MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION MINISTÈRE DES TRANSPORTS
CONTENTS
Tuesday 25 August 1992
Ministry of Transportation
Hon Gilles Pouliot, minister
Gary Posen, deputy minister
Carl Vervoort, assistant deputy minister, operations
Gerry Johnston, assistant deputy minister, planning
Norm Mealing, assistant deputy minister, corporate services
Margaret Kelch, assistant deputy minister, quality and standards
Lou H. Parsons, chairman, GO Transit
Jim Heffernan, regional director, eastern region
Larry Lambert, regional director, northwestern region
Ray Hanton, regional director, central region
Alex Kelly, assistant deputy minister, safety and regulations
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
*Chair / Président: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)
*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
Bisson, Giles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)
*Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)
Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)
O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND)
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND)
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
*Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L) for Mr Ramsay
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND) for Mr Bisson
Jamison, Norm (Norfolk ND) for Mr Ferguson
Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex ND) for Mr Perruzza
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC) for Mrs Marland and Mr Carr
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND) for Mr O'Connor
White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND) for Nr Frankford
*In attendance / présents
Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim: Mellor, Lynn
The committee met at 1006 in committee room 1.
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION MINISTÈRE DES TRANSPORTS
The Chair (Mr Cameron Jackson): I'd like to call to order the standing committee on estimates. We've convened this morning to do the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation. We are pleased to welcome the minister. Minister, you have up to 30 minutes for your opening remarks, the text of which, I believe, you've already had the clerk circulate. That's appreciated very much. Minister, we're in your hands.
Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Members of the most essential of services, colleagues and friends, it is a pleasure to appear before this committee to review the 1992-93 spending estimates for the Ministry of Transportation.
Before I begin, I would like to take a moment or two of our time to introduce Gary Posen, who is the recently appointed deputy minister with Transportation. We have a world of expertise at Transportation. Each and every field of endeavour is ably represented by people, and they will be only delighted to serve, and at times to please. If you have any questions, technical questions or otherwise, we will answer to the best of our ability. Failing an immediate and spontaneous answer, we can look forward in a relatively short time to getting the detailed answer you may wish to have. Of course, members of our political staff also wish to send special greetings to two gentlemen, Mr Sorbara and Mr Turnbull, who are respectively the critics for the official opposition and the Conservatives and members of the Legislative Assembly as well.
The mission of the Ministry of Transportation is to facilitate the mobility of people and goods through transportation systems and services that promote economic competitiveness and social development, are integrated, safe and environmentally sensitive and reflect the needs of Ontario's diverse population. In my view, the most important words in the mission statement are "reflect the needs of Ontario's diverse population." What good are roads, transit, railways, airports and marine transportation if they do not provide the people who pay for them with that need and want?
Nous comptons tous sur notre système de transports pour nous rendre au travail, visiter des amis et la famille et obtenir des soins médicaux. Nous utilisons les transports pour nous rendre aux magasins et faire notre épicerie, et les magasins comptent sur les transports, bien sûr, pour recevoir leurs marchandises.
I can say with pride that the people of Ontario -- the auto worker in St Thomas, the miner in Sudbury, the mail or forestry worker in Marathon and of course the banker on Bay Street -- now have access to one of the best transportation networks available in North America or the world today. The challenge is to maintain the best transportation system possible, given our current economic conditions.
In determining our work plan and preparing our budget for this year, we had to consider many factors. We all know that revenues are lower and we must temper our spending, but we also recognize capital spending is important to the economy of Ontario. Government capital spending enhances economic activity and productivity by increasing the return on private capital. Investment in transportation networks allows for efficient and cost-effective distribution of goods and services.
Ontario's comprehensive transportation services help attract new economic investment, creating new job opportunities, of course, for the people of Ontario. This enhances Ontario's quality of life and helps encourage even more investment.
Capital investment in our transportation system also puts people to work. Road construction alone provides jobs for more than 16,000 people. Capital spending is an investment in Ontario's future. It is estimated that for every dollar spent on highway construction, about $2.50 worth of economic stimulus is provided to the Ontario economy, providing more jobs for Ontarians.
The Ministry of Transportation is targeting capital spending to provide the most benefits for the taxpayers of Ontario. For example, the widening of the Queen Elizabeth Way in the Burlington-Hamilton area will greatly improve the traffic capacity of the highway, encouraging industry to locate in Ontario. It also provides hundreds of much-needed jobs for the people of this province. Our planned capital spending for 1992-93 is $1.83 billion, of which $118 million is part of the Jobs Ontario Capital fund announced by the Treasurer in his budget. Our actual capital expenditure for 1991-92 was approximately $1.84 billion, including of course $80 million in one-time anti-recession funding. We have maintained our capital spending levels despite the recession and the drop in government revenues, and despite claims to the contrary by Her Majesty's loyal opposition and members of the third party. The Jobs Ontario Capital fund is a five-year, $2.3-billion fund to create jobs, support economic restructuring and promote community and social programs. It's intended to create immediate jobs that strengthen Ontario's transportation systems. That's exactly what the Ministry of Transportation is doing. Transportation construction projects are labour-intensive, and the funding we have been given will provide work for more than 4,000 people across the province. An additional $21.8 million in Jobs Ontario Capital funding from the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines has also been allocated for highway improvement projects in that special part of Ontario, northern Ontario.
The ministry will address the fundamental priorities set out in the provincial budget. We will create jobs, we will maintain important services, and we will control our expenditures.
The provincial deficit and the spending pressures on social programs make it imperative that new ways be found to finance and pay for capital projects. There have been many suggestions. One approach that gives the province maximum flexibility is the establishment of a separate capital financing corporation. Such a corporation will make it easier for the province to proceed with essential capital projects when costs are lowest and jobs are needed most. No business or individual would try to pay for capital expenditures out of their current-year income. Indeed, when people buy a home, they spread the payments over several years.
Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Generations.
Mr Pouliot: Establishing a capital corporation would allow us to pay for new highways over a period of years, as they are used. Under the present system, we report the expenditure for new highways as they are built.
We are also looking at how we can work with the private sector to find innovative ways to finance new roads, highways and other transportation projects, including transit. I've also spoken with the people who use our transportation system -- truckers, motorists, transit passengers and cyclists -- to ensure that our transportation services play a significant role in Ontario's economic renewal.
Provincial support for municipal road work is another investment in Ontario's economic renewal, creating jobs for the people of this province and making sure our businesses and industries remain competitive. Townships and municipalities across the province have been allocated $735 million in their base transfer payments from the Ministry of Transportation this year for local road projects. That's a 1% increase from last year.
As part of our ongoing effort to ensure that Ontario has the best possible transportation systems, I have had the privilege of meeting mayors, reeves and local councillors to discuss the needs of local townships and municipalities and to consider ways we can work together. This spring we met with municipal officials across the province. In meetings in such places as Timmins, Kingston, Owen Sound, Thunder Bay and Waterloo, senior ministry staff, myself and George Dadamo, our parliamentary assistant, sat down with representatives of local municipalities to discuss ways to provide services more efficiently. These meetings give all of us a better understanding of each other's concerns as we proceed towards a common goal. The result is improved relations between the municipalities in the province and, most importantly, assurance that Ontario's taxpayers receive full value for their money.
As a matter of fact, this effort is already bearing fruit. Our ministry and the township of Muskoka Lakes have agreed to share sand storage facilities at one of our patrol yards, saving money for the province and, of course, saving money as well for the township.
Voici le genre d'effort collectif et de coopération que l'Ontario devrait adopter en vue de relancer son économie. Présentement, et dans ce même esprit de collaboration, nous participons également à un projet de démêlement dirigé par le ministère des Affaires municipales. En effet, nous avons entrepris des discussions avec nos partenaires municipaux afin d'établir des relations de travail qui profiteront à tous les Ontariens.
In addition to good streets and roads, the people of Ontario enjoy some of the finest public transit systems in North America. Transit is democratic. It is used by people at all levels of the social spectrum.
Interjection.
Hon Mr Pouliot: It provides a cost-effective and environmentally friendly way for people to travel within our cities, Mr Sorbara.
The province is providing $504 million this year to support and improve public transit in communities across Ontario. Many people feel more is needed, and I agree, but we must be especially prudent in today's economy. This year's funding is 1.4% higher than last year's.
We are also working with the Toronto Transit Commission to see if there are ways we can help in its effort to bring trolley buses back to the streets of Toronto.
Interjection.
The Chair: Excuse me, Minister. Mr Sorbara, please, we'll extend the same courtesy to you in about 10 minutes.
Hon Mr Pouliot: I welcome the reminder that courtesy and good manners are traditional in this committee. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
In addition to the municipal transit funding, $194 million has been allocated to GO Transit, with almost $115 million designated for capital projects. We are continuing our efforts to expand GO Transit service to as many people as possible in the area surrounding Metropolitan Toronto. GO rail service was extended to Burlington earlier this year, and work on the Oshawa extension is on schedule with service to begin in 1994. We are also studying extension of service to Cambridge.
GO bus service will also be expanded later this year to include Stoney Creek, Bradford and a new route between Newmarket and Scarborough, and it is my pleasure to tell members of this committee that work should begin within the next few months on two major transit projects in the greater Toronto area: The extension of the Spadina subway system in North York and the Spadina light rail transit project in downtown Toronto.
We're confident these projects will provide many benefits, including thousands of new construction jobs, while helping to increase transit use, which has obvious environmental benefits. But dollars don't tell the whole story. We're also working with the transit operators to improve service to riders, to fair integration and service coordination.
In another effort to help the province's municipalities, our ministry and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs have established transit supportive land-use planning guidelines to help municipalities plan communities that are transit-friendly. Many of the guidelines can be implemented with little or no cost. Copies of the guidelines, of course, are available here today for members of the committee.
In discussing our planning for the transportation needs of the people of Ontario, I'm proud of our new policy of transit accessibility for people with disabilities. Effective next July 1, all new transit buses must be equipped with low floors and other accessible features to qualify for government subsidy. In addition, all transit operators must sign an accessibility agreement with the ministry by January, 1994. This document will identify the operator's accessibility goals and a plan to achieve them.
GO Transit is continuing its program to make its trains accessible. GO will spend $3.3 million to have 42 of its bilevel cars modified to allow wheelchair users to board the trains. Making transit more accessible will benefit Ontario industries.
In fact, Ontario bus industries are already a leader in North America in designing and building fully accessible transit vehicles. Our commitment to providing fully accessible transit will stimulate further technological advances and create new economic opportunities for Ontario businesses.
Ridership on specialized transit services has doubled in just the last five years. These services will receive $41.4 million from the province this year, an increase of 4%, reflecting our commitment to support these essential services.
1020
One of the aims of the recent restructuring of the ministry is to treat all forms of transportation as part of one system regardless of mode. As a first step in implementing this approach, we are developing a transportation blueprint for the Niagara Peninsula and eastern Lake Erie area. This strategic transportation planning study is looking at the future transportation needs of the region and its people and businesses. It is examining the integration of road, rail, air and water transportation, including urban and intercity travel.
The study will involve consultation with the public, business, interest groups and all levels of government. It will clearly identify transportation priorities for the Niagara region and provide planning direction.
Planning for the future is an important part of the work carried out by the Ministry of Transportation. Our planning includes a strong commitment to protecting the environment.
In our efforts to make transportation more environmentally friendly and reduce people's dependence on the private automobile, we are promoting high-occupancy vehicle lanes and car pooling lanes, already in use in parts of the greater Toronto area and Ottawa, are designed solely for transit buses and private vehicles carrying three or more people.
Our ministry has also developed computer software to help municipalities and large companies set up ride-sharing programs. This software is available without charge.
In these days of increased concern for the environment and awareness of physical fitness, many residents of Ontario, particularly in our larger cities, are using bicycles as their preferred means of transportation. For many other people it's an economic choice. Whatever the reasons, we support increased bicycle use.
Major revisions to the ministry's bicycle policy, which we recently announced, will have a positive influence on the future of cycling in this province. The new bicycle policy recognizes cycling as a legitimate mode of transportation. Ten years ago, when the policy was written, the bike was seen solely as a recreational vehicle.
Safety was a major consideration in the review of the bicycle policy. In 1990, 29 cyclists died and 3,700 were injured. One of the primary safety issues that keeps coming up is the need for bicycle helmets. The standing committee on resources development is examining the issue in the private member's bill introduced by Mme Cunningham, the member for London North. I want to certainly pay tribute. The member has been a tower of strength and has brought to the attention not only of the Ministry of Transportation, but more important, of the cyclists, of the people of Ontario, the need to wear bicycle helmets.
Mr Dadamo, who has played an active role in the committee, certainly readily acquiesced and has conveyed to the member for London North that we will work collectively to recognize the efforts. Our administration values the philosophy that people come first -- there is no need to be partisan, certainly not all the time -- and supports the member for London North's effort, diligent indeed. I appreciate the work done by the member.
We will proceed with this bill after we receive the committee's recommendations. We encourage cyclists of all ages to wear bicycle helmets to reduce injuries and fatalities and anticipate that bicycle helmet use will become mandatory in approximately 18 to 24 months.
Earlier this summer employees from our ministry had the opportunity to participate in Kidsummer by organizing a bicycle safety day at Downsview headquarters. All the children who came learned how to safely use their bicycles and had fun doing it. A good time was had by all. It was well attended, and people are asking for an encore next year and looking forward to this annual event.
One of our ministry's most important priorities is safety. Our highway safety record is improving, but it's still not good enough. We must do more. One of the actions being taken to improve safety and provide better service is the creation of a new crown corporation that will be responsible for all aspects of road safety and driver and vehicle licensing.
The Ontario Road Safety Corp is to be in operation by the fall of next year and will work closely with private industry and community groups, sharing advice and information. It will identify opportunities for partnerships to develop and fund new and enhanced safety programs. It will provide convenient service to the public and more efficient use of tax dollars. Of course, the mandate behind the corporation's effort will be to improve safety on our roads.
The corporation will be responsible for ensuring drivers have the proper skills and attitude. It will also give us a way to monitor and improve the performance of high-risk drivers. I will soon be appointing a committee of experts in relevant fields to advise me in getting the corporation up and running.
Other safety initiatives, such as a system of graduated licensing, are also under consideration. This requires careful study to ensure we can design a system that is workable and fair to all Ontario drivers.
There were 166 fewer deaths on Ontario roads in 1990 than the previous year. Increased seatbelt use, fewer incidents of drinking and driving and a reduction in traffic volumes contributed to the decline in deaths.
Coordinated and integrated public education campaigns by MTO, other ministries, police forces and the insurance industry aimed at increasing seatbelt use in Ontario are working. A survey conducted by Transport Canada indicates 83% of Ontario drivers are buckling up, compared to 72% two years ago.
Almost a third of the drivers killed in 1990 were speeding, made unsafe lane changes, failed to yield the right of way, disobeyed traffic signs or were passing unsafely. These actions are best described as driving aggressively. To help make people more aware of the dangers of aggressive driving, we cooperated with private industry and Ontario's police forces in a public campaign this spring.
Periodic on-highway safety inspections of intercity buses have been implemented to enhance the safety of the travelling public. The random inspections will help determine safety code compliance levels and answer industry's request for more effective and visible enforcement. The vast majority of buses checked so far have been safe.
In May the Ministry of Transportation participated in the annual 72-hour commercial vehicle safety blitz. The Roadcheck is an international effort involving all Canadian provinces, all US states, Mexico and Puerto Rico. More than 190 MTO employees at inspection sites across the province were involved.
Commercial vehicles with serious mechanical defects, drivers with improper licences and drivers who exceeded the safety code hours of work were ordered off the road. The percentage of trucks taken out of service was about the same as during the last two years and remains a serious problem. The most common reason for taking a truck off the road was improperly adjusted brakes. We are talking in terms of defective air brakes. A lot of work needs to be done there.
I will chair a task force of trucking industry executives to find solutions to the truck safety issue. Other members of the panel will be senior officials from the member companies of the Ontario Trucking Association. This is a good commentary on the Ontario trucking industry. Even in the face of serious economic problems, Ontario's truckers are taking the lead and want to work with the ministry to improve safety.
We are also working with the Ontario trucking industry to help it adjust to the difficult conditions imposed by the recession and deregulation. I have had many conversations with people in the trucking industry about how we can help them adjust.
We are also continuing the moratorium on new trucking licences and will be regulating the load brokerage industry. Load brokers act as agents between truckers and a company needing goods transported. Brokers find a trucker to haul the load, collect the payment from the shipper and then pay the trucker. In the future, load brokers will have to be registered, post a bond and set up a trust fund to hold money owed to truckers so the workers can get a fair return on their labour.
In addition, we are examining educational opportunities to help truckers become better business mangers. We are also looking at regulatory changes that will help truckers and the industries they serve better compete in the North American market.
As you look at our estimates briefing book, you will see it has changed. Our method of reporting estimates and spending reflects the organizational changes made within the ministry during the past two years. This format makes it easier to track ministry activities. Ministry staff are here to help draw comparisons to spending from previous years.
The reorganization of the ministry was designed to give ministry employees greater responsibility and accountability, to improve efficiency and effectiveness and to integrate policy, planning and program delivery.
One of the key efforts was to maintain our high level of service in keeping with the expectations of the taxpayers of Ontario. An example of our service is the project to help ensure fair treatment for people who buy and sell used cars. Unfortunately, we have in Ontario a small group of people commonly known as curbsiders. These people sell cars that are unfit or have liens against them to unsuspecting buyers. In some cases, the buyers have lost thousands of dollars and the sellers can't be found.
1030
Effective next April 1, when a used car is sold it must be accompanied by a vehicle history and lien search provided by the government. This document includes the names of previous owners of the vehicle and indicates if any liens are registered against the vehicle. This change has been welcomed by the legitimate used car sales industry and will help protect the interests of both the buyers and sellers of used cars.
I'm also pleased to inform the members of the committee of another good example of our effort to provide better service. Effective today, we have added the Korean language to the growing list of languages that may be used when taking the written driver's licence test. Ontario residents can now chose from 13 languages when taking that test, a step in the right direction reflecting the world mosaic. We're pleased to provide this service.
Malgré la crise économique, les changements au sein de notre organisation nous permettent de répondre aux demandes d'un service à la clientèle amélioré et plus rapide. Nous sommes en mesure de nous concentrer sur la redéfinition de nos priorités en matière de prestation de services et de gestion de notre réseau de transports.
For many people in this vast province, air travel is an important part of that network. For many it is the only practical way to visit friends or to reach medical care. As I told members of this committee last year, many parts of my constituency are only accessible by air for part of the year.
Airports are an integral part of Ontario's transportation system. Earlier this month, I joined the Minister of Northern Development and Mines at ceremonies marking the official opening of new facilities at three locations across northern Ontario: at Sandy Lake, Wunnummin Lake and Pikangikum. Our ministry has developed an outstanding reputation for working with people in local communities to develop and expand airport services in remote areas. It is a tradition we will continue.
We will also continue our tradition as supporters of marine transportation. Earlier this year, we had the pleasure of officially christening the Jiimaan, the new ferry service to serve Pelee Island. The vessel was built by Canadian Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd in St Catharines, providing direct employment for 185 people. The Jiimaan is expected to increase agricultural potential and enhance tourism in southwestern Ontario, thus contributing to Ontario's economic renewal.
Comme je l'ai dit plus tôt, le gouvernement et les entreprises ont dû changer leur façon de fonctionner. Dans un sens, ce changement a été salutaire car il a de nouveau mis l'accent sur l'importance du service à la clientèle.
Although most of the services we provide cannot be obtained elsewhere, we have as much responsibility to provide timely and courteous service to the public as any business. As the foreword of the report on improving service quality, the Ontario government states, "Our vision must be to commit to high-quality service delivery that achieves the best value for tax dollars anywhere." That vision is the driving force behind our ministry's efforts to improve our service to our customers, the people of Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister. As is our custom, we will listen to responses from the official opposition for up to 30 minutes and the third party up to 30 minutes, and then the minister has about 25 minutes to respond, if he so chooses. At this point I'd like to recognize Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: Let me begin just by saying I enjoyed listening to the minister deliver his comments. I think, to be fair, he has found his feet in the ministry and the ministries that he's now responsible for. I know that he's very much committed to the vision, if I might refer to it, that concluded his remarks. To quote it again, "Our vision must be to commit to high-quality service delivery that achieves the best value for tax dollars anywhere." I take him at his word that he personally and his ministry are very much committed to that vision.
The Ministry of Transportation -- and its predecessors, the Ministry of Transportation and Communication, and "Highways," as so many people still refer to it -- I think has been one of the outstanding branches of the government of Ontario. I don't think there's any doubt about that. When you go over the history of the province right back to its earliest days, I think that part of public administration in Ontario has been generally well served, notwithstanding the criticisms that the now government, then opposition, used to level at the government and its ministers from time to time during the course of its time in opposition. They should look up those comments because we expect that the days in which they will be needing them are not really all that far away.
As I listened to the remarks made by the minister I guess the thing that struck me in these opening remarks is not so much what the minister said but what was left unsaid. I'm going to get into that in a second, but I just wanted to note a couple of things that sort of jump out from the written text and the remarks that the minister read into the record.
I notice he refers to the fact that the ministry is contemplating the creation of a capital corporation or an investment corporation or a new way of financing road building in Ontario. I want to say to him that those new structures are all well and good, but it would be inappropriate to compare the need for a capital corporation to the financing of capital projects in the private sector, including the metaphor that he used of an individual financing his or her house by way of a mortgage, and capitalizing that expense.
Governments are financed on a completely different model. If you say that we'll be able to do a lot more in highway construction once we can capitalize those costs and take them out of the expenditure side of the province's annual budgets, it's simply to put up a smokescreen, because those expenditures are capitalized, in any event, in the form of a provincial deficit. Whether you put those expenditures in the annual deficit of the province or in the overall accumulated debt of the province, that's simply an accounting fiction. It does not reduce the cost of borrowing the money necessary to build the roads, nor can it any longer be used as an excuse for not doing what you should be doing in the area of capital works in the province.
I noticed as well that you talked about new ways of financing roads, highways and other transportation projects, including transit. One wonders, when you say that, whether or not we are talking about creating toll roads in Ontario. We haven't had toll roads in Ontario for quite some time. I don't think we even have any toll bridges any more. The Burlington Skyway used to be a toll bridge; I think it was perhaps the last.
1040
But rather than making allusions to "We are...looking at how we can work with the private sector to find innovative ways of financing new roads," why doesn't the minister simply come out openly and honestly and put before this committee the things that are being considered, rather than just alluding to looking at new ways of financing? That doesn't mean that you need to have an indelible commitment, but if you are investigating the possibility of toll roads, or the private financing of the transit system or indeed public highways, then let's hear about it openly and honestly. Simply come clean with the people of Ontario and tell us what is being considered, rather than doing it behind closed doors and making some sort of splashy announcement once the decision has been made.
On page 5 you referred to the fact that "We are also working with the Toronto Transit Commission to see if there are ways we can help in their effort to bring trolley buses back to the streets of Toronto." That's an interesting political comment by the minister, because it shows a clear bias for the use of the trolley rather than the use of some other bus, whether it be a natural-gas-powered bus, a diesel-powered bus or indeed a gasoline-powered bus. I'm wondering why the minister takes such a strong position on this issue in his discussion of modes of public transit.
I know that the issue before the TTC and Metro Toronto is very difficult and troubling. There are significant costs involved in operating and renewing the trolley bus system. I, for one, used to ride them all the time and found them very attractive, but I think your colleagues in the Ministry of the Environment would question the wisdom of bringing back the trolley, because it represents a kind of double conversion of energy: generation of electricity at the power plant and then the transmission of that energy across power lines and into trolley lines, and then the conversion of that into a mode of energy in the form of moving the bus down the road. I know that's been part of the discussion as well and I'm just frankly very surprised that the minister's taken such a strong position on it.
I'm glad to see that you're publicly stating your commitment to get on with the construction of the Spadina subway extension in its first phase up to Sheppard Avenue. I would have preferred, however, for you to make an absolute and unequivocal recommitment to the Let's Move project initiated by our government, which does include an extension of that subway, potentially all the way to York University. I simply put on the record that the extension of the subway to York University and then looping along Steeles Avenue has now been approved by the TTC and that the environmental assessments are well under way, to be completed soon. I would like to hear the minister stop beating around the bush and simply make a public commitment to finance that subway construction along with the other components that were committed to in the Let's Move initiative.
I want to put on the record my own view that the most important of those initiatives, and the one that deserves top priority, is the extension to York University, which is a city within a city of almost 50,000 people. More than that, the extension of the subway to York University will enhance the ridership of the underutilized University-Spadina component of the subway system. It will dramatically change transportation habits and modes in the northwest of both Metropolitan Toronto and York region and offer services which are currently not available to the entire northwestern portion of the greater Toronto area, including York region and all the way over to Peel.
I would like to see the minister, rather than beating around the bush and equivocating on rapid transit construction, say that those systems are going to be financed. If we could hear just that one thing from the minister during these estimates then they will have been worth all of the time all of us are taking to participate in them.
I noted that the minister referred to curbsiders in his remarks and said that shortly, when the system is in place, effective next April indeed, he will put an end to curbsiding. He couches this whole thrust as an initiative to protect unwary purchasers. My own experience is that these unwary purchasers are few and far between. What really is going on here is that the ministry and the government are making a tax grab against those few people who are understating the purchase price of used cars.
I guess that's all right, although I think these are the people least able to add to the coffers of the province. But what I really resent is that the minister's couching this in a statement in which he says he's going to protect the purchasers of these cars. This system is going to be very expensive, ultimately, to operate, and the sad news is that the increased tax revenue is going to be probably fully offset by the new systems that are going to be put in place.
The real beneficiaries are, as noted in the minister's remarks, those people who are in the legitimate business of selling used cars. He says indeed that the legitimate used-car sales industry is supportive of the initiative. Of course they are, because what's going to happen is that people are going to stop the individual, private transactions and will have to go through this industry. They certainly are delighted that the minister has enhanced their ability to make their businesses profitable.
Finally on the minister's remarks, I just want to refer to his statement about bicycle helmets and bicycle safety. No one can fault the ministry for its commitment to safety on the road, whether it be for pedestrians or for bicyclists or for motorists or for commercial operators of motor vehicles. I would not criticize in the least the minister's comments about the good work done by the member for London North in promoting her view that the wearing of bicycle helmets should be mandatory.
I noted that when the minister changed his position two or three months back he was quoted as saying, "We're sold on helmets." In fact, it was such a cute little quote that he received note of it in the Saturday edition of the daily Toronto Star. So the minister has decided that we're going to make bicycle helmets mandatory. That's a great public relations gesture, and it's a great opportunity for the minister to get quoted here and there.
But, frankly, I want to tell the minister, with all due respect to him and to the member for London North and members of the public who think that it's high time that everyone who rides a bicycle should be put in the category of a quasi-criminal if he or she does not wear a bicycle helmet when riding a bicycle, I think if there were a list of 100 things that the minister, or the ministry or the government overall could do to save lives and enhance the protection of the public, the wearing of bicycle helmets would not come within the top 50. I think, frankly, that he ought to think again about whether or not he is going to be bound and determined to turn my son into a quasi-criminal for breaking the laws of the province of Ontario when he rides down to the comic store on his bicycle without his bicycle helmet.
I don't disagree that the minister ought to be promoting safety in every way he can. For example, my son recently participated in a bikeathon, in which he rode 150 km in two days. Part of the requirement for participating in the bikeathon was that he and all participants wore helmets. There's nothing wrong with that: Promote it like crazy; do use all the advertising revenue you can come up with to advocate the wearing of helmets. But to make it illegal takes it a step that I think is frankly unnecessary. If the minister wanted to save lives, he might want to think about making smoking illegal in the province of Ontario and turning himself and myself into quasi criminals when we indulge in our own private habits.
1050
The Chair: That's an attractive offer.
Mr Sorbara: There you go. I knew the Chairman of the committee would be very supportive of that. What about swimming? How many drownings do we have a year? Yet the minister is not making it a legal requirement to wear a lifejacket every time someone jumps into a lake or a river in the province. Interjection.
Mr Sorbara: Or bungee jumping, for that matter. Let me put it this way: I have grave reservations about making it illegal for every resident of the province to ride a bicycle without a bicycle helmet. It will be great for the bicycle helmet manufacturers. They'll be delighted. Sales will go up and the minister will point to that as well as part of the economic recovery.
I want to get into the meat of these estimates and the meat of the spending of the minister and the ministry in these terrible, brutal, recessionary and depressionary economic times. No matter which way the minister wants to cut it or portray it or dress it up for these estimates or for his budget, the minister has significantly cut his spending in road construction, rapid transit construction and highway construction in Ontario.
He has done this virtually during the same period of time when his Premier has been travelling all across the province and the country proclaiming the obligation of the federal government to involve itself in new, significant infrastructure programs and funding in Ontario and throughout Canada in order to help Ontario and Canada out of the debilitating economic times.
I'm looking at page 60 of the minister's very colourful and very well-organized estimates book. Anyone who wants to know the reality of capital spending for highway construction in Ontario need go no further than page 60 of the minister's estimates book. You will see on that page -- 3904 is the vote, "Program Delivery Program" -- under the column "Total Capital," an expenditure of $1,714,000,000. That is a reduction from last year's estimates, by the minister's own estimates book, of $308 million in capital construction, $308 million less this year allocated in capital spending over what was allocated in last year's budget. The allocation last year was $2,023,000,000. This year, I repeat, it's $1,714,000,000, a reduction of $308 million and change.
How is it that the minister can justify this at the same time as his Premier and his government are arguing that the rebuilding of our infrastructure is going to be one of the things that helps Ontario pull itself out of this depression?
The Premier is not the only one who has been making those arguments to audiences around Ontario. Indeed, no less than the economist John Kenneth Galbraith was in southern Ontario about a month ago saying that if governments would only see that they have an obligation to start committing dramatic new investments in infrastructure, not only to improve the infrastructure, but also as an economic tool to pull North America out of the depression, then they would be doing something. But Bob Rae has been preaching that, and at the same time the Minister of Transportation has cut back $300 million out of his estimates.
If it were just spending, I would not be saying that this was a terrible tragedy and a terrible mistake. But it's not just spending. We are in desperate need of funds to rebuild the aging highway system we have and to build a new highway system. Right through my own area, for example, Highway 407 is moving at a snail's pace. Every time I raise it with the minister, he says to me, "That's $20 million a mile."
I know the cost of building that highway. More important, I know the cost of not building that highway. I say to the minister that what he is doing during his tenure as minister is proceeding with not building that highway. That highway is 10 years overdue. Highway 401, which is the Main Street of Ontario, is clogged beyond belief in the greater Toronto area, and the reason is that we are not getting on with the construction of Highway 407. Every arterial road in the GTA is clogged beyond belief. Goods are not getting to market and people are not getting to work because the roads are clogged.
The minister knows full well that until we get on with rebuilding that system and building the new components to that system, the system itself, his transportation system, which he says is one of the jewels of Ontario, is going to become more and more dysfunctional.
I say to the minister, his remarks were very well crafted and very well delivered. But the reality in these estimates and the thing that we're going to be harping on is that he has cut, in his budget and in his estimates as compared to last year's estimates and last year's budget, $300 million out of the construction of new capital works in the province of Ontario. That's the thing that he's going to have to answer to as he goes around the province having all those nice meetings with mayors and reeves and officials and members of the Ontario Good Roads Association and all the people who rely so desperately on a good highway and transportation system and a good transit system.
If the minister can justify these cutbacks, he will have performed a miracle, because everything his Premier has said and everything all the experts have said -- all of the progressive, all of the forward-thinking experts have said: "Invest in infrastructure. Cut down the other costs of government." When you look at your book, you haven't done any of that. You've made increases in all the paraphernalia of government and you've done it at the expense of road construction.
I say to the minister that you need, some time over the next six months, to have some impact and effect on the Treasurer and on the Premier and on the Chairman of Management Board to ensure that this thing gets turned around.
I want to leave a moment or two for my colleague from Cornwall to comment on these estimates as well, and our introductory comments, but I want to complete my remarks with one final word about long-term planning.
There was nothing in your remarks about real long-term planning and a long-term vision for the province. You said nothing about high-speed rail. The French and the Germans and the Japanese already have their systems in place. We have done study after study in Ontario and Quebec and Canada about high-speed rail. It will probably take a good 20 years to build the kind of system that is necessary to join, with a new high-speed technology, the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec in the Windsor to Quebec City corridor.
1100
Yet in the middle of your tenure as minister and in the middle of your tenure of government, in these estimates, you say not one word about it. I can only assume, Mr Minister, that the absence of any mention in your remarks of high-speed rail was not accidental. I can only assume that you are so taken up with the side issues and the ancillary function of your ministry, important as those things may be, that you have not yet had an opportunity to do what the great ministers of Transportation can and should be doing in this province, and that is to have a long-term vision about where we ought to be going.
That long-term vision, I say to my friend the member for Lake Nipigon, obviously must include air service to all those remote communities in his riding and other northern ridings. But to give any hope for the generations to come in this province, it must include a long-term vision which has new highway construction as a component, which has high-speed rail as a component, which has new generations of public transit as a component and a dramatic expansion of subway and GO Transit and GO rail services in the greater Toronto area.
Frankly, I saw none of that in your remarks. I see none of that emerging at present from the Ministry of Transportation. I know the officials within that ministry have the capability to craft that vision and to get the necessary planning work done to begin building it. They have the competence. What they need now is one word from the minister. The minister could be a real hero in Ontario, if he would just deliver that word, make it effective around the cabinet table and put some money into both planning and the construction of a new transit system and a new infrastructure for this province. Then, as he leaves office in about two and a half years, he will have left a real mark of distinction in the province and during his tenure as minister.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): To add to what my colleague said, he pretty well covered the brief, but I'm getting many inquiries. As the minister said, the new bicycle helmet law will be in effect in 18 to 24 months. Many of the areas of Ontario have new bicycle trails where families go out and travel leisurely in their time away from the job. The question is -- and maybe the minister can answer this -- how that will affect the trails and how that would be enforced. Many who have spoken to me think maybe the accidents on trails are very limited and that maybe someone should consider that.
There is another thing I should ask the minister. He refers to 1% increases in the budget this year. I see in the document where legal services have increased by 11% or more.
There is another thing I should ask the minister. Having been a municipal politician for many years, I have to stick up for them and work with them to the best of my ability. In February 1991 the NDP announced that last year's road transfers to municipalities would be $793 million. In February 1992 he said that the transfers would be $735 million and he also said that that would be a 1% increase over the previous year. In my mathematics, that doesn't just seem to add up.
Anyway, it's not in his comments this morning, but I know that one thing I get a lot of calls and complaints about -- and maybe we'll talk about it a bit later -- is roadside maintenance and the grass cutting. Maybe we can talk on that a little bit later. Those are my comments for now.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Cleary. I would now like to move to the PC caucus and recognize Mr Turnbull.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'd like to say that I enjoyed listening to the remarks of the minister this morning. I've enjoyed a very cordial relationship with both the minister and his staff. I thank him for that. I wish I could say that with many of the other ministries.
Unfortunately I don't agree with all of his policies but I think that transportation should certainly rise above the politics of the day because these are common problems that we should all put our backs into solving.
I would like to first of all comment on the discussion of the capital account. I think that it's rather good accounting practice that the government has moved to in suggesting that it's going to separate out the capital programs from the operating programs. Much to my chagrin I find that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives before them did this.
It seems very logical that one should do it, but we should not be lulled into the belief that there's suddenly some vastly new practice that the government is engaged in. Indeed the majority of all of the transportation infrastructure of this province was put in during the years that the Conservatives were in power, and I will be getting to that in a little bit more detail later.
We should not fool ourselves into believing because we're presenting the numbers in some different way and we cannot exactly account for how many dollars were spent by previous administrations that previous administrations did not operate a capital account. It was just that their accounting methods were different. Indeed, I would further comment that it would behoove us in Canada at all levels of government to have a standardized accounting practice which was more in line with business methods so that we could hold governments to account for what they have or have not done.
I've repeatedly pointed out to the minister in the House that he's spending some $308 million less on capital allocations this year than last. Now regardless of how he may claim that money is being spent by the Jobs Ontario Capital fund, it still remains quite clear that there are $308 million less this year, or 15% less in the capital account this year, despite the fact that Mr Rae has trotted throughout Canada and proclaimed that the federal government should be spending more on infrastructure.
This is patently ridiculous when you consider that any tax dollars that are going to be spent by the provincial government, if it gets the money from the federal government, who's going to pay for it? The taxpayers of Ontario, because Ontario is the largest taxpaying province in Canada, and to the extent that the provincial government would like to spend money but get the federal government to gather it for it so that it takes the blame, this is absolutely ludicrous.
To the extent that the provincial government is now talking about disentanglement, it in fact would like to disentangle some of the relations with municipalities so that it is clear who is raising the tax and who is delivering the service. In the same way it would be appropriate for the provincial government finally to come clean and be honest with the fact that there is only one taxpayer in Ontario and that is the Ontario taxpayer. They don't magically get any money from Newfoundland or Quebec or Saskatchewan. It is the Ontario taxpayer who pays for any capital infrastructure.
This government campaigned on a promise that it was going to increase spending on such projects as the Trans-Canada Highway. You will recall, Minister, that there was the suggestion contained in your election platform that you were going to spend $100 million a year on four-laning the Trans-Canada Highway, and in fact last year at Transportation estimates you will recall that I asked and identified from you the fact that there were only $3.5 million spent on that project last year; in other words, 3.5% of your annual promise.
I would like to have some more honesty in the way we present programs and the honesty has got to be the fact that if we're going to spend money on infrastructure, and it is indeed desirable, we have to recognize that we should be taxing it at the level of government that is spending it, and that means you, Minister.
1110
Moving along to some other matters, it has been described that Ontario is the engine of the Canadian economy. I think tragically the engine is grinding to a halt because of the starvation of our transportation system, which is lagging behind. We have both a deteriorating and a non-functioning capacity in Ontario.
The provincial government must assume a role in coordinating the funding of the provincial transportation system.
When we turn to roads, we can state that the backbone of the transportation system of Ontario is in fact the road system. We have to date spent some $25 billion in investment in the road system, but it's congested, overused and underrepaired. A healthy economy runs on a healthy road system. Road maintenance and construction must be given a higher priority.
The Ministry of Transportation's share of the provincial budget has shrunk from 13.5% to 5.2% of the budget over the last 17 years, and the neglect has taken its toll. Vehicle registration has increased by over 85% in the last two decades. Nearly six million people, or about two thirds of the province's population, hold valid driver's licences. Our roads and highways were mostly built in the 1960s and the 1970s -- significantly, years that the Conservatives were in power -- to accommodate the demands of passengers at that time. Those demands have increased dramatically but the improvements to the road system have not kept pace. Despite the increase in vehicle registrations, licensed drivers and increased travel on the Ontario road system, we have seen that the road system has grown by some 0.5% to 1%; another frightening statistic, Minister, 0.5% to 1% that the road system has increased in a decade.
It has been estimated that traffic congestion costs $40 million to $50 million each year to the cost of goods in Ontario. By 1997 it's expected that 50% of the cost of moving goods through Metro will be directly attributable to congestion. The congestion on the roads cannot be cleared up without a strong government commitment to restore our roads. A significant capital commitment that will increase road capacity and improve deteriorating roads is absolutely vital.
Your government has been unwilling to face the problem. By its own admission, the government confirms that 50% of all provincial roads and highways are in poor to fair condition and about 28% of all municipal roads and streets are inadequate according to ministry standards.
I'd like to turn now to an issue that the minister knows that I've got a great deal of interest in and that's graduated licensing, and you mentioned it before. During the past year we have unfortunately seen the deaths of too many young drivers and passengers. Statistics show that 40% of all of those killed on our highways are teenagers. Clearly, the statistics indicate that young, novice drivers are severely overrepresented in traffic accidents. Authorities believe that considerable driving experience is required before novice drivers achieve dependable driving skills and judgement.
A graduated driving licence system would enable novice drivers to gain experience while reducing the exposure of inexperienced drivers to high-risk driving situations. The graduated licence system program aims to control the conditions under which the novice driver gains driving experience and to gradually integrate him into the traffic environment. A similar licensing program has been in place in New Zealand for three years and has reduced the number of traffic accidents involving young drivers under 25 by a substantial percentage.
Minister, I know you're interested in this, but I do feel that your ministry is moving far too slowly on this very urgent issue. I'd like to know exactly when you will be coming forward with changes to the regulations to allow for the changes so urgently needed to save lives.
An issue which came up in the last few weeks of the last session was a contract which was given to Mr Wally Majesky. Your ministry signed a contract with Wally Majesky to conduct a human resource planning audit. This study was untendered, unsolicited and, according to the ministry's first blush at it, also unneeded. I made the accusation in the Legislature that this is purely and simply a pork barrel scheme directed by an NDP minister to feed taxpayers' dollars to well-known labour consultants and NDP supporters. The Minister of Health managed to obtain the services of Jack Layton as a consultant for a $300-a-day fee. Why is the Ministry of Transportation paying Wally Majesky $800-a-day consulting fees?
I understand that almost $20,000 has been paid by June of this year and, as of last week certainly, your ministry informed me that the research study did not even have finalized terms of reference. In other words, they've already received $20,000 and there are no terms of reference finalized. This is absolutely disgraceful and this is not what you're supposed to be doing with taxpayers' money, Minister.
Could the minister list all of the other subsidies being funded by MTO where the terms of reference are not decided before money is allocated and spent? Could the minister list all of the other studies being carried out by MTO that were unsolicited?
The question of vehicle and driver licensing offices: In June 1992 you detailed the development of Ontario's first Road Safety Organization in the Legislature. I quote your words, "The new organization will handle all services and programs related to road usage in Ontario."
In this speech, the minister pointed out that the Road Safety Organization "will also improve customer service, making transactions such as licence renewal or vehicle registration easier for Ontario drivers....The new organization will not duplicate existing services. It will take over all existing road safety programs and customer services currently provided" by the Ministry of Transportation.
Minister, your statement contradicts previous statements regarding the closing of licence issuing bureaus. There is a question of your credibility here that should be addressed. As a minister of the crown, you must be aware that people listen to you and make business decisions based on what you say. I know of at least one case where an owner of a vehicle licensing office bought his building because you said in the Legislature there would be no changes. I am aware of others who have signed five-year leases for their premises because they believed you. I ask the minister to respond to those who feel betrayed and misled by him.
In the estimates handbook, the ministry lists one of the objectives of the road safety agency as "to improve the work life of staff." What staff is this referring to, and would the minister please define exactly what this statement means? These offices run on 3% of the money taken in, certainly a very modest fee. They provide a service to the public in a polite and efficient manner. Could the minister please explain how he foresees how this new road safety agency will, quoting your words of June 3, "provide a new standard...of customer service in driver vehicle licensing and registration"?
The ministry has received funding from treasury board for testing self-service kiosks. Given the dismal state of our economy, it doesn't seem to be wise to use money to undertake a costly venture when the present system is inexpensive and reliable. Could the minister please explain what plans his ministry has for dealing with the elderly, who will find these machines confusing and difficult, those who lack basic literacy and numeracy skills, those who lack skill in either official language and those who do not have a credit card?
1120
Will the minister guarantee that there will be no job losses because of the new program? I'm not talking about the first year of the new program; I'm talking about two or three years down the road. I don't want you, Minister, to use this excuse, "Okay, we're moving the responsibility to this new crown corporation," and then the crown corporation can sack them and then you can say, "It wasn't my word that was broken." Minister, people are buying buildings or they're signing leases for these offices based upon your word and they are very worried. I would like a very clear and unequivocal answer to that question today.
Licence offices have always had the freedom to select the bank of their choice. Lately they have been requested to do all banking at either the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce or the Bank of Montreal, even when it means switching banks. Why?
The relationship between MTO and the new road safety agency is not clear. It would appear as if policy development will be the responsibility of the agency while enforcement will be administered by the MTO. I ask the minister if this is not the exact opposite of what common sense would expect: that the ministry would be responsible for policy and a government agency would be responsible for enforcement.
The new road safety agency has been given very broad powers for fund-raising. Will the minister please explain why such broad-ranging powers were necessary? What answer does the minister have to the private sector industries that feel threatened when a government-owned agency has the right to compete in any area? I would direct you to the terms of reference of this agency. They can virtually engage in any business they want. If they wanted to open a restaurant, under the terms of reference they could.
With respect to the relocation of the ministry to St Catharines, the Ministry of Transportation's head office move to St Catharines will involve the relocation of some 1,400 positions with a payroll of approximately $49 million. In March 1991 your government reconfirmed its commitment to relocate to St Catharines after several months of discussions which concerned the urban boundaries and the location of the office site.
The current economic state of the province has once again thrown the completion of this program into a tailspin. The $800-million move has not been cancelled due to the government's financial straits, but it has been delayed. The move was to have begun this year but now will not be started until 1994. I'd like an update from the minister on the move to St Catharines. Is it moving on schedule, or what? What is the timetable we are currently looking at for the move and what are the costs incurred so far in making the move? What is the present status of the new head office building and is it still going to come in on budget at $234 million?
The last survey you conducted showed that only 38% of head office staff were willing to move. What plans have you made to hire and train new workers to take the place of those not willing to work? What measures are in place to find new jobs for those not moving? I do sincerely trust that it doesn't mean you're just going to pad the bureaucracy in Toronto by that number of people in other ministries. What measures are in place to find new jobs for those not moving? What is the cost of the new hiring and training program and the repositioning of those workers left in Toronto?
Turning to the trucking industry: Last Christmas, Minister, the Legislature passed Bill 129. The Conservative Party worked very hard with you on amendments to the legislation to reflect the various aspects of the industry and the concerns that were brought to us. It's my understanding that the regulations are still not in place for this legislation.
Last year, on October 23 during estimates, I asked you a very specific question: Will you have available the regulations at the time of second reading? Your answer was, very simply, yes. Minister, I guess this answer has the same credibility as your answers about the licensing offices.
I understand there are difficulties in two areas. Load brokers do not contribute their own money to the trust fund. I've had some rather unusual phone calls from load brokers recently, where it has been suggested by ministry officials that, to the extent they don't have money yet from the shipping companies, it would be appropriate for the load broker to feed the trust fund. That would be an absolutely unusual situation, Minister, to have brokers feeding a trust fund. The whole idea of a trust fund is, money comes in, in trust, to be held. But your ministry officials have been saying otherwise to load brokers, and I would like an explanation of that.
Measures will be taken to ensure that shippers are protected from legal action from carriers if the broker has already been paid. At the moment, the suggestion is by your ministry officials, apparently, that even if money has been paid to the load broker, the shipper will not be held harmless; that potentially if the load broker for any reason defaulted and did not pay, the shipper would still be liable. That seems like a double jeopardy, and I think we have to address that, Minister.
I've been assured that these problems would be solved, but your ministry officials don't seem clear, and we've had several discussions with them. So, Minister, can you tell me why not, why we haven't got some clarity on this? When will these regulations be made public? As well, I'd like to see a copy of the regulations. When will we see the new regulations and when will they be put into place?
I'm giving you this great, long shopping list and there will be other questions during the course of the next two days, but I think these are key questions.
Turning to International Barrier Corp barriers, you've got to be aware that IBC barriers cost approximately three times the price of concrete barriers, and the sole supplier is an American company. The research to date that I have obtained under a freedom of information request from your ministry does not show superiority in safety or maintenance.
During a recession, when so many Ontario firms are having a difficult time and the government is under pressure, could you please justify why your ministry has decided to pay large increases in the costs to get these products from an American company in order to experiment further with this product? I am aware of the fact that there have already been experiments by your ministry in years gone by, so it isn't that you don't have the results.
How much longer do I have, Mr Chair?
The Acting Chair (Mr Gary Carr): About five minutes.
Mr Turnbull: Turning to PMCL bus lines and the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission dispute, once again the ONTC has found itself embroiled in the centre of a dispute with private sector business. The operation of the ONTC bus service from Toronto to Barrie and North Bay has duplicated already existing private sector routes and services provided by PMCL, which is Penetang-Midland Coach Lines.
The two have entered into a dispute over ONTC operation outside its mandate by servicing routes in the Simcoe county area and the scooping of passengers through the acceptance of competitors' tickets on overlapping routes. I think there is a dangerous precedent in this, Minister, and I want to have a very, very clear understanding of what actions you're going to take before today ends.
My party is opposed to the government directly competing with private sector business. PMCL is waiting for a final meeting with the ONTC to settle the matter. Can the Minister of Transportation direct the ONTC to drop routes that compete in this unfair way against private sector industries, or is the minister trying to drive the private sector out of the transportation industry?
Our old favourite, the Red Hill Creek Expressway: The decision of the government to withdraw the funding for the construction of the Red Hill Creek Expressway was said to be based on environmental reasons.
1130
Mr Sorbara: Political reasons.
Mr Turnbull: Yes. In March it became public knowledge that the Transportation minister had been previously informed that alternative routes for construction were not viable. I would ask the Minister of Transportation why he threw out 10 years of planning which had been improved by all the necessary levels of government and by the courts. When we talk about the need for spending on infrastructure to get the Ontario going, here's a project that's ready to go, Minister, but for crass political reasons it was killed.
The minister's decision, you must know, has destroyed the public's confidence in the planning process, and while I accept the fact that you did not kill the present route, Minister, I would expect you to bring some good sense back in the decision to reinstitute this route. There can be no argument about the tremendous economic and social benefits this highway would bring to the region of Hamilton, and $70 million has already been spent on this project and is now just wasted money. I urge the new Minister of Transportation to review his government's anti-expressway stand.
The increased cost of highway signs: I understand that there is a proposal before your ministry that would see that the annual cost of small signs along a provincial highway increase from $45 to $300 and large field signs from a flat charge of $76 to $8 a metre, with a $250 minimum. Needless to say, such permit increases are outrageous. A lot of signage is done by ma-and-pa people, motels, craft stores, small restaurants and of course rotary clubs and so forth.
The NDP felt that landlords should be restricted to inflation plus 3%. How can you contemplate this kind of price gouging of small business across Ontario? These new fees might drive smaller, weaker businesses away, but larger, more financially stable businesses, which I suspect probably are unionized, would probably continue to use this form of advertising. Could the minister give his justification for this large increase, in the recession?
Non-commercial signs are being removed. I understand that MTO has decided there are many signs along the highway that cannot be allowed. No more will it be allowed that such as service clubs can put up signs on the highway. Mr Sharbot, spokesman for MTO, has admitted there will be a waiting list of 30 to 50 names for any advertising space that comes open. That's for small signs.
The county of Oxford has recently written to you stating the county believes that the setback distance for signs along the major highways is too onerous and creates the need for large structures in order for signs to be visible and legible. The county believes that a review of the ministry's sign policy is necessary to enable municipalities and private interests to better promote tourist attractions and services.
Minister, I understand that in reviewing the policy with regard to highway signs you've reviewed it but no changes are contemplated that will affect field advertising. Would the minister please detail the changes his ministry is looking at and the direction in which this policy will move? Would the minister please explain what impact the request from Oxford county had on the decisions made?
Minister, I wrote to you in June concerning a problem one of my constituents was having. The Langstaff community was given a commitment by your ministry that it would have continued access to Highway 7 when Highway 407 was built. However, the planning for Highway 407 seems to ignore this.
Minister, this seems to be the way your department is operating. How long does it take to receive an answer from you? When might my constituent expect to see action taken to correct this oversight? This is the matter, you will recall, Minister, I had a private chat with you about some weeks ago.
The Acting Chair: Mr Turnbull, your time is up, if you could wrap up quickly.
Mr Turnbull: I will reserve the other questions I have for the minister during the normal question period.
The Acting Chair: The minister now has up to one half-hour to respond to the comments made by the two opposition parties.
Hon Mr Pouliot: I welcome the comments from both opposition parties, so ably voiced by their respective critics. There was what I thought was perhaps a departure from form, if I had not known the critic for the Liberals, that started by being complimentary. That point is certainly well taken. It showed a human dimension which is not known to every colleague in the Legislature, and I'm sure it's their collective and individual loss. As they get to know the critic better, they can fully appreciate not only his talents but the fact that he does care for others.
At times it leaves little time to indulge when you're so busy with other endeavours. There's no obvious need to prepare a meticulous list, or any list, regarding alternatives for the role of the critic. It's entrenched here: It's to criticize. I take those points seriously, so I want to commend both critics. They do it quite well. It's not the art of the possible. It's an attempt to dance. "The voice is not quite right." "We've bought a ticket; we were robbed" -- whatever it takes. The performance is never what it should have been or what we would have done. No, I apologize, Mr Chair: It's not what we would have done; it's what we have done. Then you begin to understand that the record of the relatively new administration is not one of excellence, given the short time of tenure, but one of constant improvement, dedicated in transportation to putting the needs of the people first, a vision indeed, with some matching dollars.
The critic says there's been nothing done in terms of high-speed rail. Half an hour to highlight, even by virtue of a one-liner, the many endeavours of this ministry in its relationship with every Ontarian. It's so little time, yet there is so much being done -- not a sin of omission. It's perhaps one of our highlights, if we'd chosen to list it, but we can't list them all. Six million dollars is being spent: $2 million from Ontario, the sister province of Quebec and the federal government.
Mr Sorbara: It's already spent. That's already done.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Excuse me. I'd like to be extended the courtesy not to be constantly interrupted by the --
Mr Sorbara: How about periodically?
Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, periodically. I wish you would work on controlling your Latin temperament, Greg.
So $6 million is being spent. The report is going to reach us; that's consequential. And, yes, it's talking about the feasibility study of high-speed rail in the corridor between Windsor and Quebec City. Mr Guscott would be happy to answer more detailed questions as we go along.
What's happening? When the report reaches us in the fall of 1993, a couple of months more than a year from now, then it will decide yes or no, should it take place and at what cost. It will have a timetable attached to it and should make recommendations on spelling out the responsibilities of the respective governments vis-à-vis a high-speed rail system.
1140
Yes, we are committed to looking at it, for we're funding one third of the study. In fact, we're going beyond that, for the edification and information of Mr Turnbull. That's right: For every dollar the federal government receives, 43 cents comes from Ontario. Well, they send 30 cents back and then they tell us how to spend it, but that's okay too. The thing is, I want you to be made quite aware of it.
On the one hand, there has to be reciprocity. They don't contribute one cent to transportation in terms of road building in Ontario; not a dime, not a nickel, not a penny. To my understanding, every other jurisdiction does profit from it; in our case, we do it alone.
When the Premier of this province mentioned that he would match, dollar for dollar, any new capital initiative, of course he meant what he said. We're still waiting. We know it's not in the mail, but we're still waiting for the response.
Mr Turnbull: He meant all of your platform in the last election.
Hon Mr Pouliot: We're still waiting for the bucks to come across, sir, with the highest of respect, of course.
In the meantime, I guess with those people you don't speak; with those people, you have a rough time making ends meet.
Interjection.
Hon Mr Pouliot: You've guessed it. With those people you pay, and that's what Ontario does. So when it does open the door for reciprocal arrangements with our friends at the federal level, it's share and share alike and a "We'll do it together" attitude. I think that's very healthy vis-à-vis infrastructure. Nevertheless, we have respected our commitment, upheld our promise. We're spending the same amount of money in terms of capital.
Mr Turnbull: Spending less.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Ah, you see, we have a fundamental difference. The way we look at the books could be different. That point is well taken. This is not the kind of endeavour when you deal with figures; would those figures satisfy everyone around the table? This is straightforward. It was mentioned that $308 million less is being spent. Well, Mr Chairman, it ain't so. I will repeat, it's just not so, because you have to take into consideration the actual spending, not to forget the $80-million-plus that was a one-shot deal. It was the anti-recession fund and it was understood. The mandate spelled it out. This is to quickstart, to get us out of trouble, to give us a much-needed boost. It's not going to happen every year; it's not an annual event. So we did that.
When you say the money is not the same one year vis-à-vis the next, you have to take that into consideration. Most people would not be so audacious or bold as to advance, encourage and enhance inaccuracies that would border on imputing motives, being non-factual. As a critic, I would say you just don't do those things. There are thresholds. You can perhaps give a certain light to an argument but, if I may be so bold, to twist, create a smokescreen, play with figures, roll the dice until they come out with the number you wish, is a disservice to the people of Ontario. They deserve a lot better.
Then you go on and look at the GO Transit adjustment. Both Mr Smith and Mr Parsons can talk more at length about this endeavour, but that was also a one-time commitment. Some of the money just wasn't spent. You have three feasibility studies and you wish to complete them, but as the fiscal year goes on, your capacity to comply has been usurped; you cannot do it. So if you don't do the work, you don't spend the money.
Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I'm having a great deal of difficulty following my friend's rebuttal. Was he suggesting that I was twisting or misrepresenting the figures? What I did was quote the 1991 estimates on page 60 of the estimates book. I didn't draft these estimates books; I'm just quoting them. The 1991-92 estimates are $2,023,000,000 and change, about $500,000 in change. I'm comparing that with the estimates for 1992-93, which are the subject of these hearings, at $1.7 billion and change. The difference, as reported in his estimates book, is $308 million. I've compared last year's estimates and this year's estimates, as reported in this book. I'm having difficulty following. Is the minister saying I have twisted these figures? They are his figures, not mine. I need a clarification on that so I can understand the remainder of the rebuttal.
The Acting Chair: It's not a point of order. Minister, if you want to continue.
Hon Mr Pouliot: I welcome the point of view. The crux of the matter, simply put, what is being advanced here, is that in actual dollars the same money is being spent this year; broadly summarized, $80 million less because the anti-recession program was a one-shot deal. You must take that away from the $308 million -- you're the one who said that, of course -- and then the intervention at GO Transit and some of the money that was budgeted but was not spent. If you have estimates of dollars that will be spent and then you compare that to actual money spent, there could be some discrepancy, and that's okay; you can do whatever you wish with that, and we can do whatever we wish. But what we're saying is the actual that's reflected is that the province, the Ministry of Transportation, is spending in capital the same money as it did the last fiscal year.
Mr Turnbull: On a point of clarification, Mr Chair: Can I just understand exactly what the minister is saying on this? You're saying that if we take the $308 million less that you're spending this year, and in some way back out $80 million that was the one-time shot -- are you saying $80 million was all spent on transportation?
The Acting Chair: The minister may want to answer that as he goes through. I appreciate the give and take that goes with the three personalities we have involved here, but it would be helpful if we allowed the minister to continue. Just so everyone knows, I will be in the chair till the end of this morning. The Chairman had an unavoidable family situation. He'll be back later this afternoon. Mr Minister, do you want to continue?
Hon Mr Pouliot: I was just about to conclude the point about the ability of the Ministry of Transportation to access the long-awaited job capital program. That was well over $100 million, as you will recall. That announcement was made in the House, and it was greeted by almost unanimous acquiescence and applause, members being fully cognizant that it did put people to work. The multiplier that for every dollar spent you get two and a half dollars more was greeted positively, in unison, with people saying, "This is it, this is nuts and bolts, a shovel in the ground, and people will be put to work." They're working on several projects.
I was appalled and shocked, and nothing short of that. It's not my place to ask my friend Mr Sorbara questions.
Mr Sorbara: I'm willing to answer questions.
Hon Mr Pouliot: But bringing his son, in this case, the cyclist -- and 150 kilometres over two days is a lot of cycling. It demands a capacity, a physical form which, if not reached, departed us. I know in my case, if I was to attempt to do that, I would in short order find that my future is behind me. But the member has been generous. He's given me another two and a half years, so I don't have to do it all at once.
To say that he would be charged with a crime, that the mandatory helmet could hypothetically or potentially make the member's son a criminal, well, there's no such thing. I'm sure you would wish your son to follow in your footsteps.
Mr Sorbara: Not necessarily.
1150
Hon Mr Pouliot: That is not the intent here. You will recall, what is appalling and shocking perhaps, is that it's almost verbatim, the same approach vis-à-vis seatbelts, and the member would not deny that seatbelts are the order of the day. Ours is not a record of excellence, but our address did attest that it's one of constant improvement that we're very proud of. We have gone from 72% compliance to 83%. This is no small matter.
First there was an education campaign. People took to it, the word got around. Now people see it as normalcy in 83% of the cases. I'm not drawing a parallel or an analogy without validity, but I couldn't help but go back a few years and to say, "Isn't it ironic that this is the same tone?" I guess you never know. I have taken for granted that we were sort of all together in this, that it was commonsensical, that we were going to do it in stages and it was to be well received by the increasing number of cyclists in the province of Ontario.
Mr Sorbara: Would the minister permit an interjection?
Hon Mr Pouliot: The minister doesn't chair the meeting. You're going to go ahead anyway. You have to go through the Chair.
The Acting Chair: If the minister could continue.
Interjection.
The Acting Chair: Mr Sorbara, we're going to have a chance for questions very shortly, if we can let the minister finish. We will have time this morning for questions if we proceed.
Hon Mr Pouliot: The Spadina subway extension? The point is well taken. I know it's close to your heart. You pay particular attention. Is it in your riding?
Mr Sorbara: It's close to my riding.
Hon Mr Pouliot: It's close to the people you represent, close to your riding, so you would be familiar, certainly better than most and perhaps as well as any, regarding the need, and your expressions were well taken. I think they spell what you would see as an obvious thing. We have to go through an environmental assessment. You know our administration acts at arm's length; we have to make sure that everything is addressed. But the points that you have mentioned are well taken.
Curbsiders --
Mr Sorbara: Tax grab.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Well, you've mentioned and now you've repeated that it's a tax grab. You will not deny the obligations from the government to pay what is fair. It is not a tax grab; it is paying what the law of the land says you must pay. If you say it's a tax grab, I find those comments a little bold. I know personally I would not go as far, because I would be so repetitious; I'd have to say "tax grab" 33 times, and you were in office for only five years. But I'm not the one who says those things. You can provoke, but I choose not to respond in this case.
Mr Sorbara: I think you just did.
Hon Mr Pouliot: The NDP election platform: Again, by attempt to tease -- I knew it was said with tongue in cheek. This is not an administration that flip-flops on issues; you know that. This is an administration that adheres, some will say religiously -- I will not say this; I would not go that far -- but certainly adheres to commitments that it makes. It puts people first, puts a timetable, and regardless of how difficult the times are -- we know these are difficult times, but certainly not impossible times -- our vision is reflected in the legislation.
Mr Turnbull, on the subject matter of people dispensing the essential service, licences, you have asked the question or flagged that issue four or five times. Your diligence is noteworthy. Four or five times you have had the same reasonable and consistent answer to your request. It was said candidly and simply. You couldn't believe your ears, so you kept asking. You know about the commitment of our government that as long as licence bureaus are under the tutelage, umbrella, if you wish, jurisdiction, of the Ministry of Transportation, there will be no dislocation. It's business as usual, and, heck, we're darned proud of our association with the licence dispensers.
Mr Sorbara: Which ministry are you transferring --
Hon Mr Pouliot: The move to St Catharines is proceeding on -- well, the plans have been revised to accommodate. We have to make sure we listen to all the participants and we'll have people giving you some updates.
Bus service: Mr Turnbull, that can be quite tricky, because sometimes I need your help if it's the responsibility of a body which is quasi-judicial. We all understand that certainly I in my capacity cannot interfere. So sometimes we will follow the channels to make sure that you come as close as possible to getting an answer. Whatever is permissible will be done. Anything else is an invitation to disaster for all of us, but we'll try to answer the questions.
Graduated licensing: You're right, young people are way overrepresented, not only in terms of fatalities and accidents, and we are studying proposals regarding a graduated licence system. We feel that it's important that we respond to the needs of the general public, that we lessen the number of accidents and fatalities if we can. If by doing so it gives the consumers of the province, the people who buy car insurance, a few dollars more in their pockets, so be it. Then it's a win-win-win situation. And if it were accompanied by an education campaign which is consequential, which means something, to make all of us better motorists, then again it's a win-win-win situation. If we could have some extra money, then maybe it will generate that, to start addressing head injuries or permanent injuries. I think there are some jurisdictions that are on their way to doing that. We too are going to move in those directions. I hope we do.
We're looking at ways to better the system, but it's like a right and a privilege. You have 6.3 million licensees. You can make it so hard that nobody gets a licence. I mean, it's a privilege to drive the road and you pay dearly for it. By the same token, as an Ontarian, it's partly your right to have access to a system which is consistent and reasonable, and we're trying to blend the two. It's the art of the possible. There's nothing politically crass about -- well, you know us. There's nothing politically crass about that; far from it.
The Red Hill Creek Expressway: We had a convention a few weeks ago, our biennial convention, and you were there.
Mr Sorbara: I got thrown out.
Hon Mr Pouliot: No, no, no. The thing is, if you --
Mr Sorbara: No, I got insulted and then thrown out.
1200
Hon Mr Pouliot: No, no. What I'm saying is, we're familiar with the point. You wanted to see the show, but you didn't buy a ticket, so maybe you got the wrong performance. If you want to join our club of social conscience, and we don't pretend to have a monopoly, you are most welcome, but you have to pay your dues.
Mr Sorbara: A club that the province can little afford, my friend.
The Acting Chair: Mr Sorbara, if we could. Mr Minister.
Hon Mr Pouliot: I'm not the one saying this, because I have a lot of respect for the brotherhood of teamsters and for sailors in this country, but it was once said that when the Liberals were in power they spent money like drunken sailors, except that drunken sailors spend their own money. Spend, spend, spend: If we listened to all your proposals we'd be in the poorhouse overnight. We don't want to do that.
The Red Hill Creek Expressway: The province is looking for an alternative. The reason the first proposal was turned down is quite simple, and there again we have been consistent: We didn't see it meeting the requirements vis-à-vis the environment.
That is in our opinion, but with the same energy we have sought alternatives and we're working with representatives from the Hamilton-Wentworth region to come up with an alternative that will do basically two things: respond to the need of the motorist and alleviate the congestion that is evident because it's overcapacitated; you need a new route. Yet, while doing this, you will again preserve the environment. You can address the need and leave a legacy so that the quality of life will not be jeopardized. I know that you would wish to join with us, because when the announcement is made it will be cause for optimism and celebration.
Highway signs: A proposal is a proposal is a proposal. We recognize the need to make programs pay for themselves as much as possible. You can't always do that. There will be no such increase, as cited, from $45 to $300. That would be approximately a 600% increase, or thereabouts. Nobody can afford that. That's scaring people away. It was a proposal. I've been asked to look at it. I shouldn't say "I." We work in the collective. There's no way we're going to permit this, not the current minister. You can't do that because you'll end up with people not being able to afford it, so then they don't have a sign and still your costs multiply. You're really no better off. There will be an increase, but it will not be near what has been suggested.
We're certainly listening. That's what communication is all about. It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen to this magnitude or nearly that. People cannot afford it. It's not justifiable. We'll have to start cutting our costs of administration without impacting on the people dispensing the service. I'm talking about their livelihood. It's not a really big department, but we're going to ask some people, if not redeployed, to do something else as well. We're going to work it out, but it's not going to be from $45 to $300.
I could go on and on talking about transportation, with our team clarifying or dispensing the information. We'll do that during the question and answer period. When I say transportation, of course it does include GO Transit. I know this was raised. We have people who will be here for the duration of the estimates on GO Transit.
Again, I certainly welcome your comments. I didn't see anything that was vitriolic or acerbic, and my colleagues did not feel provoked, teased or threatened in any way. I see they have their shopping lists. Mr Lessard, for instance, has not lifted his head from the document received from his constituency -- some circular -- and wishes to address subject matters that are not in the least parochial, but responding to the needs of people in his constituency.
Of course, there are others. I see Mr Waters; I see Norman, so intent, so dedicated; mon cher ami, Mr White, and, of course, George Dadamo, who has worked diligently with different projects as our parliamentary assistant: a soldier at his post, a sentry.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Minister. Your allotted time for the response is up.
What transpires now, of course, is the question period. We have until 12:30, when we're scheduled to break. We can do that in two ways: We can divide it, starting with the Liberal Party -- they could go until 12:30, taking the 25 minutes or whatever -- then go to the next party, or we can divide it 12 minutes and 12 minutes. I'm in the hands of the committee. Any suggestions from any of the members?
Mr Sorbara: Can we start off with the 12-minute bits?
The Acting Chair: Okay, we will start off with the Liberal Party and then go to the Conservatives. That will probably take us to the end. Question, Mr White?
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I do have one or two.
The Acting Chair: Okay, great. That's acceptable, Norm?
Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): We're just caucusing here a little bit with our own committee. We thought that possibly we should break and then start through the questions after lunch. Some of our committee members were not aware that this was until 12:30 and have appointments.
The Acting Chair: I see by the schedule here we're expected to go until 5 o'clock today so we can get the allotted time. I don't know the minister's schedule, whether he has to leave right at 5 or whether it would be possible to tack the time on at the end, or what his schedule is.
Hon Mr Pouliot: I'm trying to be of help, to be flexible. Just as importantly, what is our time?
Mr Turnbull: It seems to me if we leave early, we should come back early, so that we're not losing it. No?
Mr Sorbara: Two to 5:30 would be fine.
The Acting Chair: Yes, we were scheduled from 2 to 5, if you wanted to tack the time on at the end. Some of the members weren't aware that it was supposed to go until 12:30. That was my understanding. Would that be acceptable to everyone?
Mr Jamison: Well, we'll go to 12:30. It's just a matter that some of us were scheduled --
The Acting Chair: Actually, the way it works out, the two opposition parties will get the time anyway. So if you did have to leave, there won't be time for your questions now anyway. When we start back, we can start with your time. How would that be?
Mr Jamison: Carry on.
The Acting Chair: Okay. Mr Sorbara, do you want to proceed?
Mr Sorbara: Mr Minister, in 1990, in the election campaign, your government committed itself to four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway and made a commitment of $100 million a year for this important project. What have you done in furtherance of that commitment?
Hon Mr Pouliot: I'd like to ask one of our assistant deputy ministers, Carl Vervoort.
The Acting Chair: Would you just identify yourself for the record, please, sir.
Mr Carl Vervoort: My name is Carl Vervoort. I'm the assistant deputy minister of operations.
With respect to the Trans-Canada Highway, first let me indicate, as was mentioned by the minister, that there are discussions taking place across Canada with the federal government and all the provinces with respect to opportunities for the federal government to participate in the national highway system. Of course, in Ontario, this would include that particular portion of Highway 16 being part of the Trans-Canada Highway.
Those deliberations have not concluded but they are still active, so they represent one basis for potential future investment opportunities not only by Ontario but by the federal government.
1210
Mr Sorbara: I appreciate that. My question, though, is more a political one. The minister, the Premier and the other members from Sudbury made a political commitment that if they were elected they would spend $100 million a year on the four-laning of Highway 69, and particularly the four-laning of that stretch of highway between Parry Sound and Sudbury. I want to know how much has been spent since the swearing-in of the NDP cabinet -- that's October 1, 1990, until today -- on the four-laning of that highway.
Mr Vervoort: I don't have the precise numbers with respect to Highway 69, but I can --
Mr Sorbara: Ballpark figures. Is it $17 million or is it $10 million? We had a commitment, we had a promise to the people of Ontario that that death-trap would be four-laned. Can you tell us how much has been spent on the four-laning of that highway?
Mr Vervoort: On Highway 69?
Mr Sorbara: Yes.
Mr Vervoort: The information I have here pertains to the limits. They're broken down into three categories on Highway 69. Perhaps I can treat each in turn. The first section of Highway 69 is, starting at the southerly end, from Port Severn to MacTier; it's a distance of 33 kilometres. The status of work there is that we have completed a route planning and environmental assessment report. Surveys and land acquisition and design activities are currently in progress and under way. Capital construction is scheduled to begin from the current year, 1992, through to 1998. The schedule is of course subject to finalization of the property acquisitions.
The estimated engineering costs to date are at $9 million. That would include the completion of the engineering costs. The estimated property costs on that same stretch of highway are at $700,000 and the estimated construction costs are at $90 million. Those expenditures have been made, with the exception of course of the construction costs, which have yet to be initiated.
The second stage of Highway 69 is from MacTier to Highway 555 at Nobel. That is a stretch of approximately 50 kilometres. In that area we currently have in progress route planning and environmental assessment work. We anticipate the completion of that planning work will be at the end of 1993. Thereafter of course it will be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment for its approval, and perhaps that might be expected in terms of late 1994 or early 1995.
Mr Sorbara: Can I interrupt you now? I don't need all those details, but can I take from your answer that there have not been expenditures of $100 million a year on the four-laning of Highway 69?
Mr Vervoort: The expenditures that have been made have been with respect to engineering and planning work.
Mr Sorbara: My next question for the minister is this: In the 1990 election campaign the now Premier said that he would significantly increase provincial subsidies to the TTC operations, giving Metro riders the first fare break they've seen after more than a decade of annual increases. Can I ask the minister whether, to his knowledge, there has been a fare break -- that is, a reduction in fare for riders on the TTC -- during the two years since the swearing-in of the NDP cabinet?
Hon Mr Pouliot: I'm going to ask Mr Johnston to set some lines.
Mr Sorbara: It's a pretty simple yes or no.
The Acting Chair: Sir, could you please identify yourself for the record.
Mr Gerry Johnston: My name is Gerry Johnston, assistant deputy minister, planning. The fare levels are actually set by Metro, not by the province, and it has not reduced the fares.
Mr Sorbara: No, but presumably if a provincial transfer were attractive enough, you could coerce the TTC to reduce its fares.
Hon Mr Pouliot: It's the Liberal style, Gerry.
Mr Johnston: What the ministry does is try to establish what is a reasonable target to be received out of the fare box. That has been reduced. That has been dropped from 70% to 68% to place less burden on the users of the system.
Mr Sorbara: My problem is that the now Premier promised significantly increased provincial subsidies so as to give rise to a fare break -- that is, a reduction in fares. That hasn't happened.
Mr Johnston: The amount of money that's been provided to the TTC for operating purposes has gone up.
Mr Sorbara: I appreciate that. I realize that.
Mr Johnston: It is based on a percentage of their operating costs, with consideration of what should come from the users.
Mr Sorbara: But there has been no reduction in fares that you know about.
Mr Johnston: No, there has not been a reduction in fares.
Mr Sorbara: And the increase that was provided for the operation of the TTC over the past two years wasn't designed to encourage the TTC to reduce its fares to the public, in your view.
Mr Johnston: I guess it's a difficult question to answer, because you're really trying to balance about three different factors. One is --
Mr Sorbara: Let me put it this way: Were they so different in subsidies prior to October 1990 as to encourage a reduction in fares to users?
Hon Mr Pouliot: Is this an inquisition, or do you just want straight answers to straight questions?
Mr Sorbara: It's just a yes or no.
Mr Johnston: No. We have left those sorts of deliberations to Metro to make that decision.
Mr Sorbara: Now, my final question -- we'll see how the time runs -- in the election campaign in 1990: I'm quoting now from the Toronto Star, "Rae Promises GO Transit Service to Peterborough and Brantford." I want to ask the minister whether there has been a political commitment to extend GO Transit rail service to Peterborough and Brantford.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes. Thank you, Mr Sorbara. On the previous question, we have to be aware that we have maintained our subsidy level, and that in the face of a serious economic recession --
Mr Sorbara: With respect, I just want to know whether there is a --
Hon Mr Pouliot: -- and also a decrease in revenues. But the commitment goes on, so there has been no problem.
GO Transit is pretty well 100% owned by the people of Ontario, a shifting population. Everybody, it seems, wants Go Transit. We have a definite and systematic plan of attack. We must be cognizant that in many cases you have to satisfy the mandate of the criteria of environmental assessments. We have a step-by-step approach, and we have said in our initial remarks that we plan on expanding the GO system in the not-too-distant future to respond to the needs of the population.
It's obvious to everyone that the demographics are changing. There are more and more people and things are happening rapidly. What we must do, because of our commitment to public transit, is make it accessible to as many people as possible. Public transit is the most democratic transportation system of all. We want to make it a reasonable cost, we want to make it reliable -- it is reliable, it is safe -- and we want to make it accessible to as many people as possible, including those who are less fortunate from time to time or on a permanent basis -- the disabled, the frail and the elderly. That's why we use the term "democratic." We're very proud of the system of GO Transit and are looking at every opportunity to expand it, but it has to be done in an organized fashion. Because it shines we don't just run out and grab it. We recognize the needs, but systematically, deliberately --
Mr Sorbara: Now, hold on.
Hon Mr Pouliot: -- we address them. That's what makes it so exciting.
The Acting Chair: Mr Minister, if I might make a quick suggestion here: I know that members, because I've sat on this committee, have got the information and sometimes they feel like they need to jump in.
Mr Sorbara: If this was a very good speech on something, I'd like to --
The Acting Chair: If I might make a suggestion: If the questioner is happy with the answer, if he or she could just politely say thank you, then maybe the person could stop. I know it's difficult.
Mr Sorbara: Politely, "Thank you."
The Acting Chair: If we don't do that, then what happens is that the questioner jumps in. That might be helpful if we could.
Mr Sorbara: If I can get him to stop talking if I politely say thank you, then thank you.
I now ask the minister or anyone in the room whether the government is committed in principle to extending GO rail transit to Peterborough and Brantford. It's a pretty simple yes or no answer.
Hon Mr Pouliot: I make no apologies for being so caught up in the endeavours of GO Transit. This kind of relevant question deserves more than a yes and/or no.
Mr Sorbara: Well, what about a "maybe"? What about, "We're still thinking about it"? What about, "Well, we're backing down and we want to revisit it"? Just let me know. You made a political commitment. You said to the people of Ontario, "If you elect us, we are going to commit funds to extend the train to Peterborough and to Brantford." Are you still on that? Are you going to extend it or not?
1220
The Acting Chair: Your time's up. Mr Turnbull.
Mr Turnbull: To my colleague to my right, I have to say, it's a bitch if you can't take a joke, eh?
Hon Mr Pouliot: What's the joke, that you have a colleague to your right?
Mr Turnbull: The joke is to expect your government to keep any of its promises.
Turning to the current transportation capital program, which is in its second-last year, I'd like to know what projects are being funded under this year's amount, which is in your estimates as $473,233,000. Where will this money be spent? That's the first question.
The second distinct question is, what plans have you got for renewing that program at its termination?
Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank you. Carl?
Mr Vervoort: In terms of your first question, I have a listing of all of the projects that are receiving financial support under the Jobs Ontario Capital fund. It's quite a lengthy list. I would offer to table that for your information, but I can give you a number account.
Mr Turnbull: Hold on a minute. You're talking about the Jobs Ontario Capital fund. I'm talking about the transportation capital fund.
Mr Vervoort: Okay. Technically, what has occurred with respect to the capital program on provincial highways is that the base capital expenditures on provincial highways of the last fiscal year, plus the transportation capital projects that had previously been identified under that program -- and this year was to have been the fourth year of a five-year program -- were consolidated. In fact, in this fiscal year the allocation is determined on two subtotals: the base, which constitutes amalgamations of those previous two programs, and in addition to that there is the second category, which is the Jobs Ontario Capital fund. So for purposes of this fiscal year, there is only the Jobs Ontario Capital fund and --
Mr Turnbull: So the transportation capital program has gone by the boards.
Mr Vervoort: The formal naming of that program as such is. The projects that were contained within it continue to be supported either as a base cost of the Ministry of Transportation in its base program, or funds which are targeted under the Jobs Ontario Capital fund.
Mr Turnbull: Let me get this straight. You've renamed a program and you're taking credit for the new program, which was launched by the Liberal government, and now we are being told that all of the dollars that were to have been spent on that -- we were thinking that in addition we were going to get the Jobs Ontario Capital fund, but in fact we've just rechristened the animal. Is that correct? I think that's more of a political question to the minister.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Candidly, what you see in the estimates is really what you get. There are no secrets here. We don't change tags and recycle the same thing. That would border on the dishonest. We don't do those things. If it's a new program, it is a new program.
Mr Turnbull: Let's just hold on that point, Minister.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Mr Turnbull, please.
Mr Turnbull: We've just heard that it's the same dollars being recycled.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Recycled? Norm?
The Acting Chair: Would you please identify yourself for the record.
Mr Norm Mealing: I'm Norm Mealing, assistant deputy minister of corporate services. I think the point we're trying to make here is that the transportation capital program has in effect been rolled into the base funding of the Ministry of Transportation capital activity.
The Jobs Ontario Capital fund -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong -- has a five-year life of about $2.3 billion, of which a portion is devoted to transportation. Our share of the first year's activity is about $118 million, but that is not to cover projects that were part of the transportation capital program, because they were rolled into the capital base of the Ministry of Transportation.
Hon Mr Pouliot: They're usually standalone projects that can be done in one or two years, but they have a shovel-in-the-ground focus.
Mr Turnbull: So the Jobs Ontario Capital fund is completely separate in its dollars to the dollars that are in your base capital budget, correct? And the base capital budget contains within it the transportation capital program dollars that were allocated by the Liberals.
Mr Mealing: The elements of that program.
Mr Johnston: If you would like some further detail on those fundings -- I'm speaking more from the municipal transportation point of view -- included in that transportation capital program were $200 million for municipal road projects and $200 million for municipal transit projects. We do have a listing of the projects that have been identified to access those available funds, both in the transit and road areas.
Mr Turnbull: Okay, we have $473 million --
Mr Johnston: There's $58 million on municipal road projects, which range across the province, and about another $38 million on municipal transit projects, which also are across municipal properties.
Mr Turnbull: In addition to the $400 million, which makes up this total of $473 million?
Mr Johnston: That's right.
Mr Turnbull: What provisions have been made for renewing that program, even if you've rechristened it, Minister?
Hon Mr Pouliot: Mr Mealing has mentioned that it's a vision of five years. The price tag is massive, $2.3 billion. Provisions that have been made? We're hoping that, long before that, at least some of our policy will be reflected in a growing economy and there will be less need. But provisions are made to reflect the needs of people now. I hope I understand you, but what provisions have been made to renew? This is the commitment, $2.3 billion.
Mr Turnbull: Excuse me. This is the second-last year of this program. We're talking about renewal; we're not talking about the Jobs Ontario Capital program.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Okay, my apologies.
Mr Gary Posen: Gary Posen, the deputy minister. With the provision of that as part of our capital base, it's become part of the normal base of the ministry. As we do each year, as the Treasurer is developing his budget, we review the base with treasury board and look at the items in there. So we believe that's been normalized, if I can put it that way, and is part of the capital foundation.
Mr Turnbull: It's the basic capital funding of the ministry, and as such would be expected to be renewed on an ongoing basis.
Mr Posen: We would expect so.
Mr Turnbull: In the remaining few moments, I'd like to ask about the IBC barriers which I mentioned before. They're being manufactured in the US; a US company has the rights to them. It seems peculiar that in the middle of a recession you'd be going out and buying IBC barriers, when two factors prevail: (1) it has been proved that concrete barriers are just as safe as the IBC barriers, and (2) the IBC barriers are many, many more times the cost of concrete barriers. Why are we doing this in the middle of a recession? There's this new test.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Ms Kelch is our resident expert on IBC barriers and also a most able assistant deputy minister.
Ms Margaret Kelch: Thank you, Mr Minister. Margaret Kelch, the assistant deputy minister of quality and standards.
Mr Turnbull, we are in fact today, as we speak, not implementing IBC barriers anywhere in the province. We did have a contract in eastern Ontario, on Highway 401 in the Belleville area, where we were hoping to use the International Barrier Corp barrier for this construction season, as we are replacing the barrier in the median there.
The history of this particular barrier goes back to a time when it was being produced in Ontario. The two locations in Ontario where it is in place is on Highway 400 north, as well as on the QEW in the Hamilton area. Those two installations were put in place and were manufactured in Ontario.
The firm, you are quite right, does have its head office in Pennsylvania. Through the discussions we had in place with respect to the particular contract for Highway 401 east, we were not able to have the contractor and the International Barrier Corp come to an agreement which would allow the barrier to be put in place there. So we had to abandon that particular commitment, and the tall wall concrete barrier will be put in place. In fact, it's probably going in there as we speak, I think this week.
The Acting Chair: Mr Turnbull, your time's up. It's now 12:30. We will break for lunch and we will be back at 2 o'clock this afternoon. Thank you very much.
The committee recessed at 1230.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1406.
The Acting Chair: We'll reconvene. When we left off, the way we had been going in terms of time allotment, we had gone with the opposition for 10 minutes, the third party for 10 minutes, and now it's the government's turn for 10 minutes. Mr White.
Mr White: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. A pleasure to see you again resuming your spot.
Minister, I have a couple of very parochial questions. As you know, in my area there are some very major concerns, not about a GO train to Peterborough or to Havelock. In fact after the election people in the Peterborough-Port Perry area were canvassed in regard to their interest in a GO bus -- this was with your predecessor, Mr Philip, when he was minister -- and it was discovered that the people were not at all interested in that service. But we are, sir, very interested --
Hon Mr Pouliot: Would you like to tell us about it, Mr White?
Mr White: We are very interested in the GO train service, and I can certainly attest to the quality of that service. As I mentioned to Mr Parsons, its final terminal is only 100 feet from my home in Whitby. However, it seems we'll be reaching Buffalo before we reach Bowmanville with that service, and Highway 407 as well, sir. Durham College, at the north end of Oshawa, was sited where it presently is so it would be close to the 407. It was sited there in 1967.
These are the kinds of questions. Durham region is an area that has been left to die on the vine in terms of transportation links to Metro. We have some eight or nine lanes of highway access to Metro, while Peel region has 81 and York region has 65. These are crucial issues for us, the issues around when the 407 is to be seen to be completed, and of course the GO train expansion. I'm wondering if you could respond to those issues.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank you for reminding us that in another venue, in another format, there are three different colours of sweaters. You've done so very tactfully.
The train of the day or the train of the year going to Buffalo -- with respect, we can all come up with different analogies. Buffalo -- for some reason I keep walking around the district in Toronto and I see some promotion. I guess our reputation as people who care knows no boundaries.
GO Transit and the 407 are both very closely integrated, connected to Durham. On the GO Transit commitment -- like you said, it goes to Whitby. It's scheduled to go to Oshawa, and we have Mr Smith and Mr Parsons of GO Transit who can shed some light there.
On the 407, we'll ask Carl to give us an update on what has been done, what is being done presently and also the proposal with its timetable. Perhaps we can start with Mr Smith and Mr Parsons on GO Transit.
Mr Lou Parsons: Thank you very much, Minister. My name is Lou Parsons. I'm the chairman of GO Transit, and my associate with me is Mr Tom Smith, who is the managing director of GO Transit. Would you like me, Mr Chairman, to answer that specific question or to give you some expanded GO Transit details all at once?
The Acting Chair: Maybe you could just start with the question.
Mr Parsons: The specific question Mr White raises is that the construction on our Whitby-to-Oshawa extension is presently under way and we expect to have all-day service into Oshawa by 1994 to the VIA station where we're currently operating from. The traffic there now on one train a day is encouraging, but because the people don't have the options of getting home midday, it's not nearly what it will be when we have our all-day service right out to Oshawa. We know that's going to be a great success.
The extension beyond there has been the subject of an environmental assessment at which many open houses have been held and to which there has been very good response, not to say there aren't concerns, but that's why open houses are held under the environmental assessment procedure.
We have been able to meet concerns in all other service expansion areas that we have met. Some of them have to do with noise, some of them have to do with parking lots, some of them have to do with screening. All those matters we attend to, and we have been able to successfully in the past ameliorate the concerns that have been raised by the citizens in those areas.
Mr White: I know the people of Oshawa are very pleased to see that first phase will be completed, as you were saying, with an operational service in 1994. But do you have any time line on the second phase?
Mr Parsons: With regard to the second phase, the environmental assessment is presently being done, and once it's done and presented to the minister, as you know the process, the minister will be making the decision whether there need be public hearings or whether that minister will give an exemption when that time comes. If the exemption is given, we get on with it quite quickly. Thus far in our experience -- Mr Smith, correct me if I'm wrong -- we have not gone through hearings. We probably have a couple of issues on the table now but we don't visualize Oshawa is one of them where we might have hearings.
Mr White: So we're expecting full service to a part of Oshawa within a year and a half.
Mr Parsons: The fall of 1994.
Mr White: Followed by a complete train service to the east end of Oshawa within the foreseeable future.
Mr Parsons: Within, I would say, the five-to-10-year time frame because an awful lot of work has to be done in that area.
The Acting Chair: Mr Jamison, I believe, is next.
Interjections.
The Acting Chair: I thought you were done. Go ahead.
Mr Vervoort: Again my name is Carl Vervoort, assistant deputy minister of operations. To respond to your inquiry concerning Highway 407, I can perhaps give you a quick update on the status of that highway.
Highway 407 is recognized as one of the important links across the top of the GTA, including the region of Durham. We are currently active working on the first phase of that highway, from Highway 427 to Dufferin Street. Approximately $200 million has been invested to date in construction, design and property acquisitions. We are also pursuing further design work on sections of Highway 407 and are in the process of doing property acquisitions for its extension to the west to Airport Road and to the east to Highway 48.
The approximate timings, subject to completion of the design and the normal processes for property acquisitions, are that we would generally be starting the section from Dufferin Street to Warden Avenue in 1992 with completion towards the end of this decade, and Warden Avenue to Highway 48 would start in approximately the mid-1990s, 1996, and be completed about seven years after its start.
The section that I believe is of particular interest to you, which would be east of Highway 48, is currently undergoing a formal route planning study. This is a major study to determine the precise location of Highway 407 in the areas that would join it from its terminus at Highway 48 to its terminus at Highways 35 and 115 southwest of Peterborough.
That planning study and the determination of the route is subject to the full requirements in the Environmental Assessment Act that distinguish it somewhat from the section of Highway 407 across the top of Metro in so far as that section of 407 is exempt due to its inclusion in the planning studies related to the parkway belt plans of the mid-1970s.
The expected completion of the studies on Highway 407 for that entire section are nearing closure. We have identified a preferred technical route for 407 throughout that distance and are currently going through a process of discussing with respondents to that preferred route about issues and concerns that they have with that preferred route.
I might also say that in addition to the east-west portion of Highway 407, we are also undertaking planning studies, which have a material impact on final selection of preferred routes and their approvals, to link Highway 407 with Highway 401. There are two such north-south corridor planning studies in progress as well.
You must appreciate that at this stage, these are estimates based on our best knowledge of what we anticipate will unfold. The expectation is that the likely beginning of construction, under the current approaches used by this ministry, would see that work start after the completion of the section out to Highway 48. As I mentioned earlier, that would be some time in the year 2003 or 2005. That would be an optimistic start date. We anticipate the completion of that entire route out to Peterborough would be a matter of several years, perhaps as long as 20 years for completion of that entire facility.
To perhaps put that in context, it's noteworthy to understand that the current section across the top of Metropolitan Toronto was in fact designated as a provincial highway in 1958 and was just begun to be constructed in 1987 or 1988.
The Acting Chair: We have gone over the time, if you could just wrap up shortly.
Mr Vervoot: Okay. I just want to make one final comment with respect to the interest the ministry has in seeing if there are ways and means by which capital investments, particularly on important corridors like Highway 407, can be enhanced. We are looking to alternative ways we can do financing. Some of them were discussed earlier this morning. Reference was made to the capital corporation and reference was also made to tolls. We are looking at a range of mechanisms that can be used to accelerate both the timing of the completion of that corridor and ways of reducing its overall cost to government.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. I might just add at this time that we had been going on a 10-minute basis because of the lunch-hour break. It could be up to the committee to decide whether you would like to expand it at any point to 20 minutes or whether you would like to continue with 10 minutes. I'm open. Mr Sorbara, any thoughts?
Mr Sorbara: I would prefer 20-minute segments now for the balance of the afternoon. That would give us a couple of rounds.
The Acting Chair: It would get you a little bit better. Okay, and it's the Liberals' turn. Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: John, did you have something?
Mr Cleary: Yes, I have a few.
Mr White: I'd like to thank the minister and the deputy ministers.
Mr Cleary: The minister will recall that in the fall of 1990, after they were elected, my colleagues from the Ottawa area raised concerns about the delay in the construction of Highway 416. The minister then said that the delays were caused by unstable soils. I would just like the minister to comment on what problems there are now.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Highway 416. Carl or Jim?
Mr Sorbara: Ottawa. That's close to Quebec.
1420
Mr Cleary: Yes, that's pretty close.
Mr Sorbara: You're familiar with that area, are you not?
The Acting Chair: If you could, just a quick identification for Hansard.
Mr Vervoort: Perhaps I can begin, introduce the topic, and turn it over to my colleague Jim Heffernan, who is the regional director of eastern region responsible for that particular part of the province to which your question refers.
You're quite right. Highway 416 is in part of the Ottawa Valley area that traverses geological formations known as leda clays. They are particularly sensitive soils which have a stability difficulty associated with water content and vibration. Hence, their ability to withstand loading is diminished. The actual physical weight of roadbeds, and structures on them, does have an impact on the design features of the road. We have experienced difficulties which have caused some delays. In addition, there have been some issues related to the construction at the north end in Ottawa related to a structure, where some difficulties were experienced. However, both have been dealt with expeditiously. I will leave it to Mr Heffernan to comment further.
For a point of clarification, I'm not sure if your interest is primarily in the northern section of 416, the southern section of 416 or its entire length.
Mr Cleary: The entire length, sir.
Mr Vervoort: Okay, Jim.
Mr Jim Heffernan: Jim Heffernan, regional director, eastern region. We'll cover the section at the north first. The section that was delayed because of engineering problems was due to leda clay. It's the most sensitive clay we've ever run across in the province. As a result, we did very extreme testing with the best experts in the field from across North America. Those tests have now been completed and an acceptable design to go through that section has been established.
I think it was in July that we were out to public meetings through the area affected by these clays, because there was the potential for impact upon adjacent housing, which concerned those residents very much. We have assured them that if there is any damage caused in settlements due to our construction through there -- and we're predicting perhaps one inch of settlement over time with the treatment that we've designed -- the ministry will certainly take care of any damage that is caused.
We are now at the process of completing the contracts for that section as far as design goes and they should be ready within another year. At the north end, there are presently two contracts under way, Mr Cleary. There is a third one that will be ready this fall or this winter. The design for the southern section is well under way on the total section from the Rideau Canal down to the 401. Most of that design should be complete this winter or early next year. So the designs for all of that section will be ready.
As far as engineering goes, I don't see that there are any more problems we will have to deal with other than the ones that normally occur when we start construction.
Mr Cleary: As a supplementary, what is the completion date on that project?
Mr Heffernan: I'm sorry, sir, I don't have the completion date on the project. We're ramrodding the engineering and getting the contracts ready and we're carrying the construction through. I'll have to pass that one on to someone else.
Mr Vervoort: Perhaps I can supplement and pick up with respect to your question of the completion dates. Recognizing the difficulties Mr Heffernan has referred to, there is a commitment to complete that section of Highway 416. My information is that there is a commitment to complete that by the end of this decade, again, subject to resolution of the difficulties encountered during the detailed design and construction processes.
Mr Cleary: While I have you gentlemen here, it's eastern Ontario again and it's the extension of Highway 138 at the Eamers Corners-St Andrews area. The MTO had the right of way to bypass those two villages back till the early 1970s, I guess. The problem is that this year -- there's been a problem every year -- the maintenance on the weeds is not very good, and our residential areas -- the weed inspectors have been given orders to cut different lots along the proposed 138, and yet there's no maintenance done on 138. I do get the weed inspectors into my office complaining, so I thought that, since I was going to be in this committee today, it would be a good chance to raise that issue.
Mr Vervoort: Again, perhaps I can begin and ask Mr Heffernan to supplement. In general, the ministry is under financial pressure, as you perhaps might appreciate, in many of the operational delivery areas. It has been our intent to review the allocation of our resources, and the principle that we put forth in terms of our priorities for the highway maintenance activity is to begin to work on those areas that are most directly impacting the safety of the travelling public. So, of course, our first priority is on the pavement and on the immediately adjacent shoulder to ensure that there's a smooth surface available for the travelling public.
Beyond that, our priorities are to treat the ditching areas to ensure adequate drainage for the protection of the structural integrity of the roadbed, and beyond that, to deal with vegetation and litter and fence and landscaping components of our highway rights of way.
During the course of the last several years we have had to revise the frequency with which we have been doing some of the landscape treatments, and that includes mowing and pesticide controls. However, it is not something that we are ignoring or abandoning; it is simply something where we are in a process of trying to adjust our priorities. In the short term, I can appreciate that there will be some areas that may not receive the same level of attention afforded in previous years.
It is our intent to continue to pursue our priorities and our ways and means of supporting the delivery of proper levels of maintenance in all those areas, and we are pursuing ways and means so we can modify some of our rights of way so that it is less maintenance-intensive, and that does include the matter of vegetation control.
So that is, perhaps, a general response and acknowledgement with regard to your question. We do believe we will be able to make some progress in reducing and modifying the nature of the vegetation so that it is less demanding in terms of maintenance attention.
Perhaps I'll ask Mr Heffernan to respond more specifically to the highway you made reference to and what may have been occurring there.
Mr Heffernan: The specifics, Mr Cleary: We had a meeting earlier this year, when we recognized we could not carry on operations to the extent that we had in the past. We set some general guidelines for our district offices to follow with respect to mowing. The first priority was for visibility and safety, and the second priority was to respond to any complaints about noxious weeds from weed inspectors. If we had any money left for aesthetic mowing, I wanted it back to do safety work somewhere else on the highways.
I think, from the complaints I've gotten this year, that we've probably toed the line fairly well on that. I realize there have been a number out of your area, but the districts are supposed to be responding to those where the weed inspectors bring them to their attention. We're certainly concentrating, we hope, on keeping visibility at intersections and so on, such that people are driving safely. That's the process we intend to continue to follow.
1430
Mr Cleary: Are there any future plans for that 138 bypass there?
Mr Heffernan: It comes up every few years, but it's not a high priority at the moment and it's not on our program at the moment.
Mr Cleary: As I have you from eastern Ontario there, I want to talk about a sign that was proposed on Highway 401 by the municipality of Cornwall. They wanted to put up a sign similar to what they have in Kingston and they wanted to put on it "The Greater Cornwall Area," which would have been about 100,000 residents, and the design came back from MTO with a price tag of some $68,000 on it. That was too rich for their blood so they put it on hold, but they've asked me to pursue it.
Mr Heffernan: I'm not aware of that one specifically, Mr Cleary. That type of operation would probably go into our policy area, since that would be a policy matter to establish that type of sign. The price tag is rather substantial, I would say.
Mr Cleary: When you look at the one that they have to the west there, the greater Kingston area, and then look at a price tag of $68,000 for what they wanted to do, I thought it was kind of ridiculous myself.
Mr Vervoort: Did that include vegetation, plantings, retaining walls, or was it a simple sign without any aesthetic plantings associated with it?
Mr Cleary: I don't know all the details on it. I just know that they were looking for similar signs.
Mr Vervoort: We'll undertake to take a review of the nature of the proposed sign and its cost and confirm that with you.
Mr Cleary: They had talked about it for a number of years and they finally got around to doing it and then they got the price tag and it's off again. They find with the layout of the municipality that a lot of the residents are slipping right through coming from Quebec and even the States and bypassing the area.
Mr Vervoort: At issue might also be the number of such locations, whether it was both eastbound or westbound, whether it was on any of the roads intersecting with Highway 401, so I'm not sure of the details and extent or nature of the signs that would attract that type of price tag, but I agree with my colleague, it does appear to be a high cost for a single location, so we'll investigate.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Wasn't that sign in the heat of -- if not of debate, people acting spontaneously, let's say? It was promised by someone during a visit in the course of a campaign; is that possible? Is that the sign, the one that's been revived now and then, the encore sign? It goes to sleep and then at the "opportune" time it gets revived, it gets flogged again?
Mr Cleary: Not to my knowledge, Minister.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Those things are sort of -- well, not to deter because they are parochial indeed, but it seems to me like opportunism has crept in into the Kingston sign. It's known in some circles -- yes, I know now. It's known in some circles as the Kingston sign. At the appropriate time, some figures, some political figures actually, will promise, make a commitment regarding that sign.
Mr Sorbara: Like train service to Peterborough.
The Chair: You'll have to use your memory because your crib notes aren't rather extensive here. If we could proceed, please.
Mr Cleary: Okay. As you know, a committee was set up in this province and of course it had visited our office, with a program in mind, adopt-a-highway or a section of a highway. It worked very hard on this, the committee, and it had gone to private enterprise, industry, commercial, to get a commitment from them to maintain a section of a highway and they seemed to run into a lot of trouble; at least they told me that MTO wasn't very cooperative. When I look at the weeds on our highway, this year in particular, I feel that this program might have worked very well. I know it would have in our area and I'd just like your comments on that.
Mr Vervoort: In fact, we are experimenting with that concept, adopt-a-highway, and indeed have several locations in northwestern Ontario, on Highways 17 and 11, where that particular concept is in full force. The intent of the ministry is to look at the results of that pilot towards the end of the summer, being the natural time period in which the interest groups that are active in doing that will be completing this season's worth of work. The work principally relates to litter pickup, and the interest shown by those groups has been sustained to date. It's our intent to review the results of the effectiveness of that particular program and to be making suggestions and recommendations for its potential application across the province.
In the interim, we have resisted expanding the areas in which that is being implemented until we do come to grips with some of the problems. I might point out that the principal issue that does give us some pause for thought has to do with the liability and safety issue of individuals working adjacent to a high-speed facility. As you can appreciate, as the owners of that facility we have an obligation to ensure that the ways and means whereby private citizens are actively on that right of way is done in a safe manner. That is our principal motivation for being sure that the pilots have demonstrated the viability of that particular practice.
We are cognizant of its widespread use in several states in the United States and we are cognizant of the high interest and apparently the sustained interest, because one of the thoughts was that people would quickly lose interest, but that appears not to be the case. We would await the results of our pilot and, as I mentioned, that will be concluded this summer.
Mr Cleary: You say that in the north it's litter pickup.
Mr Vervoort: Yes.
Mr Cleary: Do you plan on expanding that to grass maintenance too?
Mr Vervoort: Perhaps I can ask my counterpart, Mr Larry Lambert, who is the regional director for the northwest region, responsible for that particular area and who is helping administer and guide those particular pilots.
Mr Larry Lambert: In the case of the northwestern region, our program is exclusively related to litter pickup at this point. We have not done any landscaping or anything of that ilk. I must acknowledge that our limited pilot has gotten slightly out of control. We now have in excess of two dozen community groups which are active in the adopt-a-highway program. Each of those groups has a two-year contract with us for a four-kilometre section of the Trans-Canada; in all cases it's the Trans-Canada. They organize themselves under our supervision and our safety training, our provision of safety equipment, and they are picking up litter three times a year, as a minimum, along the Trans-Canada. It's a very active program in that portion, but it is restricted to litter pickup.
Mr Cleary: The other thing I have to say is that, travelling the 401 in particular, when I see the way the purple loosestrife is seeding itself and the amount of it along our provincial highways and the damage that's going to do to private property later on, it really concerns me. If there is any way to get private enterprise -- if the government can't afford to control it, at least private enterprise would, because it's going to be the losers in the long run.
Mr Vervoort: Acknowledged. To further supplement the response, regarding the opportunity to have others provide some services on the highway, I believe the adopt-a-highway concept is the largest by far, but other interest groups do approach us periodically to participate with us in activities on our rights of way. As you can appreciate, there's some motivation to having access to a large volume of citizens travelling by a particular point on a regular basis. We have been approached by others to have them provide services for us in return for permission to do such things as advertising on our rights of way.
1440
I would suggest that while we are not active on all fronts, we believe there is some interest on the part of the business community to develop some partnerships. As I mentioned at the beginning, it is the pursuit of those opportunities that we feel obliged to undertake, given the pressures faced by the operating components in our maintenance activities, so we will be pursuing that. The full width and breadth of those opportunities remain to be seen. Ways and means to include mowing and pesticide control etc have not yet specifically come to my attention, but that's not to say that those opportunities may not arise in the future.
Hon Mr Pouliot: As you can see, nothing is simple. That recommends certain expertise. It's a concern that is seized upon by many people, who are noticing and reporting to the ministry, not some new findings, but the importance of addressing these subjects.
The Chair: Mr Cleary, one brief final question, and then I'd like to move to Mr Turnbull.
Mr Cleary: How are we going to know the results of the northern Ontario program and whether other programs will be available in other parts of Ontario?
Mr Vervoort: Our normal practice would be to document the findings of the report. Those are typically public. If you express interest in receiving copies of those reports, the conclusions, we'll make a note of that and ensure that you receive copies at the appropriate time, when they become available.
Mr Turnbull: I would like to ask some questions about Highway 407, so I suspect that the gentlemen who were here would like to move back.
The Chair: While you're returning, and I apologize for my absence --
Mr Sorbara: We didn't miss you.
The Chair: I know you didn't miss me, Mr Sorbara. Actually, I didn't miss you that much either. However, I'm glad to be back. What I was going to suggest is that there are certain people who are here today and may not be here tomorrow, and should we wish to --
Mr Sorbara: Is there a cabinet shuffle? Is that what you're saying?
The Chair: No. The minister is most anxious to complete his estimates. But Mr Parsons is here from GO Transit and should members not wish to ask any questions of GO Transit, it would be helpful to Mr Parsons's busy schedule and to the Chair if you could advise us. Second, if you did want questions, we could perhaps arrange for them to be covered today, without complicating his very busy schedule. He is here today and it would be helpful if members of the committee wanted to ask him any questions --
Mr Turnbull: The minister isn't here tomorrow?
The Chair: No. Mr Parsons, the chair of GO Transit, has made himself available to the committee members. I just wanted to put that on the record, and you can advise the Chair accordingly. Please, Mr Turnbull, proceed.
Mr Turnbull: I want to ask you about the design and other criteria considerations for the 407, specifically for the section which I guess you would define as being between Highway 48 and Highway 35-115, specifically in the area of Newcastle. As you will know, there's been quite a strong reaction to what you refer to as "the preferred route." Perhaps you could outline for me your criteria in arriving at the preferred route.
Mr Vervoort: I will begin by describing the general process, and Mr Hanton, the regional director from central region, will provide the specifics with respect to that particular location.
In conducting a route planning study for a transportation facility, in this case a highway, our initial process involves our documenting all the existing conditions from the point of view of information, such as land use, location of employment, location of residences, the zoning of the land, the extent and nature of existing infrastructure, be it highway, public transportation, rail; in broadly stated terms, the demographics, both present and future, for that particular part of the geography. We rely significantly on official plans of the particular area we are looking at. We work with our own sister ministries to develop confidence in future projections for population and employment. Typically, these projections are in the order of magnitude of 25 and sometimes 50 years into the future to give us a sense of what might be expected over those time frames. We collect demographic type of information.
In addition, we collect information about the natural environment, in terms of planned use, topology, rivers and streams, as much information as is available concerning archaeological locations, sites of archaeological significance, historical sites, institutions, schools and the like. We compile a fairly comprehensive understanding of what the natural environment is like.
In addition, we solicit from members of the general public their observations and comments concerning any special considerations that are relevant and may affect the choosing of a route for a highway. The process calls for the identification of all the various parameters and the various categories. We document them to the extent we can. We go to the public and prepare exhibits which demonstrate the placing, the location of all of those natural and man-made features. As I said, we receive comments and opinions about how both the transportation professionals and the communities view the future preferred transportation networks being developed.
We generate a number of alternatives that would meet the transportation needs and minimize the adverse impact on all the factors I've described. We go through a process of discussing that in a public forum to rate and rank those. The net result of those deliberations and discussions is a conclusion by the project team -- and I recognize it as that; a multidiscipline team -- of what it thinks, all things considered, constitutes the route which provides the optimum transportation benefit and minimizes the adverse impact. That becomes known as the technically preferred route.
That's the process. Mr Hanton can perhaps amplify, if you wish, details with respect to the Newcastle or --
Mr Turnbull: I suppose you are aware of the particular complaints that exist. I suspect that no matter what route you choose there would be a group of people who would complain; that's the nature of your job. But the concern which has been expressed is that the route you have chosen as the technically preferred route will have the most disruptive effect on the communities there and will in fact bisect them. I wonder if you could speak specifically to that.
1450
Mr Ray Hanton: My name is Ray Hanton. I'm the regional director for central region.
The preferred technical route that Mr Vervoort was referring to has been reviewed with the various municipalities, public, special agencies; we've been working on it now for over two years. We have almost complete approval for that route with the exception of one municipality, and that's the town of Newcastle. We are discussing some slight modifications with the city of Oshawa, but it has agreed in principle to the route. So we have one municipality that is opposed not just to the route; the town is taking an official position that it's opposed to Highway 407, so it's not a matter of which route is selected. They have not taken any position with regard to an alternate route.
What we are planning to do is consolidate all the information we have collected from all those agencies and municipalities, and as Mr Vervoort indicated earlier, we are required, on this section of Highway 407, to proceed with a full environmental assessment. The ministry will have to decide whether it wishes to proceed or not on the basis of the town of Newcastle's position, and then if we decide to proceed it will go through full environmental assessment.
Mr Turnbull: Okay. Can we turn to the financing of the 407, which is much more of a political question, Minister? I know you have floated out the possibility of a toll road. I wonder if you could just discuss how far along with those considerations you have come.
Hon Mr Pouliot: I'd like to call on Mr Johnston or Carl to give us this, but there have been some extensive comparison studies with other jurisdictions on the possibility of a toll road -- the way it works, the percentage of the take -- vis-à-vis a highway, the ability to accelerate a project, the way it does affect your tendering, ie, the system itself as opposed to different components of the highway. You're talking about engineering design and the construction itself, but to shed more expertise on this subject --
Mr Vervoort: Perhaps I'll begin and comment specifically on Highway 407 and tolls. My colleague, Mr Johnston, can comment on the matter of financing and the capital corporation and related matters.
What specifically we have done with respect to Highway 407 is that we have initiated -- and it has just commenced as of about four weeks ago -- a study to review the specific application of the potential and the mechanisms that would be used to implement tolls on Highway 407.
As the minister made reference to, we have examined the nature of the operation of toll facilities in other jurisdictions, and it has been our conclusion to date that it is technically possible to have such a facility operational in the Highway 407 corridor. The extent to which there would be operational changes required in its design, by which I mean such factors as spacing of interchanges, the nature of the toll-collecting facility -- incidentally, in that regard we have come to the conclusion that toll collection will involve a high degree of automation. We do not see the traditional concept of stopping and throwing a few quarters into a basket and carrying on. We see an electronic collection --
Mr Turnbull: It's an electronic ID.
Mr Vervoort: -- a full-operating-speed type of tolling mechanism as being the only viable concept with respect to Highway 407. Our investigations have given us the confidence that the technology exists, by and large, to be able to do that.
Mr Turnbull: And is in operation in other jurisdictions?
Mr Vervoort: Yes. The technologies are proven and are in place on toll facilities.
Mr Turnbull: Does one obtain some sort of transponder that you fit to your car if you wish to use these roads?
Mr Vervoort: There are two basic concepts. The first concept is the one you describe, where I attach to my vehicle some type of transponder that emits a signal which is uniquely associated with the vehicle, which is identifiable and allows the receiver to identify that Mr Turnbull has passed this particular location on this day and at this time. That information would be accumulated. At the end of a prescribed period of time you could be sent a bill soliciting the payment of a toll.
As you can appreciate, there are some concerns related to that particular concept in so far as it would be known that Mr Turnbull was in a certain spot on a certain date. So there are matters of privacy related to that type of operation.
The alternate mechanism is one analogous to other systems which are in place, in different ways. I think of it in terms of a card; again, some type of device which would be affixed to the vehicle for which one would be able to buy, for argument's sake, $100 worth of toll value, and every time one passed a particular location, it would automatically click down, take from that value the appropriate toll. You could go to different places to buy more credit on that particular card.
Those are the two key concepts.
Mr Turnbull: I don't want to dwell on the technical aspect too long, because I think we understand it can be done. Does this seem like the most logical way of financing this highway, Minister?
Hon Mr Pouliot: Well, it's another way. It's never been anticipated that it would cover the major portion of the cost. It has some public support. That public support hinges on, preferably, alternatives to the superstructure, and it's exactly that which is talked about. But it's viewed as a possibility to accelerate what is much-needed work, to make it happen faster. Under the present system, it is not impossible -- we established this morning that the province is spending the same money -- but it would certainly be a much-needed boost, given the generator of transportation, to having more work done. So we're trying to be innovative. We're leaving no options closed, examining each and every option.
Mr Turnbull: How much could we speed up the development of this road if we went to this system?
Mr Vervoort: We estimate that, of course, the benefits in terms of acceleration accrue to those parts of the highway which are furthest away from us in time; again, with the caveat that we have yet to determine a lot of detail about the true operational nature of the facility itself. I refer specifically to things like entrance and exit ramps. What do you do with individuals coming from out of the province, tourists and the like, who may not have that particular type of technology? So there are a lot of specific issues that remain to be addressed, as well as some engineering details. Does this add, for example, to the width of road necessary and therefore impact required properties which have already been acquired, by and large, in many locations? So there will be some technical issues that will result.
With those caveats, on the potential to accelerate the completion out to Highway 48, we believe an aggressive schedule would knock 10 years off that, and furthermore -- again with the caveat that if other financial resources do not present a constraint -- that completion to Highways 35 and 115 could be advanced by as much as 20 to 35 years.
Mr Turnbull: So what total time are we talking about? If we went this route, what total time would it be before we could have the whole of the road out to Highways 35 and 115?
Mr Vervoort: We believe it would be around the year 2010, as opposed to the year 2050.
Mr Turnbull: The year 2010, as opposed to what?
Mr Vervoort: The year 2050.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Five zero; an advance of 40.
Mr Vervoort: That's correct. I appreciate that these are very broad estimates based on some assumptions which remain to be validated.
1500
Mr Turnbull: Yes. Has there been some consideration of going with the US model of saying to a contractor, "We will let you build the whole of the road and operate it for 35 years, and then you will turn it over to the province"?
Mr Johnston: All of the options have to be explored, realizing what you could receive from different sources of revenue, like from tolls towards the total cost, what business case could be put forth, what the annualized costs to government and so on are over the life cycle of that project. But build-to-operate transfer, which you're talking about, or build transfer or different arrangements all have to be examined on a project-specific basis.
Mr Turnbull: I know my colleague has a supplementary on this.
Mrs Marland: Having just returned from travelling in France and Spain to the Olympics, we were very impressed with the toll highway system there because we hadn't previously experienced it and were very interested to know that it's all privately owned and operated. I have to admit in some instances it's very expensive, and I wasn't terribly thrilled about the permitted speeds.
The New York State Thruway isn't privately owned now, is it? It was at one time? Isn't it the only toll highway system in the world that really makes a profit? I remember a year ago hearing somebody being interviewed, and thinking that government can't afford, at today's prices of construction, to keep up with the demand for either the maintenance or new highway systems, not only in our province but anywhere else. I thought, "Why are we not looking positively at the alternative of privately owned and operated and constructed highways?" Minister, is this something that you have talked about policywise beyond your own ministry? Have you discussed it with the cabinet as a possibility that would help resolve your highway problems?
Hon Mr Pouliot: Certainly, we're collectively asked to take the lead. We found in short order that the people will subscribe to a user-pay policy if it's related to a specific subject. We have the advantage, and New York was in a similar situation at one time, where it could finance the project when interest rates were quite low. The thing is it became in perpetuity, and it is very difficult to reconcile whether it's still specific; that highway must be paid for so many times, some will say. We haven't looked at that, but we have to say, "Look, there's an alternative here if you don't like it or if you cannot afford it."
"Equity" is a big word here. You have to make sure that it's still accessible to motorists, and yet having done this, when you have this in mind, then you get into a bind. It's not anticipated that it would raise enough capital, but it would give you the opportunity to tender a whole system as opposed to going at it piecemeal. The larger the project is, the better off you usually are. You will enact some savings because of economy of scale and ability to do the whole project at once. We feel it would be cheaper, give more value for money and it would be done quicker because you would also have that flexibility. But there has to be a profit for people. The bottom line is that people have to make a buck at it. I'm sure that Mr Turnbull, the critic of your party, does not see profit as a dirty word. It's a normal reaction.
Mr Turnbull: At least I've been able to communicate one thing to you, Minister.
Hon Mr Pouliot: We're looking at that; we're also looking at private financing. But you're right, there is a thrust of saying: "Look, what can we do to recognize the need during these difficult times? And don't let any factors deter you. It could be the GST, it could be the free trade agreement. Be progressive, go to the marketplace and the element of competition will help you." We're looking at all venues and hopefully we'll be able to come up with something in relatively short order.
Mrs Marland: But isn't it in --
The Chair: Mrs Marland, if I might, while the two gentlemen are still in front of us, Mr Turnbull had one quick question. He has about a minute left.
Mr Turnbull: If you don't mind, I would prefer to add that time to our next round.
Mrs Marland: Could I just finish what I was asking the minister?
The Chair: Yes.
Mrs Marland: Looking at a country like France, which is not a wealthy country, isn't it interesting that it has an auto route system that is privately owned and operated and has been developed and growing in stages, where the public has a choice of paying those tolls to a private-sector corporation or going on the other roads? Do you think the people in Ontario would be interested or would accept that kind of alternative?
Hon Mr Pouliot: I share the views totally that the time has arrived. The former system does not address the needs as fully as it should. There's nothing wrong with having the private sector get involved at the infrastructure level. We've reached a time when perhaps we can no longer afford that. We have to look at a new round of partnership and be innovative. It's done elsewhere and it works.
We have one tenth the population, taxpayers, of our brothers and sisters to the south to address infrastructures needed on a piece of land which is the size of a continent, vast and magnificent as it as, a population that is so sparsely populated, and we have only one economy, that of export, which makes us vulnerable because we don't have a massive internal economy. All those come into play. They are factors indeed.
Being an advocate of the free enterprise system, if the collective people can come up with a better mousetrap, I think we have an obligation to look at it. It's not detracting from the social conscience for which this administration is renowned, but by no means claims to have a monopoly on, but it's doing business the way business must be conducted. It hasn't been tried before, but rather than mortgaging the future of generations to come, I think we have a responsibility to look at that and make it a win-win situation.
Mr Sorbara: A free-enterprise economy.
The Chair: It's scary, isn't it, Mr Sorbara?
Mr Sorbara: Are we still in estimates for Transportation? Did I miss something along the way?
The Chair: I think it's a pre-election speech, but we're working on it. It sounds pretty good.
Mr Sorbara: It won't come any too soon, let me tell you.
Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Thank you, Mr Minister. I'm very happy to have the chance to ask a couple of questions. My first is about the Highway 401 corridor between London and Woodstock. As you know, the Ministry of Transportation has undertaken to build a median barrier because we've had, over the last few years, too many fatal accidents in that area. I've had some correspondence from Mr Paul Gunning of Roadmark Engineering in London. Mr Gunning has indicated that Roadmark markets what he calls the snow-plowable raised pavement marker -- I think some people call them cats' eyes -- and has suggested that the installation of these markers along the Highway 401 corridor from London to Woodstock would be cost-effective and would also enhance the safety in this section of road. He stated that this product is approved and included in the MTO designated sources manual and it would provide a positive guidance system for drivers in adverse weather conditions like fog, snow and rain.
Has the ministry considered whether it might use this guidance system, these markers, along this stretch of highway? Is that a possibility?
Hon Mr Pouliot: I'm often asked the question. It's done in other jurisdictions and it seems to work. Would the climatic conditions, although not as severe in your special part of Ontario as in --
Mr Sorbara: Manitouwadge.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Northern parts such as, as Mr Sorbara so rightly pointed out, the cave of the great spirit, the Ojibway legend, Manitouwadge. Is it possible that we have plans? What are we doing -- such a commonsense question -- for the safety of motorists in the province?
Mr Vervoort: Minister, you did touch on the specific reason why thus far it has not been adopted as a standard traffic-management feature for provincial highways in Ontario. We do have different devices that we use to assist the motorist in determining the delineation of the edges of the lane in which the vehicle is travelling, as well as delineation markers that indicate where the geometric curvatures of the road are going. For example, in the area you referred to, we would be placing and do place such delineators on top of the concrete barrier. You will notice that there is periodically a square -- I believe it's yellow reflective material -- on top of those barriers.
The pavement markings themselves are incorporated glass beads for the specific purpose of providing reflectivity from headlights so the driver can identify more visibly at night-time those pavement markings.
1510
We have found that those have been effective. We have investigated, in the past, the particular types of markers you're referring to. Typically, they are markers which are embedded in the road, that is, they are sunken so as not to be taken off by snowplows during plowing operations.
The difficulty in our Canadian climate is that the freeze and thaw, the penetration of those depressions by water, inevitably leads to deterioration of the bonding agents used to help adhere the reflectors in the roadbed. Beyond that, there is deterioration that does occur with respect to the pavement itself. So the conclusion of the ministry thus far is that they're not particularly appropriate, given our climatic conditions.
We are confident that our existing means of delineating the edges of pavements and the general character of the highway meet the safety requirements of the travelling public. We are, however, always attentive to such proposals and are constantly reviewing them to see if improvements in their design or implementation provide for an application. It is possible that there may be specific locations at which such devices would be beneficial and they would be used with that in mind, but as a general practice, it is not the current policy of the ministry to adopt those throughout our highway systems.
Mrs Mathyssen: My second question has to do with safety too. This came from a constituent of mine some months ago. His concern was safety and the fact that some of us are driving vintage automobiles which may not have been inspected or maintained as they should have been, and managed somehow to elude the general safety inspections that I know your ministry conducts from time to time, and quite effectively.
Specifically, this constituent wanted to know if somehow or other there could be a mandatory inspection of vehicles, once they've reached a certain age, connected to insurance; if somehow it was a requirement by insurers or perhaps even in the renewal of a licence that there be a proven inspection so we know that safe vehicles are indeed on the roads. Perhaps insurance companies, because they would be the beneficiaries, might wish to sponsor that kind of inspection. I wondered if that had been considered or if it was a possibility in terms of the kind of safety you would like to see on Ontario's highways.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Irene, what a valid question. I don't know. You've got me. Alec, maybe you can help me with this. The next time I'll certainly be better informed. What about relics or older, vintage cars?
Mr Alex Kelly: I'm Alec Kelly, the assistant deputy minister of safety and regulations for the ministry.
When we look at information regarding accidents with automobiles on the highway system, about 85% of the accidents, as best as we can tell, are caused by driver error and vehicle defects. We're talking about 3% to 5% of the accidents caused by poor brakes or something of that nature.
Our present policy is that when a person transfers ownership of an automobile from himself to someone else, he must have a safety certificate, which means he has to have it taken to a garage and the brakes checked and the front end and so on, and have any repairs necessary to transfer the vehicle. Our policy at present is that for a transfer of vehicle, a private automobile, there has to be a safety certificate.
We have scanned the possibilities of doing it yearly. Because of the nature of the statistics, we think it's a very large cost to the public, the need for quite an infrastructure of mechanics and garages to deal with that matter. Rather than the private automobile, we're concentrating on the larger vehicles on the highway system: trucks. We have a yearly program of mandatory vehicle inspection of trucks and trailers on the highway system. We believe, from the priority point of view, that this is the best place for us to address our efforts.
Mrs Mathyssen: Despite the fact that we all find that the aging process affects the brakes, I understand the cost involved.
Mr Jamison: It's a pleasure to have you here today, Mr Minister. My question deals with the subject of underserviced areas in the province, with relation really to the problem of urban congestion and the upkeep of roads in the major urban centres. I understand that the cost of that is horrendous, and it's really the continuing congestion of business and people in specific areas of the province. There are, as I say, some underserviced areas of the province, even in southern Ontario. I'd like to draw your attention, for example, to the area I come from, Haldimand-Norfolk, and Highway 6 south to Port Dover.
I'm aware that since 1978 there has been a plan or proposal in place, and I've been in contact with your office a number of times to inquire about the progress of the two-phased extension from the 403 to the Nanticoke industrial core, which houses Stelco, Esso and Ontario Hydro. By bringing this question forward, I'm saying that while these areas may be somewhat underserviced, they are underutilized at the same time. With regard to the ability to attract new businesses to those areas with land prices that are much less than the major urban areas, a plan of that sort, but in particular this Highway 6 extension from the 403, would be helpful. How is that project coming along?
Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank you. Mr Jamison not only has been diligent but has brought a focused determination to Highway 6. I don't recall too many days that go by where you don't have the request for an update, and I learned some time back that you don't stand between a person and his mission. So for yet another update on the subject that has been raised by Mr Jamison, I would like to ask someone from our ministry to update where we're at. Did we progress since the question was last raised, I believe last week?
1520
Mr Hanton: Ray Hanton, central region. The route location studies for Highway 6 from Highway 403 down towards the Caledonia bypass were completed and the project was submitted to the Ministry of the Environment some time ago. The Ministry of the Environment completed its review of the documents that were submitted. They were happy with the manner in which those documents were presented; however, as part of the process they were required to undertake a public consultation. During that public consultation there were six formal -- I won't call them complaints but they were registered concerns against the ministry's proposal.
We have been working with the Ministry of the Environment as recently as the last 12 months to resolve those concerns. We have resolved most of them, we believe. However, there was one significant one which we have not been able to resolve completely. At this time we are waiting for a direction from the Ministry of the Environment on whether we will be able to proceed or whether we may be involved with a full public hearing.
Once we receive the approval of the Ministry of the Environment, it could include some direction to do things a little differently than we have proposed, but we are prepared to program the construction of Highway 6 as soon as we have that direction from the Ministry of the Environment. At present, we're standing by, waiting for that decision.
Mr Jamison: I have a second question, now that I understand where that project is at this point. My second question really deals again with the maintenance. I know it's a tremendous ongoing cost to surface and resurface and repair the road system and the road infrastructure in the province.
A few years back, just to give you some background, with the advent of the Hagersville tire fire, there was some talk at that point about the use of rubber in asphalt. I understand there were some studies initiated on the basis that the use of rubber particles in the asphalt would increase the durability of the present road system and had some safety factor involved in stopping distances compared to regular asphalt.
I'm wondering if there has been any conclusion at this point. I know that initially the rubberized asphalt was supposed to be a little more expensive to apply, but the durability factor and the safety factor, when considered, would have made some significant cost savings in the long run, both to the general public and to the maintenance factor itself. I wonder how far that study has gone along, because of course we're talking about the environmental use of used tires at the same time.
Hon Mr Pouliot: The fascinating world of rubber and asphalt can best be dealt with with the expertise of Ms Kelch.
Ms Kelch: Yes, Mr Jamison, we're quite interested in the use of recycled tires in asphalt. We do have a major test location in southwestern Ontario, near Thamesville, where we did lay rubberized asphalt last year. We had some difficulties with the original mix, because the asphalt actually threw out the rubber pieces because the rubber was too large. We then tried what they call a rubber crumb, which was of a lower density, and it seems to be working better.
The one thing we don't know yet, though, is whether it can be recycled. That's one of the major tests being done this summer, because of course that's a major piece of our program in the province, to have asphalts and pavements that are recyclable. We are waiting for the results of that particular test.
We're also waiting for the environmental review. We have had ministry as well as consultant staff working on that project over the last four or five months, as well as when the asphalt was originally laid; in terms of testing the air quality as the asphalt was prepared to be placed and the air quality when the recycling takes place.
We are not yet in a position to answer all of your questions in terms of how well it works over time. Currently we like to have asphalt pavements in this province last 18 to 20 years; that's our benchmark in terms of the guideline we're using. We obviously don't want to wait 18 to 20 years to find out whether rubberized asphalt is a good idea, but we do want to have another year or so of driving experience with that pavement with the varying types of volumes that take place in that part of the province to determine whether it's a good idea to use elsewhere.
In addition to that, in terms of waste tire, I would like to add that we have a variety of other alternatives we are looking at in terms of using the waste tires, not the least of which is ensuring that what we're doing is having high value added types of products. One of them, and it has turned out to be one we have a pretty high level of optimism about, is a rubberized collar that goes around sewer covers. We have tested those in various municipalities over the winter and they look good. We're quite optimistic, and the current estimate in terms of the amount of rubber that would be needed is all of the waste tires we could find in the province. If we were going to utilize this kind of construct against all the sewer covers in the province -- and obviously that's a municipal responsibility as much as a provincial one -- it has some real potential in terms of using up the rubber.
We're also trying rubber in noise attenuation, in the noise barriers along the highway system, and it's showing some potential as well. We are also looking at the potential of using waste tire in a landfill, the fill on which the highway bed would actually be placed. There are a variety of jurisdictions in the United States, three states in particular, that have uneven experience with that, so we're monitoring it; we also hope to find a couple of good test locations in the province over the next year or so where we can try it.
Mr Jamison: I have a quick question. Is there an asphalt that can be applied that would lessen the noise? Mrs Marland just indicated to me that there may be some sort of asphalt for that purpose.
Ms Kelch: Yes, there definitely is. In fact, Mrs Marland might have that asphalt in part of her riding; I'm not sure.
Mrs Marland: I'm waiting for it.
Ms Kelch: It's certainly in place on parts of the 401, but it tends to be an asphalt where the water drains through it more quickly. It has some advantages and some disadvantages, but yes, there is definitely a gradation of the types of asphalt that can be used for higher noise or less noise. As I say, we do have it in place on the 401. You might notice it demonstrably as you cross the 401 that certain segments of the road are definitely higher tire noise than others.
1530
Mr Sorbara: I'd like the minister to turn now to page 60 of his estimates book. That is the section of the estimates book described as "Program Delivery Program." I don't know why the word "program" is there twice, but it's not my estimates book. I want to ask him to move down to the third-last line of the chart appearing on that program, the line entitled "Total Capital," and I want him to look at the estimates listed on the right-hand side of the page for 1991-92. Does he see there that the estimates for last year were $2,023,000,000? It's a simple yes or no answer.
I take your silence to mean that you do see that last year's estimates were $2,023,000,000. Now, moving to the extreme left-hand side of the page, the estimates for this current fiscal year are, as I read them, $1,714,000,000 and some-odd thousands. Is that correct?
Hon Mr Pouliot: "Do you see the same figures as I see on page 60 of the estimates, as so ably illustrated?" Yes, of course we do. Now, what's the question?
Mr Sorbara: This is a reduction of $308 million. Is that correct?
Hon Mr Pouliot: It says it's correct. It says $308 million.
Mr Sorbara: So this year's capital expenditures in the program delivery program are indeed, as I said earlier, $308 million less than last year's estimates. Is that correct?
Hon Mr Pouliot: Mr Sorbara, what we have indicated in our presentation this morning is that the Ministry of Transportation, in terms of capital outlay, will be spending pretty well the same dollars as it did the previous year. This was the focus that we wished to convey to members of the committee and the public at large, that yes, in spite of enormous difficulties, a recession which is consequential indeed, massive by any standard, we will be spending in capital the same amount of money as we did last year.
Mr Sorbara: This is the estimates committee and we're just examining your estimates. This morning you accused me of twisting figures when I quoted these figures and tried to establish that your estimates provide for spending that is $308 million less than last year's estimates. It's a pretty simple fact. I just want to make sure I'm reading the same book you're reading, because you said earlier this morning that we were going to be spending about the same amount, but your estimates book doesn't provide that. Are we working from the same figures?
Hon Mr Pouliot: We certainly are. Since we're not children, I did not accuse you of twisting. How could I? I know about your sensibilities and I would not wish to offend them in the least.
But more important indeed is the taxpayers' money. We are spending the same amount of money as last year. I know your time is very valuable, that you don't wish to spend it on reeling off old Hansards or make a world of make-believe tales of Houdini, sometimes you see it, sometimes you don't. This is a public document. It's there for every taxpayer.
Mr Sorbara: That's what I'm going to invite you to do.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, if I might interject at this point --
Mr Sorbara: I think he's just padding the time now with this.
Hon Mr Pouliot: How can you? How can you?
The Chair: The Chair at this point would like to suggest that the process of examining the estimates is a process whereby all members of the committee wish to set before the minister and his staff questions about the numbers that are or are not in the book.
There was a fair question, to which you responded, about those items in the last estimates which were removed from your budget and/or those items that might be placed within the Jobs Ontario program, and the committee can reasonably expect to ask for the list of those projects and the times in which they will be completed. I think if we were to pursue this angle, there'd be less acrimony.
What you're trying to suggest, Minister, is that you will be providing additional capital. What Mr Sorbara is simply asking is, could you share with the committee where in your budget, where in the document it is, and if it is not, could you share with the committee where it is and share with us those figures? We have to approve your estimates within a certain amount of time, and it would be helpful if your staff could provide that for us.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank you. In the spirit of cooperation, and for the sake of time saving, will you take the book of estimates, page 60, in your left hand, Mr Sorbara. Under "(e)" it says "Interim Actuals" and there is one figure, $1,847,000,000.
Mr Sorbara: I see that.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Do you see that figure, sir? This is the figure that --
Mr Sorbara: That's what you actually spent last year, which is about $150 million less than you promised to spend in the estimates. Is that right?
Hon Mr Pouliot: You went from $308 million to what is the latest, and then you went from actual to fiction to a promise, then you'll go to a commitment. We're spending the same money as last year.
Mr Sorbara: How would you like to establish for me how it is that you're spending the same money? I keep hearing you saying, "We're spending the same money." I would argue that you should be spending a hell of a lot more money because the infrastructure in the province is deteriorating, our road system is deteriorating.
We are 10 years behind in the construction of Highway 407; we have a huge bill to pay in subway construction; we need to expand the GO system, and you seem to make a virtue of spending the same amount of money. I can't even figure out where it is you're spending the same amount of money.
If you take the interim actuals, column E, for last year, that is the amount of money that you will have ended up spending at the end of fiscal year 1991-92, $1.85 billion, and even if you take that figure, you've budgeted for this fiscal year about $35 million less than you actually spent last year. So now we're down to $135 million less in spending. Where do you make up that money when you say, "We're spending about the same as last year"?
Hon Mr Pouliot: Look at the estimates of 1992-93. The money was not fully outlaid last year.
Mr Sorbara: I'm looking at that and that says $1.7 billion.
Hon Mr Pouliot: We're spending the money. If you don't wish to believe that we are spending, there's not very much I can do, sir. There isn't much.
Mr Sorbara: With the greatest of respect --
Hon Mr Pouliot: One second, please. Now you've said, "Even if you were to spend the money, it's still not enough." You see you evaluate from the premise that the glass is always half empty and never half full. You do your job to a T. I can't help you there. I can only go to dispensing information so far; if you don't want to believe, there's not much I can do.
The Chair: Minister, at this point, the committee's trying to determine the shape of the glass and not focus on the water that's being passed between you and Mr Sorbara at the moment.
Hon Mr Pouliot: I will ask Mr Mealing to give a line-by-line description of the $2.8-billion budget at Transportation.
The Chair: Thank you. That is what I believe Mr Sorbara tried to focus in on in his request. If it is, would you show us in the document where the $308 million is deficient?
Mr Sorbara: This is my opportunity to ask the questions and try and get the answers to the questions I'm asking.
The Chair: The minister has asked his assistant deputy to bring that to our attention and that would be helpful, please.
Mr Mealing: The amount of money that has been budgeted this year for capital expenditure in the Ministry of Transportation encompasses a number of areas. The discrepancy you're referring to, Mr Sorbara, between the $1.7 million and the $1.84 million in the minister's estimates speech takes into account the money that has been given the ministry in terms of the Jobs Ontario Capital fund.
Mr Sorbara: And how much is that, sir?
Mr Mealing: There's roughly $120 million in the Jobs Ontario Capital fund that we have for Ministry of Transportation provincial highway projects in southern Ontario. There's an additional $21 million and change that's devoted towards northern Ontario.
The Chair: What was that figure again for northern Ontario?
Mr Mealing: I think it's $21.8 million for northern Ontario projects.
Mr Sorbara: In addition then to the $1.7 billion that is budgeted in these estimates, there is $120 million in Jobs Ontario funding that has now been allocated to the Ministry of Transportation?
Mr Mealing: Yes, it has.
Mr Sorbara: Could we have a full list of the projects that will be funded by your ministry in respect of that $120 million?
Hon Mr Pouliot: We could be spending more than last year, for all we know, but slightly --
Mr Sorbara: You cannot spend more than is provided for in your estimates without supplementary estimates.
The Chair: I'd like to get through the original estimates, Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: So would I.
The Chair: Could the Chair get an answer, please? Is the Jobs Ontario data in the estimates book? If not, can you bring forward Mr Sorbara's request?
Mr Mealing: The answer is that it's not in the estimates book, but the answer is, yes, we can document all of the projects that are funded under the Jobs Ontario Capital fund.
1540
Mr Sorbara: Can I go back to last year's estimates and ask you whether last year there were supplementary allocations of the Jobs Ontario type that would create a higher estimates figure?
Mr Mealing: In last year's estimates, the $2.023 billion, $80.4 million for what was called anti-recession projects was incorporated in that figure.
Mr Sorbara: The interim actuals for last year were about 1% -- let's just refer to it in the hundreds of millions -- $200 million less than the actual budget figure. Is that right?
Mr Mealing: About $150 million less than the actual interim figure, $170, I guess.
Mr Sorbara: Given your understanding of ministry spending and the historic interims and estimates of the Ministry of Transportation over the years, is this shortfall in spending something that is routinely what results in the Ministry of Transportation's spending and estimates?
Mr Mealing: I think that last year was probably a more unique year than previous years, inasmuch as we had a significant amount of money budgeted for GO Transit tied to a couple of expansion projects, the Oshawa project, the Burlington project and into Hamilton, that we were not able to spend because of delays in getting environmental assessment approvals and delays in acquiring property.
In addition, in terms of the other municipal programs, the roads programs, there was some difficulty on the part of the municipalities in picking up their share. As you know, they bear a share of --
Mr Sorbara: But that hasn't changed much this year?
Mr Mealing: No, that has not changed very much this year at all. Then there were some delays encountered in our own construction projects as well.
Mr Sorbara: But those occur every year, do they not? Every year, for one reason or another, whether through weather or construction strikes or the lack of approvals, you have projects that are approved and ready to go but the contracts are not let.
Mr Mealing: Some years we move more quickly than others, given better weather.
Mr Sorbara: What's your anticipation for this current fiscal year?
Mr Mealing: Our anticipation, and I'll turn over to Carl Vervoort, who is the ADM of operations and who actually is responsible for the implementation of the highways program -- our sense this year is that we will spend what we have allocated for ourselves, GO Transit will spend what it's allocated, and we're prepared to make whatever is available to the municipalities available to them. But we have some early indication that the ability at the municipal level to take up its share of the spending is affected by the recession.
Mr Sorbara: Now, if I recall the Treasurer's budget, there is about a half-billion dollar restraint in the Treasurer's budget, which really means $500 million in savings that he hasn't found yet. What portion of that do you think the Ministry of Transportation is going to be asked to absorb, in particular in respect of capital?
Mr Mealing: I have no idea whatsoever. Normally, capital accounts are not subject to that level of restraint. Normally, they come out of our operating accounts.
Mr Sorbara: What was in the restraint from last year?
Mr Mealing: Last year we made available to the Treasurer in the order of about $100 million in restraint.
Mr Sorbara: Would you be surprised if the Treasurer required you to make $100 million available again this year?
Mr Mealing: I can't say at this point in time.
Mr Sorbara: Okay. So all in, even with the Jobs Ontario Capital, you will be spending, as the minister says, about the same amount as you actually spent last year, save and except that you may be called upon by the Treasurer to restrain spending, and for reasons that are beyond your control you may not let some contracts?
Mr Mealing: As I said, Mr Vervoort is prepared to talk to our own capital construction program. I think the area that we are the most unsure about right now is that municipal area where 25% of the spending is at the municipal level.
Mr Sorbara: I want to ask the minister about 25-metre tractor-trailers. He made a commitment to the trucking association to approve them so long as he didn't get any political flak from the other political parties. The other political parties have agreed that it is a good idea. Why haven't you done anything about it?
Hon Mr Pouliot: To say that we have not done anything about it might be a little harsh. Vehicle configuration has been a controversy.
Mr Sorbara: It was about two years back.
Hon Mr Pouliot: I recall so vividly, as if it were yesterday in fact, when the same dedicated group of people -- and they will attest to the following. In fact I was sitting right in the seat that you occupy now, patiently waiting for my time, religiously respecting the time allocation, having done a good deal of soul-searching and homework, quoting from a prepared text in order to save time and also for the benefit that my question would be better focused.
Mr Sorbara: Can you just tell me about 25-metre trailers?
Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, we're getting to that.
Mr Sorbara: I didn't realize you were going by way of Manitouwadge.
Hon Mr Pouliot: They're not going to be built overnight. It's not something that you have done and "Why haven't you done anything about it?"
Mr Sorbara: No --
Hon Mr Pouliot: Look, one second --
Mr Sorbara: I'm neither for nor strongly against.
Hon Mr Pouliot: You asked your question. Have the decency to let me answer.
Mr Sorbara: I want to know, are you going to do it today, next month, next year or next Parliament? If so, you won't be able to do it next Parliament.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Commoners come to debate in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I'm trying to get to the answer to your question. We're studying it, we're looking at it. We realize that in a short time we're going to have to make a decision.
Mr Sorbara: Okay, that's it.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Will we make a decision on one vehicle, or will we make a decision on the confederation of many vehicles? Where are they going to be allowed to roll if we say yes? What about other jurisdictions? Are we an island? Are we the only jurisdiction which is not allowing larger trucks, at least on divided highways?
We have to look at all that and we're doing just that and we're committed to going to caucus, going to committee. Then eventually, because of due process -- you've guessed it -- it will find its way into the House with a new proposal that hopefully will address the safety issue, will address the environmental issue and will alleviate the fear and concerns of motorists.
Mr Sorbara: Can you tell me what the average time is between when an applicant for a driver's licence makes an application to take a motor vehicle driving test and the time when he or she is actually given that test? Is it a week, a month, three months? What is the average around the province? What is the period of longest delay, what parts of the province experience the longest delay and where is an applicant likely to get a test in the least amount of time?
Hon Mr Pouliot: How long does it take if I have a job at the end of the line, Mr Kelly, and I need my driver's licence in order to access that job?
Mr Sorbara: That wasn't the question.
Hon Mr Pouliot: It's part of the question. I'm just giving an example.
Mr Sorbara: No, it's not.
The Chair: Mr Kelly, for the record, you're responding to Mr Sorbara's question.
Mr Kelly: We try to give driver's tests between the time the person applies to get his driver's test -- the waiting period, our standard is between eight and 10 weeks.
Mr Sorbara: Eight to 10 weeks?
Mr Kelly: Yes, at the present time.
Mr Sorbara: I didn't ask what your standard is. I want to know what the actual experience of applicants is in the province.
Mr Kelly: It varies throughout the province. The best place is in the north, where it's seven weeks. In the greater Toronto area we have 9.2 weeks at the present time. In eastern Ontario we have a little over 10.5 weeks. In the critical places in some very remote communities where every couple of weeks we bring in a group of people to do the tests, we have 17 weeks to provide that service.
Mr Sorbara: I'm not trying to assign any political blame for this. I remember -- God, it was a long time ago -- when I was 16 years old, in North Toronto, actually at the Downsview facility, applying in the morning and taking the test in the afternoon. That was 30 years ago. So it's been a 30-year deterioration.
1550
Hon Mr Pouliot: The driving age was 16 even then, Mr Kelly?
Mr Kelly: Yes. One of the things I hope we recognize, Mr Sorbara, is that when most people book for the driver's test they spend five or six weeks going through driver education. So they book, do their driver education, then come in and have their test. Generally speaking, most of our customers are the younger people graduating out of high school. In the period right now, where I gave you times, the summer period between July and August is the peak period when everybody wants to get their driver's licence. These times fall off in January and February and December, down to around six weeks or four weeks throughout the province.
Mr Sorbara: In your view, what is an acceptable period of time?
Mr Kelly: Well, you get your driver's licence once in your lifetime. I don't believe that two or three weeks after you go to driver's school is a big hardship on you.
Mr Sorbara: So two or three weeks would be acceptable to you?
Mr Kelly: Eight weeks, 10 weeks, yes, by the time you go through your driver's test.
Mr Sorbara: Do you believe that people should be required to be re-examined every five years?
Mr Kelly: No, I don't.
Mr Sorbara: Every 10 years? Or ever?
Mr Kelly: I believe that the people who demonstrate bad driving habits should be brought in and counselled and, if necessary, when counselling doesn't work, remove the driver's licence. We do that.
Mr Sorbara: Do you believe in graduated licences?
Mr Kelly: I believe in graduated licences, yes.
Mr Sorbara: Will we see graduated licences in the province of Ontario during this Parliament?
Hon Mr Pouliot: Do you believe in calling another witness?
Mr Sorbara: The minister doesn't have an opinion on any of these things. I'm wondering if anyone does.
Mr Kelly: That will of course be up to the Ontario Legislature, but we will be bringing forward, from our end of it, a program for a graduated driver's licence.
Mr Sorbara: Will it apply uniformly around the province?
Mr Kelly: I would think so.
Mr Sorbara: What kind of restrictions would it put on the first-time driver, the person getting a licence for the first time?
Mr Kelly: We have various models. The one we favour at the present time would be that they would have to have someone accompanying them when they're driving, someone with at least four years' experience, and they can only drive on certain types of facilities with lower speed limits.
Mr Sorbara: Even someone with a four-year, experienced driver with them?
Mr Kelly: That is correct.
Hon Mr Pouliot: We have all kinds of options, and we're studying them meticulously. We will be coming up with a set of recommendations in relatively short order.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, you still have the floor.
Mr Sorbara: I want to ask the minister about the Red Hill Creek Expressway. He said earlier on, in his estimates, that they made an environmental decision -- his predecessor described it as a moral decision -- and that was the reason they cancelled the expressway. His Premier is quoted as saying that the region of Hamilton-Wentworth can go ahead and build the expressway if they want to pay for it themselves. So who is right? Is the Premier right or are you right? Is the expressway cancelled for environmental reasons, or have you just withdrawn the funding?
Hon Mr Pouliot: You know of the commitment and the dedication to address what is a concern. It's obvious that when we're talking about the north-south transportation portion, something more needs to be done. It's overcapacitated: too many vehicles for the number of roads. There's an inability to move people from point A to point B. We will address that. There is no denying of commitment here.
I'll tell you who's right: the people of Hamilton-Wentworth. They're the people who are right. They will be the users. They will be the catalysts in the decision-making process. In cooperation with the Ministry of the Environment -- the environment is so important that sometimes it borders on obsession with the Ministry of Transportation.
Mr Sorbara: Maybe I could simply repeat my question. The Premier said to the people of Hamilton-Wentworth that they have been authorized to build the Red Hill Creek Expressway in its current approved alignment and that the government of Ontario simply had made a decision to withdraw funding. Now, is that the correct position of the government of Ontario or is the Minister of Transportation's view of it the correct position of the government of Ontario -- that is, has the Red Hill Creek Expressway been cancelled and no longer approved by the government of Ontario?
Hon Mr Pouliot: As far as the government of Ontario is concerned, the government has no intention to fund the Red Hill Creek Expressway as per the original proposal. Our focus is on seeking and establishing alternatives, and then we have the full intention to assume our financial responsibility vis-à-vis alternatives to the Red Hill Creek Expressway. But that Red Hill Creek Expressway as per the original proposal is not on the table.
Mr Sorbara: Therein lies the problem. You say it's not on the table. It has been approved by an environmental assessment board. Do you agree? It's been approved by an environmental assessment board and it is within the competence of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth to build it based on that approval, agreed?
Hon Mr Pouliot: I have no mandate to acquiesce, to recognize the jurisdiction of others. I want to wish everyone well, of course. What I can do, though, is reiterate our commitment and take advantage of that opportunity to reiterate the dedication and the commitment of Ontario. Under the auspices of the Ministry of Transportation, we will be there doing our share for an alternative to the Red Hill Creek Expressway with the people of Hamilton-Wentworth.
Mr Sorbara: What I want to know is whether you, as minister, and your government and your ministry will in any way attempt to block the construction of the Red Hill Creek Expressway if the region of Hamilton-Wentworth determines, within its jurisdiction, to proceed based on the approvals it now has.
Hon Mr Pouliot: The determination is as follows: It is to find an alternative to the Red Hill Creek Expressway and certainly to go a long way to funding it.
Mr Sorbara: Can I ask the Chairman to ask the minister to answer my question?
Hon Mr Pouliot: I think I have.
The Chair: In fairness, Minister, you haven't, but I don't think you can be impelled to answer the question because Mr Sorbara is asking you if the cabinet can veto an independent decision of the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, whether or not the Premier of the day is on record as saying, "You can proceed to construct it."
I think Mr Sorbara is calling upon you to respond to a question that is on the border of the estimates process, because he's talking about a hypothetical event.
Mr Sorbara: No, it's not hypothetical. They're talking in Hamilton --
The Chair: However, if it is Mr Sorbara's time and the minister's, of which you have about three more minutes, and if you wish to exhaust it on this line of questioning, fine, but --
Mr Sorbara: I'd like to try to get an answer, because the people of Hamilton-Wentworth say: "We're actively now considering paying for it ourselves. We've got the approval. We may even get a payment retroactively from a succeeding government, but you can never rely on that." I know the Tories, if they get elected, have said as much.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Your humour becomes you.
Mr Sorbara: The question is: Are you going to get in the way of the building of that expressway if they determine to go ahead with it? If you are, you'd better not give those funny political speeches; you'd better say it right now, because that's one of the options they're looking at. I think it's a pretty simple answer: yes or no. If they decide to fund it and build it themselves, are you or your ministry or your government going to attempt to impede them and stop them from building it?
Hon Mr Pouliot: How can we stop people from addressing concerns within their jurisdiction? Even if you would wish to stop things such as projects, you have to make sure they're within your jurisdiction. I'm not so sure. That's why I choose perhaps to focus on the possible: what will be done in addressing the transportation needs of the region, as opposed to what is, with respect, a hypothetical question by virtue of jurisdiction, or the lack of it in our case.
If you wish to be specific and say that we would be talking about a connection at a specific place, and that is under MTO jurisdiction should they proceed, then it becomes less and less hypothetical. But since your time has expired, you'll have to wait until the next round of questions to ask that.
Mr Sorbara: Oh, my goodness. Well, with the indulgence of the Chair, I'll tell you how you could impede them. You could prohibit them from linking into Highway 403 or the Queen Elizabeth Way. I want to know -- yes or no -- would you consider doing that, or will you let them build it, if they decide to fund it themselves?
1600
The Chair: I think, Mr Sorbara, we've heard from the Vice-Chairman of the committee that we're not going to get an answer.
Mrs Marland: No, no, just one minute. I haven't spoken.
The Chair: I would normally recognize you, Mrs Marland, but Mr Turnbull caught my attention first.
Mr Turnbull: Minister, if you wanted to impede the Red Hill Creek Expressway, just go down and give one of your long speeches. It will keep them all absolutely on tenterhooks.
I want to talk a little about your opening comments this morning, and specifically about establishing a separate capital financing corporation. It's a little curious when you reflect on your earlier comment when we were asking questions. You said, "We're not mortgaging the future." I assure you, Minister, I'm not saying that establishing a separate financing corporation is necessarily wrong. But I have the following concerns and questions for you.
I think the public needs to be assured that the new corporation will not be used to camouflage the real financial position of the province of Ontario and that the accounting conventions used would not reduce the transparency of public accounts. So my question is: What assurance can the minister provide that this new corporation will not be used as a smokescreen for the provincial deficit?
Hon Mr Pouliot: We don't have any intention of using it as a method to create a smokescreen. We're not conjurors of illusions. There are no gimmicks here. We don't intend to cook the books. I don't think it would serve anyone's purpose and I don't believe for one second that any administration would be so inclined. But what we've arrived at is that perhaps the time has come to reflect the financing of a project on the project itself, on the life of the project, as opposed to causing undue burden on one year of budgeting, when you know that the project will last 30 or 40 years. Doesn't it make more sense, like housing?
Mr Turnbull: Okay, and you used the example of housing this morning in your opening remarks. It contradicts what you were saying before about not planning on mortgaging the future.
The tradition has been that you recognize the expenditure in government accounting. Let's all face it: Government accounting is terribly convoluted throughout Canada. That's why I was suggesting to you this morning that I did welcome the government's move last year to create separate capital and operating budgets so that it was a little clearer to people. Nevertheless, we still have very, very poor accounting practices in all the provinces and at the federal level.
I'd just like to refer you, Minister, to a report which was made -- Shaping Canada's Future Together. These were proposals by the federal government with respect to the Constitution. I'll just quote briefly from it: "Fiscal coordination would be greatly facilitated by making the budget process of the federal and provincial governments more open and visible. Certainly this has been the experience of other federations which have developed procedures to share information and consult with each other in the development of their annual budgets, without compromising necessary safeguards against improper exploitation of the process. The government of Canada therefore proposes to develop with the provinces an annual timetable to allow for a more open and visible federal and provincial budget-making process that would include..." and I run down to the line, "common accounting conventions."
I guess I'm concerned, Minister, that by creating a separate capital financing corporation, you could have the situation that you move off the books the debt, so it would appear at the next election as if you were being fiscally responsible when in fact you are adding debt for infrastructure that previous governments have paid for out of their current budgets. I am not saying that the idea of having separate budgets is wrong, but I don't want the capital fund to disappear into the ether. I notice with great fascination that on this year's budget there was no amortization taken on the capital portion. Last year, when the government introduced a separate capital budget, there was amortization taken. You're playing with the numbers, and as you play with those numbers the public gets a different perception as to the economic position of the province.
My next question is, would this new capital corporation be involved in transactions involving the acquisition of existing public assets or only in the financing of the new infrastructure? For example, would the government sell the SkyDome, which it hasn't been able to unload yet, to this new corporation?
Hon Mr Pouliot: The accounting principles you're referring to are the responsibility of the Treasurer, and I know you are not imputing motives. In any event, the bond rating agencies are among the most vigilant. I'm sure, having trodden those circles, you often have met with those gurus of the financial marketplace. My agenda was different and the circles I trod certainly did not lead me to meet too many of those. But you're familiar with that word. Certainly, previous governments or administrations have paid as they went along. One can go to Darlington, a $14-billion project, which was termed an investment in the future. Certainly, it was not paid.
Mr Turnbull: I suppose that's exactly my point, Minister.
Hon Mr Pouliot: By the same token, I am aware of some jurisdictions -- let me give you an example.
Mr Turnbull: Excuse me, Minister. Let's not wander off the point, because you raise a very important point there with respect to Darlington. That's a perfect example. By having it as a separate crown corporation, they were able to raise that amount of money without its being on the books of the government, and that is precisely the point I am making with respect to the creation of a separate capital financing corporation. That's precisely the point, so you illustrated it for me superbly.
That's why I want to make sure we will have some reflection in the Ontario budget of what we are buying. I ask the question once again: Are we talking about this corporation existing for the acquisition of new capital infrastructure or are we talking about taking existing assets of the province and hiving them off into this corporation?
Hon Mr Pouliot: It's no secret to anyone that the province will be looking at ways to dispense with no-longer-needed or "surplus" assets.
Mr Turnbull: Do I take that as an affirmative that in fact you would be putting existing assets into this corporation?
Hon Mr Pouliot: No, not at all. In terms of the corporation you mention, I'll let Mr Johnston deal with that hypothèse; I don't know what the word is in English.
Mr Turnbull: I don't think it's hypothetical inasmuch as you've floated out the potential this morning --
Hon Mr Pouliot: No, the formation of a corporation has not happened. It's an option that we're looking at, and we are dedicated to better reflecting economic reality into our accounting system.
Mr Turnbull: As this is a relatively straightforward question, it would be one of the basic questions you would already know the answer to.
Mr Johnston: The overall objective of looking at innovative financing techniques is to attempt to lower the cost to government. There are three basic aspects that you would want to consider. One is the timing. If you look at the way in which we finance our capital projects now, we expense them in the year in which the construction is undertaken or the equipment is purchased. You'll find a great number of jurisdictions treat a lot of transportation investments as a utility, where they try to expense them over their useful life. So it's the utility function versus expensing out of current revenue; another aspect of that is that if you can do it in the optimum time frame, you get an earlier use of the investment that you have sitting in the ground.
Mr Turnbull: I understand that aspect, Mr Johnston. I'm not decrying the concept; I'm just trying to understand how this would work.
1610
Mr Johnston: There are two other aspects to that as well; a second is where you source your financing. If you're dealing with a capital corporation, you're looking at the cheapest way in which you can raise the funding: through private sources, through other contributions, through whatever way you can raise the finance to lower the overall cost and take advantage of some of the private sector opportunities that relate to that. There are a lot of examples you'll find in other jurisdictions where the private sector is being brought in for various purposes in assisting with this capital investment.
The third part is trying to look at the sources of revenue, whether this be through development charges, levies, through tolls on toll facilities and so on. You're really looking at ways to package, through a capital corporation, the way to optimize the timing of the investment, to optimize the way in which you source your financing and the way in which you optimize your revenue sources.
Mr Turnbull: Would the province be guaranteeing the debt of the corporation?
Mr Johnston: It's quite possible that in some cases where a purely commercial business case could be built, it would not be necessary. There are examples of that in California right now, where one of the toll facilities that's being built is of a nature that it can be self-financing. It involves a very, very high toll, of course. There are others where they're setting up special state agencies where the state -- in the case of Ontario, of course the province -- would be involved in providing some assurances behind the loans that are raised to finance that activity.
Mr Turnbull: So "some assurances" I take as as guarantees?
Mr Johnston: Yes, I'm sure there would be some requirement in that regard.
Mr Turnbull: How exactly would the corporation reduce the capital financing charges?
Mr Johnston: A couple of ways. One is by bringing in added sources of revenue. If we intend to go with ways that have more benefit-sharing between the people that benefit from the investments, whether the users of the facility or the people --
Mr Turnbull: We're talking about toll roads, as an example.
Mr Johnston: Yes. If you're looking at third-party financing, I think you'll find examples such as in British Columbia, where they went to third-party financing on their rapid transit project, which allowed them to take advantage of some of the tax advantages that are associated with private sector financing which are not available to a government agency.
Mr Turnbull: If I remember correctly, that's where Revenue Canada had some difficulties with that procedure.
Mr Johnston: I believe you'll find that most provinces in Canada are using some form of this in different program areas.
Mr Turnbull: Let's return to the question I had before. Would this be purely to finance new projects or would it be for any existing projects?
Mr Johnston: At this point in time, we're looking at the possibility and the options for a capital corporation; it's looking at how to get on with capital investments and infrastructure. If you look at the economic cycle we go through, this is probably the optimum time to make investments. It's a time when the costs are lowest in terms of what it would cost us to build new facilities or buy different types of equipment. The requirements for infusion into the economy for economic recovery and the need for jobs are greatest; also, to position us so that when we come out of the recession, we can respond to the demands that are there. I think often we find that we're fighting against ourselves when we come out of a recession in terms of competing on high-cost products and also having a very difficult catch-up time. So this is the best time if you can find some innovative way through forums of this nature.
Mr Turnbull: I'm taking out of what you've just said that in fact it would include some existing projects that would be financed or refinanced in this way.
Mr Johnston: No. I was talking to you more about new investments.
Mr Turnbull: This would be strictly new investment in infrastructure?
Mr Johnston: Yes.
Mr Turnbull: Minister, would this corporation exist for all capital investments in the province or purely for transportation-related investments?
Hon Mr Pouliot: That's open. Incidentally, Mr Turnbull, we don't need to go to the corporation to divest from what we as a province now have. We don't need to go that route. No, the capital corporation would be for new projects.
What will be the final definition? I don't know. We're still formulating those. We're still looking at it, whether it's only for transportation, only for specific projects within transportation. I would assume it would have a mandate which is wider than this and that it would encompass other needs as well, other than transportation.
Mr Turnbull: If a separate corporation were set up to finance capital outlays, how would projects be prioritized and the level of financing established? Would it be by the government, or would it be by the directors of the corporation?
Hon Mr Pouliot: Well, certainly consultation would be alive and well, but in the final analysis, the elected officials would have the say in it. I think that's a normal reaction. The directors of the corporation, perhaps more -- we would welcome their input and their comments. But its mandate is to act as a mechanism to make it possible to comply. That's what it is, not the decision-making process; that would be left to elected officials.
Mr Turnbull: Then it would very different from the structure of Ontario Hydro, as an example, where theoretically the directors make the decisions.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Under the act --
Mr Turnbull: You used the example of Darlington before.
Hon Mr Pouliot: No, you used the example.
Mr Turnbull: No, excuse me. Minister, if you'd look at Hansard --
Hon Mr Pouliot: I don't want to zap you here, but let me answer this. You used the example of Ontario Hydro. My understanding is that under --
Mr Turnbull: No. I followed from your example of Ontario Hydro.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): Excuse me. I think in fairness to both you, Mr Turnbull, and the minister, we should stop interrupting each other, because it's very hard for Hansard to pick up who is actually speaking, who actually has the floor.
Mr Turnbull: Okay, sorry.
Hon Mr Pouliot: I'm just following the mood, Madam Chair, but we're in your hands.
The Vice-Chair: You are both doing it to each other, and it's difficult for Hansard. Thank you.
Mr Turnbull: Well, Gilles, I know you would hate Hansard to have my words attributed to you.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Under the act, and if it's an act, then the province has jurisdictional capacity. For instance, if we wish to recognize a chairperson -- it could be any example -- and we wish to set the fee for that person, that could be arrived at under the statutes. There's no problem. I know it's not a valid example, because it may not be current, but I could give you all kinds of examples. The province decides who it finances or not, let's face it.
Mr Turnbull: Okay. So the province would provide the corporation with a list of projects that it wants financed?
Hon Mr Pouliot: I would assume it would do that. The corporation is a mechanism. How often do we have dinner at Go Transit?
The Vice-Chair: Yes.
Mr Turnbull: That's a good question.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Well, I'm going to tell you, elsewhere you dine, but certainly at Go Transit -- we had breakfast once, but I've only been in the post for 13 months.
Mr Turnbull: Okay, so --
Hon Mr Pouliot: No, let me finish. This is 100% an entity of the province, yet they have developed a relationship which some would term to be arm's length.
Mr Turnbull: Minister, now that you've boasted that you've been at the trough with Go Transit, let's get back to the question of this separate capital financing corporation. To return to the central point that I'm making, we don't want to get into the situation that the government is moving over a substantial portion of the capital budget to this corporation with it not being reflected as a cost of government, as traditionally it has been by the other two parties in the past. Can you tell me what mechanisms you would put in place or contemplate to ensure that the public, the voter, was aware of the cost of running your government under this scheme?
Hon Mr Pouliot: This is excellent food for thought. It's pretty well in that order, the kind of responsibilities we have when we spell out the mandate of the corporation. I know you will wish to trust us, and it will be done pretty well in accordance with the guidelines and also the caution that you so well express. We're looking at exactly these. How insightful indeed.
1620
Mr Turnbull: Would you anticipate that the Treasurer each year would reflect those numbers into the budget, notwithstanding that it had been hived off to the separate capital corporation?
Hon Mr Pouliot: At present the Treasurer is a wise sage, and I would expect no less from future treasurers.
Mr Turnbull: So that's an affirmative, that in fact it would be reflected in the yearly budget, even though it was in a separate crown corporation which is, by your suggestion, controlled by the elected politicians.
Hon Mr Pouliot: The Treasurer is much more able to answer that interesting question and give it the attention it deserves. I cannot answer for the Treasurer but I would assume that, given not only the prominence of the post but the qualities which are legion with this Treasurer, it would be reflected in the policy.
Mr Turnbull: Minister, do you understand the import of those questions in terms of the overall budget impact and what the public sees of the government spending?
Hon Mr Pouliot: We certainly understand the responsibility. We take lessons on economics from people. We all have mentors. We're all aware that for every tax dollar that is received by the federal government, 34 cents go to service the debt. Surely we wouldn't wish to find ourselves under that financial state of siege. We're trying to avoid that dilemma.
Mr Turnbull: I would sincerely hope that you would remember that. Good.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Turnbull, it's a particular frustration for me to be in the chair and tell you that your 20 minutes have expired, particularly so because I had some questions on my own behalf which I'm not going to be able to ask today. Mr Waters and then Mr White.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Mr Minister, I actually have three, and I'm going to start off with a topic that is near and dear to the people of central and northeastern Ontario.
First off, I would like to compliment you on all the work you're doing. I don't know whether to love you or hate you. Everywhere I travel in this province, the roads are under construction and at last being repaired; 90% of them were unsafe to drive on.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Don't go now, Mr Turnbull. Listen to this man here.
Mr Turnbull: I'd love to be here. I'll be right back.
Mr Waters: The only problem is that it makes it difficult for me, Mr Minister, to keep on schedule. But, putting that aside, I truly appreciate the work you're doing in the Highway 12 and 69 area. But once we get above Parry Sound, there's a problem that I never even realized -- and coming from central Ontario, my apologies to the people of the area: how much 69 is the lifeline. There are no side roads. There are no secondary highways.
When you get above Highway 69, God forbid if you should ever have an accident on a bridge that takes a bridge out of commission, because there is no alternative. You must go around by North Bay and down 11. That is the only alternative. So you're going to cut off a main corridor. My question, naturally, is, when are we going to have the four lanes up to Sudbury?
Hon Mr Pouliot: Being a northerner myself, I can relate to northern communities such as Parry Sound and others that you have named. But to shed more light --
The Vice-Chair: No, Parry Sound is Mr Eves.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, I'm quite aware he's the representative, but Parry Sound is in northern Ontario --
Mr Waters: But I am also concerned about Ernie's riding.
Hon Mr Pouliot: -- and I'm a northerner myself, like Mr Eves. I can relate to the need to have more and better roads in northern Ontario.
Mr Waters: The minister and MOT in general are working their hearts out to get it through my riding. They've already started at a very important intersection in Mr Eves's riding, right at Parry Sound, which has been a killer for a number of years. Last year the minister intervened and indeed they worked on this intersection. The rest of it is very much in Mr Eves's riding. But there is a major transportation problem here and I ask the minister to address it.
Mr Vervoort: Highway 69 is in fact quite active, as I had indicated in the question earlier this morning. There are principally three areas. The distance in question on Highway 69, between Sudbury and Port Severn, is a total of 219 kilometres, so you can appreciate it's quite a distance of highway. As you have indicated, it's the principal connection between southern Ontario -- Barrie, Toronto -- and Sudbury. There are a number of construction activities under way. You've already mentioned one. I'd like to speak to your question in three groups, to break that 219-kilometre section of Highway 69 into three segments and perhaps give you a quick description of what is transpiring in each of the three areas and what is before us.
Starting at the south, the first section is from Port Severn to MacTier. That is a total distance of 33 kilometres. I believe I mentioned this section earlier this morning. I will quickly recount what I had said. We have completed our route planning and environmental assessment work for that section. We are currently in the process of acquiring the land and undertaking the necessary survey and design work. The current schedule for construction on that program envisions a period of construction starting perhaps as early as 1992 and extending over a period of approximately six years. That would take it to approximately 1998.
Again, the caveats related to that of course are successful completion of the engineering, not encountering any unforeseen eventualities and the ability to acquire property in a timely manner. As I mentioned, the estimated engineering costs are about $9 million, property costs about $700,000 and the cost of construction for that 33-kilometre section about $90 million.
The second section I would like to speak to is from MacTier to Highway 559 at Nobel. That's a distance of approximately 50 kilometres. Through that stretch we are currently in the process of doing route planning and environmental assessment work. We anticipate completing that planning work by the end of 1993. The report and documentation would be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment for its review and approval. Assuming that would be available in about 12 months' time would place that completion in late 1994.
Again, the ability to initiate property acquisitions and undertake the design and construction would be subject to Ministry of the Environment approval. But we believe that could begin as early as 1995 and be finished in a time frame of 2004-05. On that 50-kilometre section we are estimating that the engineering costs would be approximately $30 million. We anticipate property costs of about $1.6 million and a total estimated construction expenditure of approximately $310 million.
The last section of Highway 69 I will speak to is from Highway 559 at Nobel to the Sudbury East limits. That is the long section. It's 136 kilometres in length. There is at present no route planning or environmental assessment available. It is anticipated that in that length we would probably break that down into two parts for purposes of doing the planning and environmental work. Those two studies could be carried out either simultaneously or sequentially. That decision has not yet been made. Of course, as you can appreciate, if done sequentially it would extend the time frames associated with eventual implementation. We anticipate that the earliest start there could be in terms of initiating the planning work is in the spring of 1993.
Given that, and that at this point the time frames are an estimate, we anticipate that we would likely see a project of that length and that magnitude completed in the 1996-97 time frame. It would be approximately three to four years for completion of the work. Again, approvals from MOE would take a year or so, and then, of course, initiation of acquisitions of property and development of detailed design would flow from that.
The estimated engineering cost associated with that 136-kilometre stretch is about $75 million, and we anticipate property costs of about $3.3 million and a total estimated construction expenditure of $750 million. So that is a quick synopsis of the magnitude of the work involved.
1630
The Chair: It's a matter of opinion if that's a quick synopsis. Mr Waters, did you get a full answer there?
Mr Waters: I have one question of the minister.
Has the minister looked at coming from both ends, because section 3 is actually the section that is so very much -- it's a lifeline with no alternatives. I was up there, caught behind an accident, and had to go back to Parry Sound, over to Highway 11 and back up the other way to get to Sudbury. There are no side roads, there are no secondary roads of any sort once you leave somewhere around the Nobel area, from there north to just south of Sudbury, up through Britt. There is no alternative; it's 69 or nothing. If there was an accident there, you could end up isolating communities.
The Chair: Minister, do you wish to respond? If not, Mr White has a question.
Mr Waters: Have I run out of time already?
The Chair: No, you haven't run out of time, but Mr White has been most patient.
Mr White: You have him on the list, though.
Mr Waters: I have two quick questions that I'd like to ask the minister.
The Chair: I'm not worried about the questions; I'm worried about the answers.
Mr Waters: Okay. The minister will be as brief as possible.
The Chair: Please proceed, Mr Waters.
Mr Waters: Question 2 is on preferential purchasing by the ministry. I have a situation in Muskoka, and I'll give you a case example where we have a local manufacturer of wire and cable, that being Alcan. Its product, which is CSA-approved, was on a ministry site, and the ministry questioned whether it should be there because it was not on its preferred purchasing list or some list, and I find that incredible for a product made in Ontario that is CSA-approved. I would like an answer.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Can Ms Kelch shed some light on the purchasing policies of MTO?
Mr Waters: I understand that the wire that indeed was recommended, although it's Canada Wire, the product that was needed would have been manufactured in Manitoba.
The Chair: Do you understand the question?
Ms Kelch: No, I didn't, Mr Chairman; I'm sorry.
Mr Waters: Apparently, you have to be on a list of approved or whatever suppliers. I find it incredible that a company that manufactures wire in Muskoka cannot supply wire to an MTO job site in Muskoka. It's all approved by the CSA, and I find it incredible that an Ontario ministry is questioning whether Ontario-produced wire has the right to be there.
Ms Kelch: Mr Waters, you're quite correct in terms of there being a list. The list to which you refer is a designated sources list. A whole variety of commodities, everything from wire through aggregate through the roadway -- earlier the reference that Ms Mathyssen made in terms of the cat's-eyes -- everything that we use in construction has to be on the designated sources list in terms of it meeting the standards that are required in the province.
Mr Waters: CSA standards are CSA standards. I made wire for years and I can tell you it's a standard that is set by the CSA, and it's for all companies. The other part of it is, the contractor has been doing work for MTO for years, and this is the first time that Alcan's wire has ever been questioned. That's where my problem comes in. Are we doing something different? If so --
Ms Kelch: No. Let me continue with the list issue, which is, if in fact the wire -- and I'm not aware of the particular circumstance -- to which you refer has been CSA-approved, then it probably shouldn't be difficult for it to make it to our designated sources list. If you can provide me with the details, we will certainly follow that up very quickly and ensure that it has gone through the appropriate process in terms of being eligible material to be used on a construction site in the province. There must be some problem other than its CSA problem.
Mr Waters: No. You can't sell wire in Ontario unless it's CSA-approved. Hydro won't allow it.
The Chair: If I can be of assistance to the committee, the ADM has offered to investigate it and she requires a little additional information. If that is given to her before 5 today, she may be able to respond more fully tomorrow by noon. If I could leave it at that, Mr Waters, was there another question on that, or can I move to Mr White?
Mr Waters: I'll let it go to Mr White.
Mr White: Thank you, Mr Waters. Minister, I'm going back to the issues that affect my area in Durham and of course the vital infrastructure that your ministry is planning on providing, whether it's in GO, the 407 or, in this case, the 401 expansion.
As I was saying, our area is waiting desperately, with a lack of transportation infrastructure. We're looking at the 401 expansion. The present widening in east Toronto will be a tremendous asset. Even though it's not in Durham region, it will be a tremendous asset for Durham region.
All of us, I think, were very impressed with the speed and the quality of the work that's gone on to this point. I understand there are plans to go further with that expansion, to bring it out, I believe, as far as regional road 23. I'm wondering what the status of those plans is and when we can expect that widening, especially in those areas that are most congested.
Mr Vervoort: The section of Highway 401 that you refer to is currently under construction in parts. The intent is that the current terminus of the core collector system at Neilson Road would be extended easterly to Brock Road. Those are the limits of the current sequence of construction staging.
Mr White: Brock Road by what time?
Mr Vervoort: I'll get to that specific point. In terms of the nature of the work, what we are doing is going from the six basic lanes to the 12-lane express-collector. We'll be reconstructing several interchanges, as you might appreciate driving through there, at Morningside and Meadowvale -- substantially complete. We'll be making modifications at ramp terminals to fit those designs in through the process of the further widenings.
We're also including in there high-mass lighting and the introduction of the safety medium barrier -- a concrete tall wall, as it is referred to -- and we will be proceeding with that construction continuously and expect that whole link, including the completion to Brock, would be finished in approximately 1998, no unforeseen eventualities arising.
It is, however, expected that there would be interim openings of the collector systems, which are in fact currently being built, and that those would be put into service between Neilson Road and Highway 2 by the fall of 1994. We see some interim openings taking place during the staging of that construction. Three lanes will be kept open at all times.
Roughly, those are the improvements and the time frames.
Mr White: Excellent. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr White. Perhaps at this point, with the committee's indulgence, I might ask the representatives from GO Transit to come forward and answer a couple of very quick questions. Mr Parsons is present today. Is there any objection from the committee?
Mr Parsons, welcome. Thank you. I know you've been a frequent attendee of MTO estimates, and perhaps very briefly and succinctly you could update the committee on your activities of the last year. That may stimulate one or two quick questions.
1640
Mr Parsons: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Once again, Mr Smith, the managing director, is at my side here. We're pleased to report that GO Transit has had moderate growth over the last couple of years. It has somewhat decreased in the last number of months for obvious reasons through the recession, but not as much as municipal transit systems in some situations have. But we do carry 36 million friends, passengers and customers on our system of both trains and buses that we run through the greater Toronto area.
Our operating budget this year is about $179 million, $79 million of which comes from the estimates that are before you today and the balance raised from the fare box. We have been mandated over the years, and it hasn't changed, to raise 65% of our costs out of the fare box. Our cost per passenger these days, all in, is about $5, and 65% of that is paid by the passengers who ride the system.
It is paid on a fare-by-distance basis, not as in Metropolitan Toronto, for instance, where they pay $1.10 for a single ticket. As all of you know, if you ride to Port Credit, you pay a certain amount; if you ride to Oakville, you pay more. We have monthly passes, 10-ride tickets and single-fare rides.
We have an honour system whereby people buy their transportation, carry it with them on to the train and sometimes get inspected. They get inspected, on average, about 10% of their rides. Our fraud rate, though it's for those who are caught without paying, is somewhat less than 1%, which by international standards is very low. We have a protective force that is there to ensure that we collect --
The Chair: I'm sorry. Is that 1% on the total ridership or 1% on those checked?
Mr Parsons: It's 1% of the total fares.
The Chair: What's the percentage of those checked?
Mr Parsons: About 10% are checked, so it's 1% of the total passengers who are found to be evading fares. The fine is $78.50 on the first offence, and it escalates as high as a jail term for misbehaviour that goes on to a number of offences.
We have a very ambitious expansion program that has been well funded by the province over the years and continues to be. This year our capital budget amounts to $115 million that is provided in the estimates that are before you today. We have a list of projects that are shown in your book on page 103 under vote 3904, item 8, which sets out the moneys that are proposed to be spent this year with your approval. Each individual project is listed there, and we'd be happy to answer questions on any of those individual items.
An item that has been a thrust of the government is accessibility for those who are disabled. If you were reading the Toronto Star in the last couple of weeks, you might have noticed that we have agreed to spend $3.3 million to upgrade 42 cars so that wheelchairs may be boarded on to GO cars on the systems where we will have stations that have elevators to take them up where required where we have a variance of grades. It's not all of our stations on all of our lines, but every station that's being built these days has elevators, and in every station that's being upgraded, an elevator is tantamount.
Mr Jackson, you know that when we opened the Aldershot station with the minister there we had such a facility, and we're building an upgraded facility at Port Credit at a cost of $3 million. Right along on all our Lakeshore lines and where we're building other stations, such as Bramalea, there will be facilities for the handicapped. That is a thrust that we're very much taking seriously.
We have all kinds of opportunity for expansion. We have studied electrification and we have a report in hand. Every facility that we construct these days will accommodate electrification if at some point in time a government of the day makes a decision to electrify the system. No bridges are being built that wouldn't have the clearances that would be required to put in electrification if the decision was made by someone in the future that the system should be electrified. It could be electrified in segments. For instance, the Lakeshore might be electrified but other lines not.
At the moment, we're using clean diesel technology. We have a new fleet of General Motors state-of-the-art diesel engines, built at the diesel plant in London, Ontario, 22 of which have been sold to California because we took them down there and showed them off in Houston at the American Public Transit Association conference two years ago. Those are going into service on next October 26 in California, along with 42 cars built in Thunder Bay. So you're going to see a GO train in California. There's already one in Florida adjacent to I-95 that runs down there and is serving very well.
We are on the leading edge, and you have every reason to be proud of the almost $1 billion that the taxpayers of Ontario have invested in GO Transit over the years. By the way, this year is our 25th anniversary. It doesn't seem that it's gone by that quickly.
Mr Sorbara: Time flies when you're having fun.
Mr Parsons: Time does fly when you're having fun. I know you're probably burdened with questions, and we would be happy to answer them if there are some items that I haven't touched upon.
The Chair: Mr Parsons, if I might just start off on behalf of the committee, can you explain what change in the relationship with GO Transit, if any, has occurred as a result of the creation of the office of the GTA, the greater Toronto area? Do you have any contact, any funding, any relationship, any planning? If so, could you share that briefly with this committee? Or are you, for want of a better phrase, funded and supervised through MTO?
Mr Parsons: Totally through MTO. I report to the minister on a monthly basis. We show him our monthly statistics. We show him that we are staying on budget or under budget, hopefully, at all times. The GTA we share information with.
The Chair: You don't get any funding from them?
Mr Parsons: We have no funding from them and no reporting function to them. Our reporting function is all through the ministry. The minister and I have a memorandum of understanding, which has been something that I've had with all the ministers under whom I have served, and obviously we have our responsibilities that each of us carry out.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara has a question.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Parsons, I want to ask you first of all about the plans for Union Station, which is, to all intents and purposes, now the hub of the GO system network and increasingly a facility that is used for connecting the GO system with the Metro Toronto transit system. There have been discussions about the province acquiring Union Station and completing that transformation. Where are we at with that project?
Mr Parsons: Union Station is the hub in the spokes of the wheel on which we operate. If you take a look at our service map, we go out in spokes from the hub which is Union Station. Negotiations were commenced -- it seems a long time ago; it may be six or seven or eight years ago -- by the second-last government. The negotiations commenced and stalled; another government was elected and negotiations commenced and seemed to be coming to conclusions. At present the negotiation is continuing, as I understand it, for the acquisition of either the land and buildings or just the land and the buildings but not the air rights. That's something that is ongoing.
I simply say to you that if GO Transit is going to continue to expand, as every one of you expects it will, the successful transformation of Union Station into an expanded facility, doubling the accommodation that we have there today, is necessary. Whether that is done under a lease arrangement or the acquisition of the property will be decided by those people who have that responsibility.
It's key to our success, and I would say we probably have a willing vendor in the property of TTR, which is the Toronto Terminals Railway, 50% owned by CN and 50% owned by CP. These days, those two entities probably have a need for cash flow, as everybody does. But whether it's a lease or whether it's a purchase matters not to GO Transit.
Our plans are to get on with driving elevator shafts down so that we can accommodate the handicapped that I mentioned earlier and so that we can expand platforms to have safety maintained. We unload a 12-car train that carries about 2,000 people arriving either from Whitby or Hamilton, and 2,000 people on one of those platforms is a lot of people. We want to make sure that we always carry people in safety. In 25 years we've never had a fatality of a passenger. We've had fatalities of people doing silly things on railway tracks, but never of a passenger.
Mr Sorbara: One other constraint on the expansion of the rail portion of GO Transit is that some of the system is only a single track. I think of the track, for example, to Maple and onward up to Barrie. Where else does that situation exist and what steps are being taken to double-track your entire system so that you can use it efficiently?
1650
Mr Parsons: If I may just go from the lake and from the west to the north, the Lakeshore line, we have two tracks through Port Credit. We have three tracks from Oakville and beyond. We are slightly constrained and we will have to have a third track in that area before too long. On the Brampton line we have a single track that crosses Highway 10 in downtown Brampton, and that's a major constraint for expansion of our GO train service to Georgetown. Moving over towards your side --
Mr Sorbara: Who is going to double-track that and how does it get paid for and how long is it going to take to get it done?
Mr Parsons: It gets done under a contract the railways issue once they have our agreement in hand that we're going to pay for it 100%. That's the way it's done.
Mr Sorbara: It's 100% expenditure of the province.
Mr Parsons: That's right. Then as we move over towards your part of the world, the line to Barrie is a single-track line, but with the development that's proposed up that way we can likely expand our trains out to 10 cars and carry, for now, one way in the morning and one way back at night. As it changes, that can be double-tracked, once again with us paying.
Across to the Richmond Hill line, which is a very popular line and which was heavily used during the TTC strike last year, you might recall, that line can be twinned. We presently have a contract that has been issued to Canadian National Railways for the building of rail-to-rail grade separation. If you think of a Highway 401 grade separation, think of trains going under and trains going over. That's going to happen at Doncaster, up the Richmond Hill line just north of Steeles Avenue.
That grade separation is likely to cost about $60 million. That's our estimate. Some of the funds are provided for in here for the initial part of that work. That allows the 120-car freight trains that are going to Oshawa to deliver parts on time to the factories out there to continue their move across the line as our GO train goes to Richmond Hill. That would provide for all-day two-way service, which is our goal on the Richmond Hill line.
The Stouffville line is a single line, a single track. We run two trains a day there now. That has the possibility of being acquired by the province, because the Stouffville line at this point in time is not a favoured line of CN. I don't suspect that they have a long-term future idea for it there. That does have possibilities. That's just a snapshot of the things --
Mr Sorbara: Then east along the lake?
Mr Parsons: East along the lake to Oshawa, we presently have three tracks in some places. We need to add an additional track, which is in our budget, between Union Station and Scarborough, because we compete with Via Rail trains on that line, some freight trains and a lot of GO trains.
In addition to that we have a proposal to establish a maintenance facility at Danforth and Main, roughly speaking, which land has been acquired under contract from Canadian National. It's presently the subject of an environmental assessment, which will be completed within the next 30 days and put into the minister's hands to see what the reaction will be of the Ministry of the Environment.
It's a facility that is much needed. If you know where our facility is now in Mimico, we have all our train storage and maintenance done overnight for the trains that are harboured in this area at night. We need a second facility in the east so that we can feed trains into Union Station from both ways at rush hour. Presently they all come in from the west end. That's terribly congesting and it impedes our progress of trains to get away.
Mr Turnbull: Just a few very quick questions. My interest was tweaked by the fact that you said you'd sold some locomotives or some rolling stock to California, and that was new stock. What aspect of your mandate allows you to do that?
Mr Parsons: I'm glad it tweaked your question, because I didn't explain that properly. Ontario manufacturers sold products in the United States. General Motors Diesel entered into a contract with California to sell its diesels to California. It didn't involve us. They were diesels like the ones we buy, but it was business for Ontario industry, which we encouraged by taking a diesel unit and a double-decker unit down to Houston to a trade show three years ago. They bought the diesels from GM Diesel and they bought 42 cars from UTDC.
Mr Turnbull: Okay, and you were recompensed by these corporations?
Mr Parsons: No. The only thing we were was the cheering section. We cheered for Ontario industry to make sure that our products were bought in the United States.
Mr Turnbull: So the taxpayers paid for a demonstration of General Motors and UTDC stock.
Mr Parsons: No, when we went to Houston to this trade show, General Motors took the diesel down there in our colours. They rented it from us, and they paid the rental, they paid the haulage, they paid the display. They brought that diesel unit into a trade show in Houston on the units that they bring in the spaceships. It was most interesting to see. It's been good for Ontario industry.
Mr Turnbull: Okay, that's good.
Mr Sorbara: Who paid for dinner?
The Chair: That was yesterday's question and it was lunch, as I recall.
Mr Turnbull: On the Langstaff station -- and I spoke briefly to Mr Smith just a little while ago about this one -- I know you have a proposal to move the station to the north of Highway 7, soon to be 407.
Mr Parsons: Into the jail farm lands.
Mr Turnbull: Yes. There were some questions of a hangup on that situation. Have you been able to move forward on that?
Mr Parsons: No, at present there's still no resolution. I understand that the land to the north of 407 is owned by the mortgagee, the one that owns the Green Machines, I'm told, so there has been no final determination on that.
Mr Turnbull: Okay, but you are progressing with negotiations?
Mr Parsons: We're standing by, ready to negotiate.
Mr Turnbull: Okay. With regard the tunnel that you would provide to the existing community, where the station is currently located, I believe the plan is for you to provide a triple tunnel, one for the GO lines, one for a dedicated bus service line into the hub and one for a road. Is that correct?
Mr Parsons: That's right. That's into the ministry's highway planning stages.
Mr Turnbull: Okay. And the road would be maintained so that it would not be cut off to Highway 7?
Mr Hanton: I'm Ray Hanton, regional director, central region. You raised this question earlier. I've been waiting for you to bring it up. We have been working with the Langstaff community for at least a year now to develop an alternative access to that community. The existing access they have at the present time to Highway 7 was a temporary access that was granted by the ministry and was to be removed when Highway 407 and Highway 7 were reconstructed through that area. When Highway 407 is reconstructed, Highway 7 must be relocated to the north.
We have been working with GO Transit, the regional municipality of York and the town of Markham as well as the Langstaff community in trying to develop alternative access to the community at such time as Highway 7 is reconstructed, which will be within the next two years. It's progressing quite well, and we hope we can come up with an alternative solution.
We have two or three alternatives on the table at the moment. One of them involves the access you referred to. With the new bridge that will be constructed on Highway 7, there is provision for GO Transit under that structure, and there is also an additional span that could be used for road access into the Langstaff community as well as into the area that Lou Parsons was talking about earlier. That's one of the options. There's also an alternative access and improved access out to Bayview.
Mr Turnbull: Okay, good. I don't want to get into that now, because in the interests of these gentlemen not being here tomorrow, I just wanted to cover the GO aspect of things. I appreciate your answer.
Mr Hanton: It is in hand and we're working together on it.
Mr Turnbull: That's good. I appreciate that. Thank you. What progress are you making with respect to fare integration with other transit systems?
Mr Parsons: I'm glad you asked that question, sir. We presently have successful fare integration with 14 systems in the greater Toronto area; for instance, Oakville. In the west, 35% of Oakville Transit's ridership comes and goes from the GO station. In Whitby, we have had even greater success out there with people taking local transit. The idea is to get people to leave their car at home. They buy a pass on Whitby Transit or Oakville Transit. We pay a part of that pass; it saves us providing a parking spot, which costs a lot of money.
We've had probably better success than any system in North America, including the TTC. It really is working well. Frankly, we'd like to see it greatly expanded. We're trying to encourage municipalities. Mississauga, for instance, has been slightly tardy in going as far as Whitby and Oakville have gone. We're encouraging them to improve and we think they will.
Mr Turnbull: As far as availability to disabled passengers is concerned, you spoke about elevators at the GO stations, the railway stations. What about the GO buses, making them accessible?
Mr Parsons: The minister has made an announcement that commencing next July no buses purchased for our transit purposes in Ontario will be funded by the province of Ontario unless they are handicapped-accessible.
Mr Turnbull: So you would not contemplate making any conversion of existing stock?
Mr Parsons: No. If we can buy sufficient vehicles, and we do have a turnover, our buses are scheduled for a 12-year turnover. If we can buy sufficient new vehicles, we can strategically place them so that they will have a low-floor bus. This is the dream, not a lift. The lifts that are in the United States are terrible these days because they so seldom get used, and when they go to use them, they fail. So we want a low-floor bus where somebody can take a wheelchair and propel himself or herself up a very slight incline. The minister's action in that regard will help us.
Mr Turnbull: Good. A question occurred to me. You're talking about elevators at the GO station. Wouldn't ramps be cheaper? Mr Parsons: No. If I could take you to a GO station where we have a tunnel that goes underneath the tracks -- our platforms are in the centre of the tracks. Platforms have tracks on each side, so you have to go under the tracks, which are substantially higher. An elevator is the only way. We do have escalators in a few places, but they don't serve a wheelchair.
Mr Turnbull: Yes, surely. Okay, thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr Parsons, one last question, if I might: I've been watching the access tiles for the visually impaired community. The Toronto subway system is currently on the verge of acquiring a major contract on a product from the US with ministry funds. I understand you're considering similar tactile tiles but that they're Ontario-produced, for which I want to thank you. Can you briefly update the committee on how you are progressing with that project, what stage it's at, and how many stations you are considering?
Mr Parsons: They are presently being installed at Pickering, which is our first station. Once again, with every upgrade from here on in -- Port Credit, as it's being upgraded now -- will include those tactile things. The other thing we're doing that we hope you're going to approve today, which is in the estimates, is to put in panic bars, the yellow strips along all the cars, which we have now designed and prototyped. They're all going to be put in within the next 12 months. So if people get into difficulties, they can push that panic stripe and have police officers at the next station.
The Chair: I appreciate that. The incident that sparked a lot of people's attention occurred in Mr Carr's and my ridings, and we very much appreciate the quick response from GO and working towards a solution for the entire system.
Recognizing the late hour, and thanking Mr Parsons and Mr Smith for being with us for the day, this committee has completed five and a half hours of its seven and a half hours of estimates. We will reconvene tomorrow at 10 am to complete the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation. This committee stands adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1701.