to ask the minister specifically about the September 23 resolution, which was heartily supported by the Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce, because it knows first hand the economic damage that is done every time the bridge is blockaded.

I want to say to the minister that every time business is damaged, people lose their jobs and that is the bottom line. When business is damaged, people lose their jobs. When the bridge is blockaded, people lose their jobs, and future investments are put on hold. The city of Windsor council passed a bylaw which states as follows:

"That the parking bylaw be amended to add section 10(1)(h): `on any roadway so as to obstruct or interfere with the movement of traffic, unless otherwise permitted in this bylaw' and application be made to the Chief Judge to approve a set fine of $100 for any offence under section 10(1)(h); and further, the parking bylaw be amended to add the definition `(47) roadway -- means any part of the highway that is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic'; and section 39a of the traffic bylaw be amended to provide a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), and the Minister of Transportation for Ontario be requested to amend section 147 of the Highway Traffic Act to provide for fines of up to $1,000 per day."

This is the end of the resolution and it is signed by the city clerk. The minister's communications assistant -- my notes say Maria Smith -- was quoted in the Windsor Star as saying the resolution "deserves a great deal of merit." We have had this resolution now for a month and I want to know how much merit this resolution has been given within the ministry.

1640

Hon Mr Pouliot: Within the ministry the point is well taken. I would ask Ms Pat Jacobsen, our deputy minister, to answer the question.

Ms Jacobsen: We do not seem to have a record of the actual bylaw, but we would be happy to make sure that we are following up within our own staff.

We have looked at the legislation in terms of the Highway Traffic Act. On a provincial highway, we feel we have sufficient legislation with our current legislation as it exists, but when there are incidents within the municipal boundaries, I think several of the municipalities, particularly Windsor, have found they need a stronger enforcement capability than they feel they have to date. We would be happy to look at that and give you a written answer in terms of the specific bylaw and whether there is any requirement in terms of the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr Mancini: I think the city of Windsor and the Essex county area deserve an answer. I want to go on record as supporting the city's request to have the Minister of Transportation amend section 147 to provide for fines of up to $1,000 a day. I do this knowing full well that the truckers' interests are really not being looked after, but having them blockade the bridge time and again is not the solution to their problems either. While I am at it, I think I will deal with one other local issue which may have some provincial significance.

The Chair: Mr Mancini, I owe you an apology because I only recently was advised that this document was ready. Had I known that, I would have circulated it at the beginning and given you a time. But if you wish the ministry to respond to these items, you may wish to do that during your time or ask the ministry separately. I realize you have not had a chance to read it, because it was just put on your table. So I want to apologize. I did not know the ministry had this ready.

Mr Mancini: No problem. What I would like to do is hold this, and if I do not get time to actually have a conversation with the minister about the answers, we will continue with correspondence or in the Legislature or by some other means.

Minister, recently -- as matter of fact, the exact date is September 28, 1991 -- the Windsor Star carried an article, the headline was, "E. C. Rowe Paving Job Delayed by Unstable Mix." Of course, there was a picture of the E. C. Rowe work being done. This caught my eye for a couple of reasons. First, it appears that 2,000 tonnes of crumbling asphalt from the eastern limit of the expressway is below standard and is being torn up and that area has to be repaved completely. The other thing that concerned me was that it was not quite clear who was responsible for this significant error. At first, it appeared that the contractor was responsible. Then it appeared that the ministry was responsible.

I am quite concerned, because I do not think the people of Ontario or the people of Windsor should be paying twice for their road projects. I think it should be clarified during these estimates who, in fact, is responsible for this unstable mix. Is it the contractor who used inappropriate materials? I want to point out to the minister -- and this also concerns me -- that one of the materials used in this mix is a material referred to as slag, I believe, that this material is a byproduct of some type of incineration, if I am correct, and that this material comes from the Detroit area.

I think we need an explanation as to why we need to bring resource material from Michigan to build Ontario roads. Are we short of resource material in our province? Were there other bidders who had intended to use an Ontario-only resource? Do we need to bring in slag from the Detroit metropolitan and Michigan areas to build the E. C. Rowe Expressway or any other expressway in Ontario? Is this how we are fighting free trade? Is this how we are building jobs for Ontario?

These are all questions that come to mind when one gets into this issue a little bit, but I think for right now I would like to know who is responsible for MTO contract number 90/15, E. C. Rowe-Highway 2, Windsor. Who is responsible for that inappropriate material being laid down and now being torn up and who is going to pay for it?

Hon Mr Pouliot: At first I thought you were going to ask who was responsible for free trade, but, no, this is a specific question with a contract number attached to it. So Margaret Kelch, who is our ADM, quality and standards, is the appropriate person to answer your question.

Ms Kelch: Thank you for the question, Mr Mancini. This is an issue which has many components, the primary one being our commitment in the provincial highway program in the province to be concerned about using recycled materials. We have a variety of demonstrations across the province trying to do that. Our affiliation with the steel industry is a very large and paramount one there. There are two types of materials that we have been using from the steel industry. The one to which you refer was being supplied by a source in Detroit. The reason for that is because our source in Hamilton went out of business. There is another source, though, for slag that is continuing to come from Hamilton.

This particular contract, E. C. Rowe in Windsor, has been a problem; there is no doubt about that. It is normally the responsibility of the contractor for materials supplied to ensure the calibre and the quality of the material put down. We are very concerned about this particular project and the use of slag, though, because we are, as I indicated, very interested in the use of recycled materials, rather than having to go to the aggregate source exclusively. For that reason, we have a major review under way with the industry. Earlier this week I sent correspondence to all of the participants in the roadbuilding industry and the steel industry, for us to sit down and sort out what the problems are here. In the interim, we are not going to be using this material in our asphalts in Ontario until we sort out the issue.

Mr Mancini: I am not hearing an answer to my question. This news article is almost a month old. I did the proper thing and made a call to your local regional office to make sure that whatever was in the news article was factual and whatever corrections had to be made were made, but no one is telling me today who is responsible for tearing up some 2,000 tonnes of crumbling asphalt, as described in the paper.

Are the taxpayers going to pay for this? I want to know whether or not the contractor involved was responsible. If he is, he should be held accountable. Or was it a ministry error? If that is the case, not only does it impugn the reputation of the contractor, it costs the taxpayers a great deal of money. I wonder why, on a significant project like the E. C. Rowe Expressway, we are using slag that we are not sure is an appropriate material. I want a specific answer to my question.

1650

Hon Mr Pouliot: I can assure you that this government, each and every day, looks at value for money. I would like to ask Margaret Kelch to give you an answer that hopefully in your opinion will come closer to focusing on the exact figures.

Ms Kelch: The slag to which we refer is on our approved designated source list. That means it is a product that has gone through various testing and has been approved for use by the ministry. This particular product is on that list. The contractor in this case did use that material, and the process by which we use the private sector to build roads in this province means that the contractor is responsible. That is the process by which we have functioned here.

In terms of who is going to pay, that will be his responsibility. He has the opportunity, if he feels the ministry had a role to play here, to go through a claims process. That is always the case in any kind of roadbuilding across the province.

Mr Mancini: In order to conclude this, then, it is the ministry's opinion that the raw resources used for this project were in fact appropriate, that the mistake or error in the mixing of these raw resources lies on the contractor's side, and that the taxpayer will not have to pay twice. Is that basically what I am being told, unless some kind of appeal board overturns your opinions?

Ms Kelch: The contractor has the legal authority to come back to the ministry and claim for damages. If contractors feel they were not in fact responsible, they have that right.

Mr Mancini: My summation of your answer, then, is that this is the contractor's problem.

Ms Kelch: Correct.

Mrs Marland: Lest I let the minister off too lightly from my previous questions --

Mr Mancini: Sure did.

Mrs Marland: -- I think it is important for me to ask directly, after asking how you prioritize projects of major capital construction around the province, when you might consider it possible, since we have already agreed with your staff about the priority of the projects which I identified, for this new government to consider those projects within a specified time. Do you in fact have a five-year or 10-year capital works program where projects are identified?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, and to give you some examples, Mr Vervoort, please, on the five-year capital expenditure programs.

Mrs Marland: What does it have to be to get into the five-year capital program?

Mr Vervoort: As indicated earlier, there are several criteria. Traffic volumes and operational safety requirements are the two key criteria, and the additional consideration, of course, is the cost of the works relative to the availability of funds. The process is to establish a relative priority and weighting on those parameters on various projects. The specific projects that I believe you are referring to, if I understand you, were the three interchanges on the QEW. At present, none of those three is on our multi-year program, which would be for a five-year period.

I might add by way of supplementary information that the reason there has been postponement beyond the five-year time frame at present is in view of the fact that the ministry has over the past several years been constructing Highway 403. This, as you are aware, parallels the Queen Elizabeth Way throughout much of its length, connecting to Highway 401 and to the QEW at approximately the location of the Ford motor plant. The sense was that the volumes of traffic that would be making use of Highway 403 would reduce the operational deficiencies previously identified and related to those interchanges at the QEW.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Does it really go back to the days of Mr Snow? Does it really go back that many years?

Mr Vervoort: Quite frankly, I do not know the specifics, but, yes, those interchanges are very old designs, with the QEW of course being among the first multilane freeway facilities in the province. Therefore I would expect those designs are of the very early varieties and do have operational difficulties under current traffic volumes.

Mrs Marland: Minister, when Highway 403 was opened for a short time, the traffic volume seemed to be reduced on the Queen Elizabeth. But now you know that 403 has become a parking lot and we are back to the same kinds of volumes on the Queen Elizabeth. I ask the question again: When can we hope to have at least one of those projects, in priority, included in your multi-year commitment?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Competing priorities. We hear you loud and clear, no more and no less by virtue of your ability and the opportunity to sit here. As we spoke, I was just looking at Highway 403, Ancaster to Brantford. I could go to highways as major issues and an overview of major projects and have all 130 members in the House who represent their municipalities, constantly, because they hear it daily through mail or through their constituency assistant, have to answer: "Is the bridge too high? Is the bridge too low?" Is there a bridge in the first place? In some sections of the province, I hear they are mostly concerned about the section between the soft shoulders. In some other parts of the province, they are concerned about the soft shoulders, and the list goes on and on.

Mrs Marland: But if it is unsafe?

Hon Mr Pouliot: In answering your question, if I may, it is a matter of competing priorities. I cannot make a commitment as the minister. We are building our base, our budget for next year. Many of the dollars that will be allocated by Treasury are already committed. They form a natural part of due process. They are in the five-year period. Others are in the three-year or the two-year period. But I want to remind you that we are spending an all-time high of $1.1 billion in this fiscal year on highways. Add to it another $800 million for a total of $1.9 billion, close to $2 billion, in capital money. And that is through the Ministry of Transportation.

On top of it the taxpayers have agreed that the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines would spend an additional $250 million for the northern component. This ministry will of course supply the infrastructural expertise and work in co-operation with them. When all is said and done, more than $3 billion, the largest capital budget of all ministries in Ontario is -- you are right --

Mrs Marland: So there is no commitment.

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- your area of responsibility. Having said this, the demands on the limited funds are enormous. It is a matter of priority. There is no prejudice, no bias here.

Mrs Marland: What about safety?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The validity of the project, the need to anticipate for exactly that, the need of the constituents, is paramount. We have some criteria. When the criteria are agreed upon, are fitted, our ability to pay will govern. It gets prioritized.

Mr Turnbull: I have always been a great admirer of your eloquence, but in the interests of time, I would ask that you keep your answers a little more succinct than the last one.

As you know, there was an eight-day transit strike this year, and extra GO trains were put into service. Could you give me an estimate of the cost to operate these extra trains during the strike, how those costs were paid and how this will affect the budget this year?

1700

Hon Mr Pouliot: A very valid question, Mr Turnbull. Regarding the cost to operate during the legal work stoppage, I would like Mr Tom Smith of GO Transit to give us a figure.

Mr Smith: The cost per day was something like $50,000. We increased our volumes during that period by about 40%, so the costs are in fact covered by the additional revenue that took place during that period.

Mr Turnbull: So you are saying that this was completely self-financing?

Mr Smith: Yes.

The Chair: Were they crush-loaded, as well? Were they on the loading practice for crush-load, as well, those new ones, or did that have an effect on the overall crush-load ratings for the GO Transit?

Mr Smith: In terms of safety?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Smith: There is no impact. Those trains are rated for a crush load.

The Chair: Okay, thank you. Sorry for interrupting.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, are you considering privatizing GO? Have you considered privatizing the GO service?

Hon Mr Pouliot: No, we are not looking at a garage sale here, sir. I mean, no, we have no plans to --

Mr Turnbull: I was not suggesting a garage sale. I was asking you whether you, in your ministry's plans, had considered privatizing. Have you made a study of this?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Certainly not at this time.

Mr Daigeler: What about the Treasury?

Mr Turnbull: Under the previous administration, had there been any discussion or consideration of privatizing GO?

Mr Smith: Are you asking me? I am not aware of any discussion. There has been no discussion on that in all the time I have been there, for the last four years.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, in view of the present economic problems that the province is in, would you not consider a study of the economic costs and benefits associated with privatizing it?

Hon Mr Pouliot: In all honesty, I do not know what the previous administration had in mind. I was treading different circles, as you know, during those years. What I can say is that the present administration is making a list of public assets, if you wish, and we are, yes, appalled and shocked that no such list exists. In fact, to be perfectly blunt and completely candid, we do not even know what we own as a people, as a province.

Mr Turnbull: Have you undertaken a study of that, in that case?

Hon Mr Pouliot: We are listing what those assets are, and that is all that is being done at this time.

Mr Turnbull: Could you discuss the major capital projects which you have listed on page 91 of your estimates?

Mr Smith: These are all GO Transit projects. Mr Turnbull, when you say "discuss," what kind of response are you looking for? I could give you an overview.

Mr Turnbull: Just a brief comment on all of these projects.

Mr Smith: To give you a brief overview, the general thrust of GO is to move towards all-day service on most of its corridors, and many of the projects represented here are a start towards that activity.

If I run down the list I can give you a bit of the status, I guess. In the case of the Richmond Hill all-day service, you see very limited expenditure this year. All of that is in consultants' fees. We are starting an environmental study for the area from Highway 401 north, which would include not only Richmond Hill but also some distance beyond that to the area of Highway 404. We will look at some modifications to station sites, introduction of additional plant and a new overnight storage facility.

In the case of the Milton all-day service, two years ago we expanded a number of peak period trains, and we now operate five trains all day and into the evening on the Milton service. We progressed, again, with an environmental study. There will be public meetings coming up, probably this winter. We will then be proceeding with an application for approval to put additional plant in to allow us to run our early service in the Milton corridor.

Burlington to Hamilton: This is the completion of work that was initiated some time ago. I am sorry, I am getting ahead of myself. Burlington to Hamilton is a proposal that has been before the Ministry of the Environment. In fact, it is there. We anticipate getting approval or some reply from them in the near future. We would then proceed with introducing limited service to the station in Hamilton.

Oakville to Burlington will be completed this coming spring and in May 1992 we will provide all-day service -- that is, hourly service seven days a week -- to the existing station in Burlington. A lot of the work you see in that case is new track and modifications to existing stations.

Mr Turnbull: When you say new track, are you talking about track that you will then own as opposed to renting from CN and CP?

Mr Smith: No, almost all of our rail plant is on property owned by CN and CP. We own only 15 kilometres, between Whitby and Pickering.

Mr Turnbull: Could you briefly comment on any ongoing discussions with CN and CP about the amount of money you pay as your burden on track?

Mr Smith: You should understand the manner in which we pay. We pay something like $12 million a year towards ongoing maintenance and plant that was invested by the railroads some time ago. Our normal practice, when their plant cannot carry the kind of service we are providing, is for the province, through GO Transit, to pay for the improvement and expansion of that plant. In that case, we pay no further fees to them except when major repair is required some time in the future.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, turning to the Let's Move program, could you furnish me briefly with some information on the project, cost projections, viability and any consideration of our environmental assessments?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I would like to have assistant deputy minister Dave Guscott answer. It is quite an extensive program over a long period of time. We are talking about megabucks. It is a natural part of the future of the greater Toronto area.

Mr Guscott: I would be pleased to give an update on where the Let's Move program stands. You will be aware that it was announced 18 months ago, on April 5, 1990. That was essentially the startup period for the Let's Move projects. It was essentially a standing start at that time, so an awful lot of the effort to date has gone into the studies that must be done to obtain the approvals for the various undertakings. All are of sufficient size, magnitude and impact that they require environmental assessment approvals.

Mr Turnbull: Have any of these started?

Mr Guscott: We have started them for all of the projects. I believe there are nine projects. I will run through them, if you like. Environmental assessments are under way for all of them, the only exception being the Harbourfront East project, which was essentially going to be useful and a priority if we had obtained the Olympics for Toronto. The Harbourfront East study is in fact under way.

1710

We have studies under way now for the extension of the Spadina line and closing that through to the loop which will join up with Yonge Street. We have them under way for the Sheppard subway; for the expansion of the Bloor-Danforth subway westerly and somewhere into Mississauga, the location to be determined; for the extension of the Scarborough RT route --

Mr Turnbull: Could you just hold on that, the extension of the Scarborough RT route? As you know, there was quite a lot of consideration given to completely killing that and turning it over to subway. Would you comment on that?

Mr Guscott: Killing the RT itself or the extension?

Mr Turnbull: Well, that type of equipment.

Mr Guscott: The equipment has been among the most reliable the TTC has used. It has been a showcase. It helped Vancouver decide to use the same equipment for its service. It is so pleased that it is now lining up for expansion.

Mr Turnbull: Why was the TTC considering killing it a couple of years ago?

Mr Guscott: I am not aware that the TTC was considering killing it. From time to time they evaluated what was involved. Because it was a prototype of that equipment, there were some original bugs to be ironed out, but they have been successfully dealt with.

Mr Turnbull: Are you saying it is more reliable than the existing underground system?

Mr Guscott: I do not have the exact data on the reliability figures. My most recent discussions with the TTC have been that it has been pleased with the reliability of that equipment.

Mr Turnbull: Perhaps, Minister, we could have those figures tabled.

Hon Mr Pouliot: What is your gut feeling, in candid conversation? The point is well taken. You have certainly more latitude to answer the question. How do you personally feel about it?

Mr Mancini: Be careful.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I am sorry, we do not quite operate this way. I take offence, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: I do, too.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Ours is a candid family of transportation. When people ask direct questions, we have direct answers. We will not resort to the old ways of answering questions when they are valid, Mr Chairman. That we will not do.

The Chair: I am sure that back at your ministry you have this open-door policy where your employees come waltzing in and can consult with you on these questions from time to time.

Hon Mr Pouliot: It is a turnstile, sir, yes.

The Chair: That is right. But in the estimates process, the members of the committee ask the questions. As much as I am sure you would have an interesting presentation, I will ask you to respond to the member who is asking the questions.

Mr Guscott: I would be pleased to provide statistics on the reliability of the Scarborough RT.

Mr Turnbull: Following on the minister's question, what is your gut feeling?

Mr Guscott: I have no qualms about the equipment. The equipment is, in many ways, the way an awful lot of urban mass transit will happen in North America in the future. It is being pursued in other jurisdictions. It is unique to Ontario in that it provided a way of moving a new transit line through an existing builtup area which had relatively low density. The densities of development along the Scarborough RT route are considerably lower than the subway. It is cheaper to build than the subway, so it fits some of the needs related to the appropriate use of that technology.

The environmental assessment for the extension of the Scarborough RT route will require, as all environmental assessments do, an evaluation of that technology, so the TTC will be putting on paper how it feels about the technology that ought to be used for that extension. I have not heard any reservations that they had about it.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, can you give me a breakdown of the $496 million of municipal transfer transit payments?

Mr Mancini: Right to the dollar.

Mr Turnbull: I am not talking down to cents. I am talking about a general sense of the direction this is going.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Can we take note of it? I do not wish to tax Mr Smith from GO Transit, because when asked for a breakdown he will say, "Not enough."

Mr Turnbull: Minister, you do not want to tax him. I think the taxpayers of Ontario are taxed enough.

Hon Mr Pouliot: We want to make sure that you get the right answer. If you want a penny-for-penny account, we are obliged and we will be proud to give it to you. Do we happen at this time to have a dollar-by-dollar breakdown of the $496 million that we were happy to provide?

Mr Guscott: I do not have a detailed breakdown in front of me, Minister. I can deal with it generally. If I could have a couple of minutes, I could find some more of the numbers associated with it. Perhaps, Mr Turnbull, you could tell me if this is sufficient for your question, notwithstanding the fact that we can get you the absolute detail.

We provide our funds in the municipal transit area under two categories: those that relate to the capital improvements -- in other words, the purchase of new buses, new subway work and the studies that are associated with those initiatives -- and those under operating. The operating provisions deal with the costs associated with drivers and mechanics and the overhead provided to facilitate the provision of the service.

We provide those two grants under different formulas. The province provides 75% of the capital needs for new equipment and new roadbeds. Under the operating, we generally provide 16%. We look for the fare box to recover roughly 68%. In the TTC's case, it is 68%. It varies in some other municipalities, but it is within that same range. We share with the municipality the costs of --

Mr Turnbull: Excuse me. I am fully aware of those numbers. I want a sense as to where it is being spent. Can you talk to me about the municipalities where it is being spent and how much, in a general sense, is being spent?

The Chair: Mr Turnbull, perhaps we can take that question as notice, since our time on this question is completed. You can assist in preparing that.

Mr Turnbull: Sure, yes.

The Chair: We will be returning tomorrow to continue these.

Mr Klopp: I have a comment and then a question. In the riding of Huron, we always feel that the Ministry of Transportation forgets about rural Ontario. With regard to Highway 4, between Brussels and Wingham in particular, we have had every politician in my area asking and begging ministers to get that road fixed. I would like to thank you for getting that started and on the move, because it is very important for us to have that happen.

The Chair: So your begging was successful.

Mr Klopp: Yes.

Hon Mr Pouliot: The project spoke for itself. In fact, I was unaware, because of the many projects that are paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario, but the point is nevertheless well taken.

Mr Klopp: Especially because our rail system is getting depleted so fast, I hope that the GO system can only go farther and head to that beautiful town of Goderich where you attended one day a few months ago, sir.

My question is about an issue which also affects rural Ontario a lot, and that is the recycling of tires. I understand the ministry is in the process of studying that system. It is an issue that comes up time and time again at farm meetings, etc. I would like to know just where it is at this present time, because it is an issue that is dear to my heart.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Who has not been immersed in the calamity of the situation at Hagersville? In fact, it was not too long ago. I think it taught each and every one of us a lesson. It certainly increased the concern and awareness of this administration. Your proposal is a very interesting one. Whether it is technically feasible or not remains to be seen. I would like us to listen to Margaret Kelch, assistant deputy minister for quality and standards.

Ms Kelch: The projects we have under way with respect to the use of old tires are very interesting to us. We are working closely with the Ministry of the Environment on a variety of fronts in terms of how we can use those tires somewhere within the transportation system. Currently we have a trial project on Highway 21 through Thamesville, in that area, that has used shredded rubber in the asphalt. In fact, we have used two different grades of rubber. By that I mean shredding to two different levels of granular. Just last week we were going through the next phase of the project to determine whether that asphalt is recyclable. That is a very important aspect for us. Because we recycle so much of our pavement in the province now, as it deteriorates and needs to be placed, if we are going to use asphalt in pavement it is exceedingly important that we can recycle it. That is the next part of the test. We have been watching very closely how this asphalt behaves after it has been put down and the traffic has started to use it. It will be a couple of years of going through the various testing procedures, taking cores, finding out how the material reacts to various temperature ranges and various seasons and moisture conditions, all those things, as well as the traffic. But as I say, we are working with great interest with the Ministry of the Environment in terms of seeing whether this is a viable use for recycled rubber in the province.

1720

Hon Mr Pouliot: We have just heard from the former director of maintenance.

Mr Klopp: Do you still think it is going to be two years away from getting all the i's dotted and the t's crossed?

Ms Kelch: Yes. The reason for that is that we need to ensure ourselves, as with the earlier question that was asked about the use of slag in asphalt, that it is a durable material. We expect our asphalts in this province to last in excess of 15 years. In order for that to happen and to be assured that rubber does not deteriorate even more quickly or in ways we are not prepared for, we need to ensure that we have a good-quality product.

Hon Mr Pouliot: We also wish to make sure it can resist foreign substances such as sand and salt from the Sifto salt mine, for instance, the area the member represents.

Mr G. Wilson: Minister, welcome to the estimates hearing. Regretfully I was not able to be here on Thursday to welcome you back to this committee. I think those of us who were present when you were Minister of Mines appreciated the new depth to which you took our understanding of that issue. Certainly we all look forward to enlightenment on the transportation issue.

The Chair: Are you bucking for a PR job here?

Mr G. Wilson: Regardless of what our association is, we all feel very close to the ministry of Mr Pouliot.

The response to the last question raised the question of the Ministry of the Environment, the area my question concerns. Although I was not here on Thursday, I still have the benefit of your scintillating remarks on paper. Certainly you raised in your remarks the question of the environment in its relation to the Ministry of Transportation. You referred to the greening of transportation in Ontario. I know there is a lot of interest in my own riding and all across Ontario in the problems associated with the environment and transportation. I was wondering whether we could turn to that now. You list some of them yourself, noise pollution, for instance, which I think interests everyone regardless of where they live. Transportation can create problems of noise pollution. I was just wondering what some of the areas are that are being looked at in that field.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank you. The point is well taken. As you are aware, the subject matter of the environment is first and foremost. What we do in transportation is to build it into each and every element of our endeavours, not only in our budget. Whether we are talking about the contribution the taxpayers of the province make to the users of the Toronto Transit Commission and GO Transit, there is not one element of the transportation budget where the environment does not form an important component. Sometimes it is a catalyst in terms of whether a project will go through. Any project, in some cases of some magnitude, is subject to an environmental assessment.

It becomes our credo, if you wish. It is the way to do business nowadays and never meant to buy time, as some cynics would have it. Gary, I know you and I can appreciate the value of putting forward the environment. We are more favourable than ever before. This administration has made it part and parcel of doing business. I think we are all better served, and I am very happy. Your comment deserves more than a verbal pat on the back.

To better illustrate the philosophy of environmental matters in 1991, here is Pat Jacobsen. She is the deputy minister for all operations at Transportation. She will give some examples that will show we mean what we say.

Ms Jacobsen: Because so much of it cuts across so many different parts of the ministry I will give an overview in terms of some of the thrust, and then if there are certain areas the members wish us to focus on in greater detail, we would be happy to do so. The primary one we have been looking at is the area of air pollution, because the transportation sector is a significant contributor in terms of the quality of the air. We think that is a major thrust for the ministry and certainly for the government.

In that area we have been enhancing our support of transit, both in financial terms and in terms of education and customer service, looking for ways we can not only enhance the availability of transit but also make its interfacing with car traffic much easier, looking at ride-sharing programs, gateways, etc.

Second, we have been looking at alternative fuels in this area and have several demonstration projects around: natural gas buses in municipal fleets, for example; we could go into greater depth on that. We have certain educational programs around ride-sharing and the encouragement of high-occupancy lanes. In fact, we have at the minister's request a new policy that on all new major highways transit rights of way will be part of the planning right from the start.

In terms of noise pollution we also have certain programs around barriers and barrier controls, and in the commercial sector are working with the automobile on ways to improve the transportation sector's contribution to noise pollution.

Last, I touch briefly on our construction and some of the major initiatives we have had around construction projects to make sure our handling of them is sensitive to everything in the natural environment, from fish habitats to making sure we build highways only where they are needed, and done in such a way that the highway construction actually takes back its own waste. The road building industry has worked very closely with us on that.

If there are particular areas you would like us to go into in greater depth we would be happy to, but this gives you a broad brush of the kinds of areas the ministry has been focusing on, primarily in air pollution.

Mr G. Wilson: There are several. First is noise pollution. How effective are the barriers? Do you do studies before and after they are raised? Is there work on developing more effective barriers or in trying to lessen the noise from vehicle engines and even from the tires, I guess, which make a lot of noise as well?

Ms Jacobsen: In terms of the noise barriers, when highways were being built in communities less heavily residential than they are now, it was much less of an issue. Certainly in the last 10 years, as we start to have highway construction in areas that have a much higher residential community base around them, it is an issue the ministry has spent some considerable time and studies on. I would ask Margaret Kelch, the assistant deputy of quality and standards, to go specifically into the kind of research we have been doing, which as I say is relatively new since the communities are now built up.

1730

Ms Kelch: Perhaps I could offer you some further insight on two aspects of noise pollution. One, there is a reference to the barrier program. It goes back as far as 1977 when we and the ministers of Housing jointly sorted out how we could put in place barriers that would create a significant advantage or improvement for those residential areas that were behind our highway system.

To answer your question specifically of how effective they are, we have quite an elaborate policy in terms of the technical aspects that have to be met before a barrier is put in place, but the one major requirement is that the reduction in noise has to be at least at the 5 dBa level. Those noise levels have to be at least 55 before we will even consider it. Those are the basic criteria we have put in place.

We have been experimenting with a variety of different types of materials, as I am sure you have seen while driving around the province. Some are more sound-absorptive than others. We have found that we now have quite a variety of different types of materials we can use to provide that kind of attenuation. I cannot put my finger on it just at the moment but I can provide that later. I was talking earlier to Mr Klopp's question in terms of rubber. That is another area where we are experimenting with recycled rubber to use it in noise barriers. So far the research looks fairly positive.

Mr Klopp: What about the vehicles themselves? Is there much research to try to make them quieter?

Ms Kelch: That part I cannot comment on, but Milt Harmelink could perhaps offer some more insight.

Mr Harmelink: The work that is done in vehicle research and design is done largely by the automotive industry. A number of things are being done, but I think my comments are really going to illustrate that this, like so many other things, is an area of compromises and difficult choices. With respect to automobiles, we find that up to about 60 or 70 kilometres an hour the engine noise tends to dominate. Above that speed the tire noise starts to dominate.

When you get into the question of tire design, there are certain things you can do to make the tires quieter, and you have to look at the interaction between the tire and the road surface when you do that. In fact, the ministry has been quite successful in coming up with certain types of pavement design that result in quite a reduction in the tire noise. But when we start to look at the tire itself, the kind of compromise you are dealing with there is one of safety and your ability. Long life in the tires and a suitable tread that gives you maximum safety is probably not the one that is going to give you minimum noise.

Similarly, when we get to the question of the engine design, there too we find we are faced with a number of compromises. One is in terms of energy consumption, because as you put in more weight to reduce the amount of noise that gets out, you have to use more energy to transport it around.

Ss you enclose the engine to try to make it quieter you tend to increase the operating temperature, which in turn may increase the level of some of the pollutants we are most concerned about, such as nitrogen oxides, which contribute to urban smog and acid rain.

Many things are being done and researched, but there is a lot of experimentation that has to be done because the answers are not that clear-cut.

Mr Daigeler: Before I begin my own questioning I would like to indicate that my colleague Mr Mancini is not satisfied with the number of answers that has been provided so far in written form by the minister. Perhaps he is going to add to this list. Mr Mancini certainly asked more questions and he is expecting some further answers. If his presentation can be reviewed, I would expect that more answers will be forthcoming. I am sure Mr Mancini will be addressing that himself again tomorrow.

My own questions focus mostly on eastern Ontario. I notice that the representative of the third party focused mostly on Toronto, but there are other areas of the province that also have transportation needs and certainly one of them is eastern Ontario. Let me ask you, Minister, first of all, have you visited the Ottawa area and have you visited other parts of eastern Ontario as the new Minister of Transportation? I do not think you need help from your officials on that, do you?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Not only have I availed myself of the opportunity on board the small aircraft emanating from the remote community of Fort Severn, which is the northernmost community in the province, a native community, to Point Pelee using the ferry boat from a remote community airport, to an essential service being provided by way of intermodal tranportion, to driving from Toronto to Prescott-Russell --

Mr Daigeler: Did you understand --

Hon Mr Pouliot: No, I do not need anyone. I have been visiting the province of Ontario --

Mr Daigeler: My question, Minister, is pretty specific: Have you officially visited any of the transportation --

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- centres across the province? Of course I have.

Mr Daigeler: No, if you would listen for a moment, I asked you specifically, have you visited any of the ministry offices or the major construction projects that are presently under way either in Ottawa or in other parts of eastern Ontario to familiarize yourself with the concerns of eastern Ontario?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I have done so, but with our other ministry, francophone affairs. Since I have been Minister of Transportation I have not visited the regional offices in eastern Ontario.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you very much, Minister. That is a straightforward answer. I would just encourage you to do that at your earliest opportunity.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I will do that at the first opportunity.

Mr Daigeler: Seeing that you have not had an opportunity yet I will welcome you, because a major part of your ministry's budget is in fact spent in my own riding and it will be a pleasure for me to accompany you and give you a tour of the construction that is presently under way of Highway 416. As I indicated, I think it was last week, I would like an update on the Highway 416 project. Perhaps your officials can tell me whether they are experiencing any particular difficulties, whether construction is on schedule or perhaps even ahead of schedule and how things are going with this major initiative for Ottawa, for eastern Ontario, in fact for the whole province.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Carl, could we get an accurate update on what is being done?

Mr Vervoort: We have this in two parts. The first is Highway 416 from Century Road to Highway 401, being the southerly portion; the second part being the portion between Century Road and the Queensway, Highway 417 in Ottawa. I will deal with the northern section first.

Pre-engineering work, including property acquisition, is under way on that stretch of Highway 416. Construction of the Highway 416 and 417 interchange began earlier this year. The remainder of the construction for that interchange and the immediate approaches will be carried out in nine contracts presently scheduled to meet the government's commitment for completion of that section of Highway 416 by the 1996 or early 1997 time frame.

1740

Mr Daigeler: That was to Century Road?

Mr Vervoort: That is from Highway 417 to Century Road. The cost of the facility over those limits, including the design on the property, is estimated at some $200 million. The ministry has encountered some difficulties with respect to foundation conditions at two locations. For those who are not familiar with the geology in the area, there is a particular type of clay, leda clay, that is very sensitive to loading. In light of the special requirements, completion of certain sections will experience some minor delay, as indicated, to 1996 or early 1997. The earlier expectation had been to complete the facility over that length by 1995.

Mr Daigeler: There have been some reports over the summer in the local newspapers that construction was ahead of schedule because of the dry summer that we had, therefore that the project could even be completed in a shorter time frame than our government was trying to implement it in. What you just said seems to contradict that.

Mr Vervoort: That is correct. In fact, as late as last week I had a conversation with the regional director from that area and he indicated to me that until very recently that was the expectation. The contractor was optimistic that he could in fact complete the work in a shorter time frame: two seasons instead of three. That may still be achievable. However, there has been a difficulty encountered with respect to a particular structure, and I regret that I am not able to be specific about the location of that structure at present. Difficulties have been encountered which may cause that contract to take three seasons, in fact as originally expected.

Mr Daigeler: You may or may not be familiar with some considerable debate -- let's put it this way -- around the construction of a regional road, and that is the Hunt Club Road extension which is to join up with Highway 416 at Knoxdale. Some community groups are trying to relocate this particular regional road. Are you aware of this concern that has been expressed by certain community groups and are these concerns in any way influencing the construction of Highway 416 and, in particular, the construction of the interchange at Knoxdale?

Mr Vervoort: I am not familiar with that specific issue, but my colleague David Guscott indicates he has some information with respect to that.

Mr Guscott: The information I have does not relate to the interchange though. I came here expecting to be dealing with Hunt Club Road more generally. We are aware that the road is being funded under the municipal roads program. It was part of a transportation forum we held with Ottawa-Carleton. We are aware that they have in fact held up work on it because of the environmental assessment implications.

Mr Daigeler: On the environmental assessment, the minister has given her go-ahead. But according to your information, you are not concerned about these interventions in terms of building the interchange at Knoxdale?

Mr Vervoort: I cannot comment with respect to the concern simply because I am not familiar with the facts of the circumstances at that location. I will undertake to investigate and report back on that.

Mr Daigeler: I would appreciate that.

Mr Vervoort: By tomorrow I will do so.

Mr Daigeler: Okay, back to the minister. As was indicated by your staff, this project is divided into two phases: one, the northerly phase from the Queensway to Century Road and the second phase from Century Road to Highway 401. Is the minister still committed to that second phase, and when can we expect the completion of that second phase?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Carl, what is the planning on phase two?

Mr Vervoort: The design for that four-lane facility is subject to the environmental approval process and that includes full public review. The planning study and Ontario Municipal Board hearings were completed in 1970. As a result of the recent planning study update, the ministry has agreed to provide additional service roads at various locations. Contracts are being prepared to accommodate those adjustments. The cost to twin the existing two-lane section, Century Road to Highway 401, is estimated at about $150 million. That is for a 60-kilometre section.

In terms of timing, the pre-engineering contract, engineering and approval process is currently under way. Following the pre-engineering, the construction -- and these are estimates at this time -- could commence as early as 1992. My caution is only with respect to matters having to be resolved with respect to financing and priorities. I refer you to the earlier statement by the minister in response to Mrs Marland's comments about those priorities. But construction could commence as early as 1992 and be completed in what we feel would be approximately eight freeway contracts. That would take us approximately to 1997. You may be aware that the current commitment of record is for this section to be completed by 1999. With respect to the 1999 date, we feel that is reasonably achievable. Again, I refer to the minister's comments with respect to priorities and the availability of funding.

Mr Daigeler: Can I take it from that answer then, Minister, that you and your government are still committed to the completion of both phases of Highway 416?

Hon Mr Pouliot: We are indeed. But I was watching your reaction and you too were somewhat shocked. You are looking at a relatively short section and the cost is phenomenal.

Mr Daigeler: I agree with you, Minister.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I could read it in you, sir. You must ask yourself, "Why is all that money being spent in my neck of the woods?" It has nothing to do with it. It is just that the need has been demonstrated. We are committed to go for phase one and phase two as well.

Mr Daigeler: That is precisely, Minister, why I wanted to have you restate your commitment towards the construction of Highway 416 and I am very pleased that you did so. We can move on then from Highway 416, because time of course moves on as well, to Highway 17 towards Pembroke. Again, it is not in your area, Minister, but it is a well-travelled area and unfortunately there have been many fatalities.

First of all, and perhaps you can provide that in writing to me, what have been the fatalities over the last 10 years, if you can give that to us? I do not know whether your ministry does any comparable statistics and I do not know whether that is possible or not; whether you can count, as it were, the deaths in comparison with other similar types of roads. If that is available, if you do something like that I would be interested to know, because it is really astonishing how often we read in the newspapers that there have been terrible accidents on that particular stretch. It is from Ottawa to about Pembroke. I know we initiated certain improvements. How are these improvements doing?

I leave that question with you. I had many others, but I guess I will come back to those tomorrow.

The Chair: A one minute-or-less answer would be appreciated.

Mr Vervoort: I do have detailed information in terms of the improvements. We will provide those in writing in response to your question. I do not have current statistics before me with respect to accident data related to that length of highway. I will also provide that information by tomorrow.

Mr Daigeler: Okay, thank you.

1750

Mr Turnbull: Minister, once again I will just mention to you that I am a great admirer of your eloquence, but in the interests of the fact that we have only 10 minutes, I would ask you to keep your answers very short. Turning to the question which I tabled last week and you responded to, on road salt, I do not find any details as to what proportions you are using of salt as compared with alternative methods for de-icing roads.

Hon Mr Pouliot: This is a technical point. We conducted some studies on this not only in terms of effectiveness but also what is the cost of one vis-à-vis the other. Margaret Kelch will give you a detailed answer.

Mr Turnbull: Before she gives me a detailed answer, I am most concerned about the environment. There are two things we can hopefully leave our children, one is a clean environment and the other is a clean set of books. I am very pessimistic about leaving our children a clean set of books after this last budget, but let's concentrate on the environment to see what sort of proportions and what efforts are being made by the ministry to ensure that we reduce our dependence on salt, and the time frame.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I am not going to dwell on the last federal budget curtailing transfer payment to the provinces. But in the second instance, Ms Kelch, regarding salt and vis-à-vis alternatives, do we have --

Ms Kelch: Yes. As the material or the answer to your question shows, we have looked at seven alternatives. To specifically answer your question in terms of the proportion of other materials we are using, we are still predominantly using rock salt. The reason is that in the seven alternatives we have evaluated, we have yet to find a comparable, effective product. The minister has mentioned the real challenge we have with what appears to be the most optimistic or possible alternative, which is calcium magnesium acetate. The cost is currently at $1,100 a ton, and we are doing some very specific work with the potential suppliers in Ontario to see whether there is a way that we can bring that cost down.

What is of concern to us is that in the field trials, which have taken place in the Niagara Peninsula as well as in the Owen Sound district, so that we can have two very different type of climatic conditions for winter, we have found that the quantity of material used in the Niagara Peninsula is almost one and a half that of salt, and the effectiveness in the colder area around Owen Sound is not as good as salt. Our research activities continue. We are spending $250,000 a year to try to do exactly what you have described, and that is to find an environmentally acceptable alternative.

Mr Turnbull: But CMA at this moment looks the most promising, does it?

Ms Kelch: That is correct.

Mr Turnbull: Is that from the point of view of effectiveness or of cost?

Ms Kelch: Effectiveness.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, turning now to the answer you gave with respect to UTDC, the last question I asked, which you have answered in the responses, has Bombardier Inc made an offer for the purchase of UTDC?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, Bombardier has made an offer.

Mr Turnbull: Can you tell me what the status of that is?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Bombardier conducted due diligence, looked at the books and made a bona fide offer, not at the same time -- I do not wish to give you the wrong information -- but pretty well at the same time that Westinghouse, the other suitor, made an offer. Our understanding is that both offers were somewhat similar; parallel to one other. We informed them that in our opinion it was not good enough, they could do better, and that we would welcome additional offers.

Mr Turnbull: Are there any live offers on the table at this moment?

Hon Mr Pouliot: We were hoping to have a final offer to submit to cabinet by the end of October, but we never did specify a date. My feeling is that we are at the final phase. If we are not talking in terms of days, we are talking in terms of short weeks, but I cannot and therefore will not give you an exact date. It would be saying we are perhaps at the 11th hour, and we do not wish to say this because it is not our position.

Mr Turnbull: There is no mention in here other than a passing reference to the fact that you are providing interim financing to UTDC. I find it very unusual that a 15% partner would be providing ongoing operating capital. I am sorry that in your answers you have not adequately responded to my question from last week.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, it is unusual, except in the case where the partner, in this case Lavalin Inc, becomes technically insolvent and cannot pay wages, cannot pay current liability, cannot cover the daily affairs of the company. Then the 15% stakeholder, in this case the government of Ontario, exercised an option to buy within 90 days the remaining 85%. It simply means that you are assuming responsibilities. It also indicates that if anyone wishes to buy UTDC they have to deal with you.

Mr Turnbull: Are you a suitably secured creditor for the amount of money you have put in? The extra amount of money that you have supplied in the meantime, are you suitably secured as a creditor in that respect?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, we are secured. The contracts are ongoing. What you are doing in that sense is advancing the money against those contracts. I must remind you that we are talking about a sum which is substantially less than $10 million.

Mr Turnbull: Is there any connection between ongoing negotiations for the purchase of the interest in UTDC by Bombardier Inc with potential partnerships in de Havilland?

Hon Mr Pouliot: To my knowledge the two are absolutely not connected. We are talking here solely about UTDC. I have no knowledge whatsoever of intentions between our ministry and de Havilland.

Mr Turnbull: Moving to another subject, there has been ongoing discussion for a long time about a potential subway link between the airport and Metropolitan Toronto. Has anything been done on that?

Mr Guscott: Yes. As a matter of fact there is work under way examining exactly that question. We have undertaken a study with Transport Canada of ground access to the northwestern Toronto area, the Pearson International Airport area and the area beyond it to see what can be done both in terms of traffic that has to move beyond the airport -- the airport, as you can imagine, is quite a block to surface transport that wants to get to the Brampton area from Metropolitan Toronto -- and to find ways of improving the access to the airport.

In that study, which is now being discussed with the public and with the municipal councils, are a number of options which include: a new GO train station that may be moved to be closer to the airport; the possibility of a link from the Renforth Drive area, where Mississauga's busway system will operate to the airport, and several other options that relate to Eglinton Avenue.

Mr Turnbull: I have not read the response you have given, but with respect to graduated licences and also the question of interlock devices on cars for people who have been convicted of drunk driving, can you just comment briefly as to the ministry stance on those?

Hon Mr Pouliot: In terms of graduated licences, you will be aware that the Insurance Bureau of Canada among others has been advocating more stringent, more demanding criteria, not only to obtain a licence at the novice level but to keep it in good standing. In fact, we were talking about graduated licences yesterday at a briefing, and it did generate some very frank and forward discussion as to the definition of different criteria and the timing, when we should introduce it. It is very timely. Alex Kelly has spent many years on this project and he has been our guiding light on this subject. We are not only looking at it, we are looking at it very seriously.

Mr Turnbull: What about interlock devices for automobiles?

Hon Mr Pouliot: You have me there. I do not know enough to volunteer an answer.

Mr Turnbull: Perhaps your deputy could comment on that.

Ms Jacobsen: We are looking at all aspects of driving behaviour and certainly of drinking and driving as a major targeted area. Alex, maybe you would go on in terms of specifically the interlocking device proposal.

The Chair: Mr Kelly, our time has virtually expired. I wonder to what extent you can provide written material to Mr Turnbull and the committee for tomorrow.

Mr Kelly: I will be very brief, Mr Chairman.

We are aware of the interlocking devices. We have not in our ministry studied them to any degree. We are looking at what other people are doing and we are trying to identify if that is a proper solution for drinking and driving.

Mr Turnbull: Good. Have you looked at the Alberta test?

Mr Kelly: Yes, we have.

Mr Turnbull: Good. Thank you.

The Chair: We have two hours and 40-some minutes remaining to complete the estimates, so hopefully we will be able to complete by tomorrow. For a personal reason, I am trying to secure a Vice-Chair for tomorrow's meeting. If not, I will be here. If I cannot get Mrs Marland, is there any objection to Mr Carr, the member for Oakville South, acting in the capacity of Chair tomorrow? Thank you. This committee stands adjourned until 3:30 tomorrow.

The committee adjourned at 1802.