Legislative Assembly of Ontario

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION

CONTENTS

Wednesday 22 June 1994

Ministry of Transportation

Hon Gilles Pouliot, minister

George Davies, deputy minister

Carl Vervoort, assistant deputy minister, operations

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

*Chair / Président: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)

Abel, Donald (Wentworth North/-Nord ND)

Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC)

*Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND)

Elston, Murray J. (Bruce L)

Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND)

Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND)

*Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)

Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West/-Ouest L)

Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)

Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:

Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND) for Mr Fletcher

Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L) for Mr Mahoney

Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND) for Mr Wiseman

Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings/ Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud ND)

for Mr Hayes

Turnbull, David (York Mills PC) for Mr Carr

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)

Clerk / Greffière: Grannum, Tonia

Staff / Personnel:

McLellan, Ray, research officer, Legislative Research Service

Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1543 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION

The Chair (Mr Cameron Jackson): We've assembled today to commence the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation. We have six hours that the House has assigned us in which to do that.

I'd welcome the minister, the Honourable Gilles Pouliot. Minister, in accordance with our standing orders -- you're familiar with the process -- the first half-hour is yours. Then I will recognize the official opposition, then the third party and then you'll be given 30 minutes for a summary rebuttal or response.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Chair: Minister, in view of the very limited amount of time that we have for review of your ministry, I would ask you to truncate your comments to less than half an hour. I am proposing that I make less than a half-hour initial statement, in fact a very short initial statement, and ask that any time that I do not take will be allocated to the PC Party for additional questioning as opposed to being allocated on an even basis. I would ask the minister and the official opposition if perhaps they would agree to the same arrangement.

The Chair: First of all, it's not a point of order, but if it's a suggestion to change the approach today, we are guided by our standing orders, and beyond that, it would have to be by unanimous consent.

The minister, and then Mr Daigeler, and briefly, please, because we are out of order in terms of the dialogue, but we'll allow a brief moment on this subject.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Thank you, Chair. In the interest of time, I intend to read the statement. We have an important message and we will avail ourselves of the courtesy and the opportunity that the statutes spell out. We shall be within our limit, our allocation, of 30 minutes.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): If we don't finish today, we will still have the remaining six hours or whatever's left of the six hours at whatever time. Then we will take that up. Am I correct in that?

The Chair: That is correct. To be more specific, should the House rise tomorrow, then this committee has sought time to sit during the summer and we will complete the Ministry of Transportation estimates at that time. But we cannot proceed to the next ministry until we've completed our full six hours. If we're sitting next week, we will reconvene next Tuesday at 3:30.

I don't have a consensus, so, Minister, I recognize you. Please proceed.

Mr Turnbull: Can I have a clarification? If I use less than my half-hour, can that time that I leave be allocated exclusively to the PC Party for questioning and answers?

The Chair: If you so choose, I'd have to have unanimous consent. You're given up to 30 minutes to present your concerns, but within that 30 minutes, Mr Turnbull, you may use that any way you see fit. If you have a 15-minute narrative and a 15-minute question, that's quite within your discretion. But if you just use 20 minutes, you will have yielded the front portion of your time allocation.

Mr Turnbull: I would ask unanimous consent that in fact that be allocated appropriately, to the extent that we have opening statements --

The Chair: Mr Turnbull, this whole discussion is quite out of order, I'm afraid. I've given the ruling of the Chair. I think I've made it clear to you that you can use your time in a variety of ways. I must proceed with the minister in accordance with the standing orders. Minister.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank you, Chair. It augurs very well.

Ladies and gentlemen, mesdames et messieurs, members of the standing committee, I welcome this opportunity to discuss our government's transportation programs. Our goal is to provide you with as much information as possible and to answer any questions you may have about the ministry's activities. To that end, my deputy minister, Mr George Davies, and other senior staff will be available throughout these proceedings.

In my opening statement, I want to focus on three main areas: the ministry's capital programs and their role in our government's strategy to create and maintain jobs; some recent changes in our approach to doing business at the ministry; and our commitment and achievements in the area of improving road safety in Ontario.

First, let me discuss our capital programs, the money we spend on roads, bridges, transit, ferries, airports and other transportation facilities. Our government spends about half of its capital budget through the Ministry of Transportation. That is because we know that spending on transportation is an excellent investment in Ontario's future. Transportation investments result in both short-term and long-term benefits. Every dollar we spend on transportation puts $2.50 back into the provincial economy and every $1 million we spend on road construction creates 20 new jobs.

Today there are thousands of people in Ontario who need those jobs to support their families and communities, to pay their bills and put food on the table. By creating work, we are helping people across the province to enjoy a better quality of life.

Transportation investments also improve Ontario's long-term economic outlook. Our businesses need good roads, safe highways and efficient public transit to be competitive, today and in the next century. Our capital spending helps ensure a brighter economic future for our whole society.

Last year, despite the recession, my ministry committed almost $900 million to its regular highway program and some $700 million for municipal roads. It was a record high year for construction activities, with a total of 440 highway contracts tendered. Those projects created the equivalent of more than 10,000 jobs for one year.

This year, thanks to a number of business innovations and new partnerships, I'm pleased to say the total money being spent on highway construction in Ontario has increased by fully 35%. Capital spending for municipal roads is also up this year by some 37%.

I want to make it clear that, although our own budget numbers may not show it, there's a lot more money being spent on roads and bridges in Ontario. The money comes from a number of sources: our government, our federal and municipal partners and the private sector.

1550

As you know, the government of Ontario signed an agreement last January to invest $722 million in the Canada-Ontario infrastructure works program, which we are undertaking with our federal friends. In total, this is a $2.1-billion program. Our latest figures show it will create up to 37,000 direct and indirect jobs during the next two years, and 40% of the money allocated under the program so far is being used for roads and bridges.

Since 1991, our government has invested about $12 billion through Jobs Ontario, and we have spent most of that money on infrastructure: to upgrade and expand local roads and bridges, to improve sewer and water services and to provide other necessary facilities.

Earlier this spring we chose a private sector consortium to design, build and operate the new Highway 407. This highway has been called the "missing link" in transportation in the greater Toronto area. It is the biggest highway project of its kind in Ontario's history and, I trust, the largest highway contract in North America at present.

Highway 407 will create 20,000 full-time jobs during construction; reduce the $2-billion annual cost of congestion on roads and highways throughout the greater Toronto area; and it will prepare Ontario's companies to compete for highway megaprojects around the world.

Several preliminary contracts for Highway 407 are under way. The consortium recently advised us that in order to meet the construction schedule, it could spend up to $300 million on the project this year. That expenditure alone would create up to 6,000 new jobs, at a time when they are most needed.

In addition to highway construction, members will recall the Premier's announcement last year of $1.5 billion from Jobs Ontario to speed up construction of five new transit lines in the GTA.

The ministry is currently working with Metro Toronto to find ways to make rapid transit expansion affordable to all parties. We have provided Metro with a plan for its review that includes options such as benefit-sharing charges, federal land contribution and a number of options for innovative financing. No doubt this plan will continue to be discussed in detail in the coming days and weeks, and we look forward to a positive outcome.

Depuis 1990, le gouvernement a également investi plus de 16 millions de dollars pour apporter aux gares du Réseau GO des modifications qui les rendront plus accessibles aux personnes qui utilisent des aides à la mobilité pour se déplacer.

Nouvelles attitudes dans le milieu des affaires : l'essentiel à ce chapitre, c'est que nous utilisons les dépenses en immobilisations du ministère pour contribuer à la reprise économique de l'Ontario, car elles permettent de créer des emplois et aident les entreprises à être plus concurrentielles. Mais les dépenses du gouvernement provincial pour les routes et les autoroutes n'ont rien de nouveau. Ce qui est nouveau, par contre, c'est l'évolution du milieu des affaires actuel et les méthodes créatives que nous adoptons pour relever nos défis.

Today, as never before, the government recognizes the need to invest our limited resources wisely. We know we must squeeze the greatest possible value for every tax dollar and, in many cases today, investing wisely means changing the way we do business.

Highway 407 is a prime example of our changing approach to the challenge of new transportation investment. The need for Highway 407 was first identified in the 1950s. The route was established in the 1970s and construction work began in 1987. To date, projects worth $130 million have already been completed.

At this rate, and in today's fiscal environment, Highway 407 would not have been completed before the year 2020. Therefore, this government would be in its 12th term of office. But our people and businesses need this highway right now. They need the thousands of jobs it will provide and they need those jobs today, not 10 or 20 years down the road.

We needed to accelerate the process. The solution was to introduce a major change in the way the ministry does business. We created a new partnership with a private sector consortium called Canadian Highways International Corp. This group of Ontario companies will design, build and operate Highway 407 on the province's behalf, and it will deliver the project not in 25 years, but in five years, Mr Turnbull.

This approach has many other important benefits. For example, we identified $300 million in savings through value engineering, economies of scale, long-term contracts and access to materials. As well, the Ontario companies that participate in the project will gain expertise to help them land similar jobs around the world.

Highway 407 is a $1-billion project. It will be financed through a new crown agency called the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp. This agency allows the government to finance the 407 project without adding a burden of debt to the consolidated revenue fund and without taking money away from other important highway investments.

The 407 project is the largest of its kind in North America. It will be Ontario's first modern toll highway, and the users of the road will pay the greatest share of its cost. The tolls will be collected electronically, using high-tech equipment developed in Ontario. That will create more opportunities for Ontario businesses to export the new technology to other parts of the world.

Partnerships are becoming more and more important to the way my ministry does business. For example, we're developing new partnerships with Ontario's roadbuilders. We are giving them more freedom to decide the best way to get the job done, as long as the final product meets our specifications, of course.

The principle here is that the ministry specifies the final result needed and the contractor determines how those specifications will be met. This is a major change from the days when the ministry was involved in direct supervision of all aspects of a project. It recognizes that Ontario has a mature and highly skilled roadbuilding industry and that experienced contractors do not need ministry staff to hold their hands while they do the work.

I could give you many other examples of this kind of cooperation and partnership, but I will just give a few:

We created a partnership with Bell Canada to allow the company to run its $110-million fibre optics network along highway rights of way in northern Ontario.

We joined forces with a Toronto real estate company in an adopt-a-highway program to clean up litter on Highway 400.

We're working with three private sector partners to develop a hand-held computer called TravelGuide that will give motorists up-to-the-minute information on traffic conditions.

We created the Transit Integration Task Force with local municipalities and transit operators to move towards "seamless" public transit in the GTA area.

We have formed partnerships with the city of Kingston, the township of Manitouwadge and others to share maintenance supplies, equipment and facilities. In the case of Manitouwadge, our partners in that township were sort of a role model. They set the tone of innovation and trust for the future of how business will be done. They were most receptive to the opportunities to do business with the Ministry of Transportation.

En plus de ces nouveaux partenariats, mon ministère s'efforce d'améliorer le service à la clientèle dans tous ses champs d'activité. Nombre d'entre vous avez vu le guichet ServiceOntario dans l'édifice Macdonald ici à Queen's Park. Il s'agit d'appareils de libre-service qui permettent aux gens de s'informer selon leur convenance auprès du ministère et de payer leurs transactions par carte de crédit. Dans plusieurs endroits, nous avons aussi installé à titre expérimental des fenêtres de service à l'intention de la clientèle en voiture.

Au cours de la dernière session, notre gouvernement a aussi rendu obligatoire la trousse d'information sur les véhicules d'occasion. Maintenant, les consommateurs qui achètent des véhicules d'occasion entre particuliers ont maintenant la description complète du véhicule, la liste de ses anciens propriétaires et des renseignements sur les sûretés et la véritable valeur marchande du véhicule.

Les améliorations que nous avons apportées au service à la clientèle profitent à plus de six millions de conducteurs partout dans la province. Elles peuvent aussi améliorer l'efficacité du ministère. Par exemple, nous avons invité les propriétaires à renouveler l'immatriculation de leur véhicule tous les deux ans plutôt que chaque année. Les gens devront se rendre moins souvent dans les bureaux du ministère et nos frais administratifs et de fonctionnement s'en trouveront également réduits.

As I mentioned earlier, we are living in an era of major change. In addition to the business changes I have outlined, my ministry is also facing the challenge of relocating 1,000 staff members to St Catharines. Many of our long-time staff members have also opted for early retirement, so that we also face the challenge of finding and training new staff.

Let me turn now to our accomplishments in the area of road safety. We've done a great deal in this area in the past few months. This, if you will pardon the pun, is no accident. Who wrote this?

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I don't know, but you're reading it.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Our government's goal is to make Ontario's roads the safest in North America. I'm proud to say that we have made considerable progress towards achieving that objective.

There are many good reasons for concentrating on road safety. More than 1,100 people die in road collisions every year. We know that 85% of all collisions are caused by driver mistake: everything from losing concentration for a moment to tailgating to drinking and driving.

Everyone in the province pays for road collisions. We all pay higher taxes and insurance premiums. We spend extra time in traffic jams and hospital waiting rooms. In fact, road collisions cost Ontarians approximately $9 billion a year. That figure includes 800,000 hours of police time, 38,000 ambulance calls, 9,000 calls to fire departments, 74,000 visits to hospital emergency rooms and 146,000 days of acute hospital care. When people hear those numbers, they don't ask why our government is doing so much to promote safety; in fact, they're asking why we're not doing more by building safer roads and enforcing the traffic laws. The fact is of course that we are doing those things and much more.

1600

Two weeks ago, for example, the ministry participated in Road Check '94, a safety blitz for commercial trucks that is carried out every year across North America. Last year the ministry inspected just under 3,000 large trucks and took 33% of these vehicles out of service for problems such as mechanical defects, drivers who spent too long behind the wheel, dangerous goods violations and load security problems.

Although we haven't yet had an opportunity to analyse this year's numbers in detail, our preliminary results indicate that the safety problems involving large commercial trucks on our roads most unfortunately may be getting worse. This suggests that the ministry's truck inspection programs need to be even more aggressive than they've been: 3,000 times, 3,000 incidents; 33% of those 3,000 are not roadworthy and our preliminary indication says it's getting a little worse, a condition which is not acceptable to the Ministry of Transportation. We will indeed become more aggressive.

In the area of passenger safety, one of the best ways to reduce injuries and deaths on the roads is to increase the use of seatbelts. During the past three years, public awareness campaigns and enforcement have helped increase seatbelt use in Ontario by 12%. Our aim is to reach 100% of compliance. Ours is not a record of perfection, but it has been a record of constant improvement. We've gone from 73% to 84% compliance in the last two years and we're now dealing with the hard core, the remaining 16% who must be deterred; give them a chance to stay with us longer, to be like the others by buckling up.

Strict enforcement of the law will of course help us reach that goal. Seatbelt use has been mandatory in Ontario for 18 years. People know the law. Our government recently had an incentive to encourage people to buckle up. Drivers who do not wear seatbelts will gain, add, two licence demerit points as well as being hit in the pocketbook fairly big time, $90.

We're also planning to introduce another safety initiative, that of photo-radar, this year. The measure will help the police enforce speed limits which exist to promote safety. Other jurisdictions have had considerable success with photo-radar technology. Average speeds have come down and safety has improved. We hope to achieve similar results here in Ontario. One out of every six fatalities is the result of excessive speed. We wish to reduce that, so we're introducing another safety initiative, that of photo-radar.

The government is also continuing its support for RIDE programs to help reduce drinking and driving throughout the province. Drinking and driving is not just illegal today, it has become socially unacceptable. Since 1982, the number of drivers involved in alcohol-related collisions has dropped a full 47%. That's a remarkable achievement. It was made possible through the cooperation and hard work of community groups, the police, government agencies and the private sector.

But drinking and driving is still a serious problem in Ontario. Hard-core offenders are still getting behind the wheel. In 1982, there were 29,000 convictions for impaired driving, and 59% of the drivers who were convicted were repeat offenders, recidivists. Our government is currently looking at a whole range of new measures to deal with this ongoing problem.

My ministry is currently working with many organizations, including the Ontario Safety League, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, the insurance industry and others to promote the goal of road safety. We're actively seeking new partners who can help us achieve our goals.

One of our government's most important safety initiatives is the introduction of graduated drivers' licences, graduated licensing for new drivers. The program came into effect June 6 this year. Graduated licensing ensures that new drivers acquire experience and advanced skills in safer conditions. It is a measure that will save many lives, and I'm proud of having seen it through the House.

Some of the other things I've talked about today, such as our capital investments and our work to improve customer service, help improve the safety of our roads. This year, for example, the government has committed $100 million of my ministry's highway capital budget for safety measures. We're investing in passing lanes, in highway median barriers and truck arrester beds. We're improving highway lighting. We're also installing crash barriers that can absorb greater impacts. We are marking the pavement with chevrons to reduce tailgating.

In some cases better customer service also means safer roads. A good example is the COMPASS system we have introduced on some of the province's major highways. The system uses changeable messages that can warn drivers about traffic conditions ahead. COMPASS video cameras help the emergency vehicles get to the scene of a collision faster.

In fact, the COMPASS system is an excellent example of how all our government's transportation activities are designed to work together in the public interest. COMPASS provides road users with better service. The system also helps make Ontario's highways safer and more efficient, which helps to improve Ontario's economic competitiveness; and the COMPASS system is new Ontario technology that can be and has been sold in markets around the world.

I have focused on three main areas of the ministry's activities in my opening statement today. I have talked about capital programs, our changing business practices and our achievements towards the goal of safer roads. I think this provides a good introduction to some of our most important initiatives this year.

Comme je le disais plus tôt, nous sommes venus ici pour fournir des renseignements au Comité et pour répondre à vos questions. Je conclurai donc mes remarques simplement en répétant que nous apprécions l'occasion qui nous est offerte de partager avec vous tous ces renseignements et que nous espérons avoir le plaisir de rendre ces séances les plus productives possible.

Mr Daigeler: First of all, I've always been impressed with the quality of the opening remarks that have been made by the ministers of Transportation, and I think this probably reflects the staff that is available. I did review, in preparation for these estimates, previous ones and I must say the statements were always quite well done. Perhaps you can pass those compliments on to whoever they should be addressed to, because you probably don't quite write those opening statements yourself.

The Chair: If they had known they would be spoken so fast, they would have had a few more in there.

Mr Daigeler: Anyway, I frankly don't have such a nicely prepared statement for you, and in view of the fact that we may only have today until we adjourn for the summer, I will put forward quite a few questions that normally would come up during the debate. But seeing that there are several representatives of the ministry here -- I don't know whether there's anybody else left in your ministry, with all the officials here; I guess you have the cream of the crop here today, which is good -- I will put them on the record.

I will start with your own remarks first. Obviously I'm just reading them at this point, but a few things struck me while you were speaking. You'll see the Hansard afterwards as well, and your officials will see it and they can take note of it. To start out, you say on the first page: "Every dollar we spend on transportation puts $2.50 back into the provincial economy and every million dollars we spend on road construction creates 20 new jobs."

Frankly, I'm very pleased with this statement, because I agree with you and I've been arguing on that basis in the House, in particular for the construction of Highway 416. I am just not convinced at all that you have been following that kind of reasoning with regard to the decisions of your own government.

1610

Now perhaps, as we are approaching an election, decisions are forthcoming a little bit in a more generous fashion, recognizing that in fact transportation and infrastructure improvement has a significant impact on the economic health of the province.

I am pleased that you did, without hesitation I guess, participate in the federal infrastructure program and that you have come to relatively quick decisions in what initiatives should be supported. I just received this week the infrastructure initiatives that are funded by the provincial government and the federal government in the Ottawa-Carleton area and I was very pleased to see the wide-ranging number of projects that are going to be under way. Frankly I support that, I think that's great and I appreciate the contribution of the federal government.

That brings me to a question that I have with regard to your statement on page 2, where you say that spending on highway construction in Ontario has increased by 35% and capital spending for municipal roads is also up this year by some 37%. I presume you are calculating here the contribution of the federal government in this figure. If that's not correct, you can indicate that afterwards.

I would like to know more specifically how much of that 35% or 37% is specifically provincial funding increase and what is really due to the generosity of the federal government. I don't want to say that you're not contributing, but certainly I think there's a significant contribution in there from the federal government.

You make reference to the 407, and I am sure we will be getting back to that major project at some length during the six hours that we have. But just to touch on it at this point because you referred to it, when you say that we need the jobs now, we don't need them 10 or 20 years down the road, it makes me frankly uneasy. I agree with you that obviously we need the jobs right now, but we also need them 10 or 20 years down the road.

Frankly, for me, this still raises a very fundamental question in my mind. Are we sort of using up all the road construction work that needs to be done just right now in order to get the economy going without really that long-term consideration?

I remember the discussion in the Ottawa-Carleton area about the Queensway construction and how long it took to widen the Queensway. That was both under the previous Conservative government and then the Liberal government. I always took the position that you shouldn't really spend all your money all at once, because people have to live and have a job in the roadbuilding industry five, 10 or 15 years down the road.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't do this right now, the 407, but it's a concern that I have, and I'm just wondering what your response is to that. Are you confident that we're going to have another major project like that 20 years down the road? I'm sure people will still want to be employed and work in the roadbuilding industry.

Also, still to the 407, you mentioned on the top of page 3 that the consortium recently advised you that in order to meet the construction schedule it could spend up to $300 million on the project this year. What's holding this up? It could spend, but will it spend it? What are the conditions? Where is that at, that this money will be spent?

I see that we received earlier, and I appreciate that again, a summary of the agreement with the consortium. I certainly will take a careful look at that. But my question is, will this money be spent this year? What are the conditions for this to be spent?

I must say, I've been somewhat critical, as you probably remember, about this famous saving that you're going to have with regard to the new approach to the construction of the 407. You're referring again in your remarks to $300 million that you're saving. I'd like to have some details on that, again in due course. I'm just putting you on notice here.

I'm left with somewhat the impression that a significant amount of the saving is simply that you are not doing some of the things that were in the original plans. You're cutting out some access and exits, and obviously there's a saving associated to that and it really has nothing to do with a different approach to all of this. I would like to know some specific details as to what it is that we're actually saving and how you arrive at that figure of $300 million.

I understand that you're trying to play that 407 project up as much as you can, and I think you have every right to do so, but when you say, "We're not taking away any money from other important highway investments and without adding a burden of debt to the consolidated revenue fund," while that may be technically correct, what you're saying here, nevertheless, it is a debt that is being taken out; it's just not by the government as such, but by the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp, which, by all accounts, is the same thing, and so really the fact that you are going in debt, or the Transportation Capital Corp is going into debt for this 407 project does, obviously, limit the money that is available for other projects.

Again, I do support going ahead with the 407 project and I do support that being a priority at this point, but I'm having great difficulty to say that really, because we're doing it differently, we're doing it through the Transportation Capital Corp, we have all that other money now available for highway construction. I really would like to see where that is, because, you know, in the end it's all one pot, in particular since it's now no longer the private sector. Even if it were for the private sector, obviously it would have to go to a limited pot that's there, and there aren't unlimited funds even on the open market out there.

While I'm talking about the Transportation Capital Corp, that is perhaps the most important issue that I hope we get a chance to talk about. Frankly, I would have liked you to touch on that in your opening remarks a little bit more, as to what the relationship is and is going to be between your ministry and that new agency. I'm even wondering about this committee, to what extent we, for example, could call before us officials of the Transportation Capital Corp in the estimates process. We'll get a chance to talk about that later.

The Chair: Would you make that a formal request?

Mr Daigeler: We'll see. We'll let the minister answer first, and then I'll go from there, because clearly they seem to be taking over a significant part of the work of the ministry both in terms of staff and money, I guess. Are they escaping from the estimates process? I don't know. I just would like to hear at some length from the minister what the relationship is going to be between his ministry and the Transportation Capital Corp.

I was concerned quite a bit when I heard you, and it's on page 6, with regard to the safety checks on large commercial trucks. You're saying here, although the results aren't in formally, that the problem may be getting worse with truckers not following the rules that have been set up.

If there are any tentative results available even, I'd like to hear that, because I certainly would want to bring that up with the Ontario Trucking Association. I don't think that would be good news. I think we have collectively, all three parties, been quite supportive of the Ontario truckers in this province and, frankly, would get upset if they're not doing their share with regard to road safety, because I think it is an important concern. If there's evidence that the problem is getting worse rather than better, it would concern me greatly.

1620

Photo-radar: You touched on that, and again, we'll be at some length dealing with these things, but really, when you say that other jurisdictions have had considerable success with photo-radar technology, it brings us back to the debate, what kind of a success? Are you talking about financial success or success in the reduction of accidents? I'm sure you read the recent article in the Toronto Star which, with facts and figures from the Calgary experience, shows that there has not really been any significant reduction in the accidents because of the introduction of photo-radar.

So again I'd like you to address this and make your argument, as you've done before, that this is a safety measure and not a revenue measure. I'd also like to know -- but these are more detailed questions -- when this is coming. It was supposed to be, I think, in place two months ago and we're still waiting. Not that I'm waiting with bated breath, I must say. You can take your time a little bit. I just would like to know, because people are phoning my office and my colleagues receive calls, what is going on here and what's happening.

One figure, of course, that I liked seeing in here is the reduction in the number of alcohol-related collisions. You say here that since 1982 they have dropped by 47%. Perhaps if we could have a little bit more recent figures, let's say over the last five years: Has this trend continued in that same way or has there been a significant drop, let's say, between 1982 and 1985? I just don't know. Are we stagnating in terms of reduction of alcohol-related accidents? I would just like, if those figures are available, to have a breakdown over the last few years rather than just over the whole decade.

Graduated licensing: Both Mr Turnbull and myself have been working and supported your efforts in that regard. I hope it's going to work and I would like to have a good report on where it's at at present: what's happening with regard to the preparation of that exit test, with regard to the waiting list and what is the experience -- so far, obviously, it's a very limited experience, but I would like some of the officials to speak to how it's working so far, because we've been involved in this. Obviously, questions have been raised, and I would just like to know what the experience has been up to this point.

That's basically with regard to the points that you raised in your own opening statement. Now, as I mentioned, with regard to the actual green book, the estimates book that we're supposed to look at, in particular I am most concerned about the significant shift of the capital funds to the Transportation Capital Corp.

I presume that's what this is, and I'm referring to page 10 here, where it says 31% reduction in program delivery of your ministry. I presume most of that is because this has been shifted over to the Transportation Capital Corp, and I would just like to have a confirmation of that.

On the other hand, I was struck by a 95% increase in the budget for the policy and planning of your ministry. I'm wondering how that jibes with what seems to be a shift of responsibility over to someone else. Shouldn't there be a significant reduction rather than a 95% increase in the policy and planning part of your budget?

On page 16, I have quite a few questions on all the various items that are listed there -- perhaps people can be prepared -- for example, under "Vehicle Fees, Licences, and Permits," there's actually a reduction of some $70 million. You think you're going to have less money coming in on that. I'm kind of surprised because you increased fees and licences, and perhaps that's what my leader has been arguing, that because you've increased all these taxes and fees and so on, you're actually getting less money. Is that evidence of that or why is that?

There are a number of things in here. It says "Other Fees, Licences, and Permits." In 1993-94 the actuals were $700,000 and you're budgeting $2 million. That's the photo-radar, I presume. Again, I would like to know what's behind this.

"Sales and Rentals": You were estimating for last year $36 million and you've got only about $14 million. For this year, you're figuring $19 million. What's behind this? What is this? Why was your estimate so far off? Is that the famous initiative to sell off some of the crown assets and then claim it as revenue?

"Vehicle System Improvement Project": I'm wondering what that is. You have $10 million down. Frankly, on almost of these items that are listed on page 16 I would like some background as to where this is coming from and why the figures are the way they are there.

In terms of more general points, and perhaps you can address this in your response, I have the impression that the Highway Traffic Act should be up for significant reform. There have been many items that we've had to deal with in the House and people are saying, "Why is it that we need legislation for all of these things?"

I am informed that this act hasn't been significantly revised in quite some time and I'm wondering whether you have any plans to do a real overhaul of that act. I think the time has come to take some of the things out that probably should be done either through the regulations process or in other ways that don't necessarily require a decision by the House every time.

For example, although I appreciate your decision, the one that hopefully will still pass before the session adjourns is the one on the different funding arrangement for municipal transit subsidies where -- if I might refresh the minister's memory, it's in Bill 175, that thick volume of legal changes -- you have to make an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act to allow paying instalments by the ministry in three steps rather than in one shot, thereby saving the municipalities interest payments.

I've been asking for that and you assured me that you were doing it and it's coming in Bill 175. I appreciate that and the municipalities appreciate that, but one may ask why that requires an act of Parliament just to change a funding arrangement. I think there are many aspects in the Highway Traffic Act that probably need a serious review and I'm wondering whether you have any plans.

1630

Railways, frankly, I think are an important issue that you haven't touched on at all in your opening remarks. I fully understand you can't touch on everything, but clearly, with the effort to abandon some short-line railways and now with a decision of the National Transportation Agency, for example, in Barrie not to allow, at least for two years, the abandonment of a short railway line, there are comments to say -- in fact I have in front of me an article from the Barrie Examiner that says what's needed is a provincial railway policy, one that can deal with today's problems.

Are you looking at that? I would like to hear from you at some length as to what your vision is from a provincial perspective with regard to railways, because obviously with the federal government we're going to be involved in this. I would like to hear your perspective on these very serious questions.

I'm mentioning the federal government. I'm sure you've followed the ruminations, perhaps we can call it, of the federal Minister of Transport where he is proposing some pretty significant reforms to his department. I'm wondering whether you see similar initiatives that could and perhaps should be taken provincially. He's looking at a very significant reduction of his own ministry.

I don't think quite the same thing applies to the province, but nevertheless I would like to hear what your reaction is to what has appeared so far in the papers about the statements by Mr Young and how you see the future of your own ministry, the different aspects. That includes the relocation efforts of your ministry. I would like to have a pretty good update on where those efforts are at, when it is to be completed and what are any of the difficulties that you may be experiencing.

I also understand there's quite a significant number of people who are retiring -- I think at some point I heard something like a figure of 2,000 people over the short term -- in your ministry. How will that affect the work of your ministry and how will you use that event as an opportunity or as a challenge? How will you handle that with regard to the future of your whole ministry and the operation of what you are responsible for?

Obviously, the ferry fees have to be touched on. I'm not sure to what extent you are at liberty to talk about this, since you're appealing the decision, but I would be interested to hear whether you did ask for a legal opinion before you went ahead with trying to charge ferry fees, and, if so, what that opinion was and whether we can get a copy of that. Frankly, I was utterly amazed, when the decision came down, that the judge in very strong words said that you have no authority to do what you're doing. I thought it was pretty damning and I'm looking forward to your defence of this and to your response.

You will permit me to put on the record a question about Highway 416, both as critic and also as a member from the Ottawa-Carleton area and from Nepean. I do say and I do acknowledge that in my riding there's very good construction under way. Of course, that was approved by the previous government as well, but you are continuing that, and that is appreciated. I see lots of trucks. Every time I get an opportunity to go home, I drive that way, so I follow very closely the progress of 416.

But what about the second part? I still hear things in the newspaper that the shovel may be in the ground still this year with regard to the second section. I would like to hear from you what are these famous plans that you have with regard to the private sector, how they could be and should be involved and to what extent that may involve or may not involve tolls.

I do want to say just very briefly, to be on the record already, that I'm very opposed to the notion of tolls because, as I said in the House, with the unexpected and very generous support of the federal government, I think the least the provincial government can do is come up with its two thirds of that relatively minor expenditure of about $180 million for the completion of the 416.

I say relatively minor because you want to spend -- or probably more so the Premier, because he seems to be pushing for that, above all -- billions of dollars for two subways in the Toronto area that Metro doesn't even want at this point. We're saying if you are prepared to build four subways and spend the 75% of the provincial share, the least you can do for eastern Ontario is pick up the two thirds of the cost for the completion of Highway 416. If you can comment on that, I would appreciate it.

A big concern that is still out there in other parts of the province is of course the Red Hill Creek Expressway and I would like to hear from you as to what the status is and where you see that going at the present time. I'm sure there's intense interest in that in the Hamilton area and I look forward to your response on that one.

What you haven't again touched in your opening statement is another area, which is the whole field of bicycles and bicycle policy. At one point in the previous estimates you put that forward as quite a significant concern of your ministry. We've heard very little about that aspect of transportation, and I would like to hear what has been the progress and the development since you came forward with your bicycle policy. Where's it at and can somebody bring me up to date?

As part of that as well, where are your plans with regard to the bicycle helmet legislation, since this is supposed to take effect pretty soon and I'd like to hear from you how you're preparing for the proclamation of that.

I see the Chairman nodding at me.

The Chair: That doesn't mean I'm falling asleep, Mr Daigeler.

Mr Daigeler: Does it mean my time is over?

The Chair: Your time is almost completed.

Mr Daigeler: Almost over. I think I've put enough of the concerns that I want to raise on the record. If we do adjourn today or tomorrow, perhaps some of your officials can start, with a little bit more leisure, looking at some of these questions and prepare some answers for you when we come back to the more detailed questions and answers.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, as I expressed in my question to the Chair at the beginning, I would prefer not to make a long speech. I see the Liberals have decided to spend their half-hour, as is their right, to make a speech, putting on record what they want. I would like to concentrate on questions and I would ask that consideration be given by the committee that, in the respect that I will be taking a very short period of time to put these points on the record, that would actually be acknowledged in terms of the amount of time I will have for questioning the minister.

I will start out by making the comment that I am concerned with the way your ministry is going about the shared shipper responsibility. It is very clear from statements from you and the Liberal Party and myself that we're all in agreement on the urgent need to have shared shipper responsibility legislation through. You had, as you correctly pointed out, an opportunity last fall, but the Liberals objected to it as being part of a large omnibus bill.

1640

The fact is that you've had a year to bring in legislation, and you didn't do it. We're now being asked to give first, second and third reading to Mr Hansen's private member's bill tomorrow to pass this. Given the fact that all parties have agreed that we encourage you to bring this forward, I still have to tell you we have difficulties with the process of doing it that way. I'm putting you on notice now, so that you will have time for your staff to prepare it, that we would be supportive of a government bill to be brought in tomorrow for first, second and third reading.

To the extent that you have the draft from Mr Hansen as to what he has put forward, I would say that would be the basis of your bringing the bill forward. Under those circumstances, we would support it. There is absolutely no reason you shouldn't do this, if indeed there is the goodwill and it is indeed your intention to pass this legislation. I would ask you to comment on that.

Highway 407, as you well know, is a question of great concern to me. I'm most concerned about the secrecy surrounding the awarding of this contract, and in fact I will be asking you questions about how you went into the procedure with the suggestion that it would be financed by the private sector and then it appears that hours before the decision was made it was decided that the public sector would finance it.

The suggestion has been made that the reason for that -- in fact when I got a phone call from one of your assistants immediately after the decision had been made, I was told that it was because you had discovered that it would be cheaper for the government to finance it. I find that kind of comment absolutely incomprehensible. I know that there are sufficient people around who advise your government at least, who have enough knowledge to know that a government can borrow at a cheaper rate than commercial corporations. So I have to believe that there is more to this question, and I will be asking you a lot of detailed questions on the process.

With respect to GO Transit, I have some concerns that your government in opposition constantly assailed the private sector with such expressions as "corporate welfare bums." Now in fact here's your government trotting off to Bermuda to close a deal for tax reasons. The taxpayers of Ontario are paying for officials to go down to Bermuda so that somebody can avoid taxes. Is this truly the same government? I'm not telling you, "Don't do it." I'm simply saying that if at least you have seen the light, be intellectually honest enough to say: "We were wrong in opposition. We were dead wrong. Socialism doesn't work." I'll pass on from that.

I have questions with respect to the Danforth yards, which were contracted by the GO Transit to be purchased from the CNR for the price of $54 million. I believe that the contract called for best efforts by the government to obtain the environmental approvals for that. It's quite obvious that the government can obtain environmental approvals. When we consider the things that your government has done to subvert the environmental process, we have to say that it's very, very easy for you to get the environmental approvals. I believe that we're in danger of losing the $54 million and also losing the opportunity to have GO Transit rolling stock stored east of Yonge Street. So I want some questions on that.

I want to speak to you about your government's pressure to build four subway lines when in fact, and I'm not blaming you for this, the previous Liberal government sat on its hands on transit for years and then weeks before the election suddenly rolled out this grandiose scheme for building megaprojects of the subway.

I would put to you and I would hope that you could answer me and that your officials could answer me as to whether we could not anticipate a day when we would have the political process completely removed from this so that we can make a long-term commitment to our transfer partners that we will indeed build a kilometre, for example, of subway per year for a long-term period. If indeed we have a downturn, as we're now in, we could then say, "Okay, we'll speed up the process and we'll build two kilometres this year."

That's the way we're going to get the private sector working --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Leach only said one.

Mr Turnbull: It's got nothing to do with Mr Leach. This is what I'm saying. I have some questions about photo-radar and I will be questioning you about a report which came out in Calgary which suggested that it has done nothing to reduce speeds, but in fact has been an enormous cash cow.

I have questions, as you already know, you're on notice, with respect to the anti-private sector bias which is shown in the Wally Majesky report. I want to question you on the short rail line policy of your government and indeed, I would like to know what the current status of your plans is for improving roads, specifically the Trans-Canada Highway in the north.

You will recall in the last election, in that famous document, Agenda for People, you suggested you were going to spend $100 million a year on it, and I would like some answers with respect to that. I would also like to know the status of your negotiations with the federal government. I know the federal government was supposed to come out in February of this year with a report on high-speed rail between Windsor and Quebec. Perhaps you could update us with respect to that. I would also like a succinct update on the Red Hill Creek Expressway.

Having put the issues on the table, I hope the time that I haven't used, because I believe I've used approximately eight minutes, Mr Chairman, that I could have that extra time allocated to me for question and answer with the minister.

The Chair: Mr Turnbull, I can only advise you once in this fashion. You can use the balance of your time for your half-hour, and engage in a question and answer period now, but I can't stack your time.

Mr Turnbull: Okay, then I'll proceed with it. Minister, with respect to the shared trucker responsibility, do you have any difficulty with the idea of the government bringing in a bill similar to Mr Hansen's tomorrow for first, second and third reading?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, thank you very kindly. Mr Turnbull, we intend to proceed with shared responsibility. The methodology, the process, is what --

Mr Turnbull: Let's not worry about the process. I have a question -- I see you're desperately looking at your officials here.

The Chair: Mr Turnbull, I'm going to --

Mr Turnbull: I wanted a question --

The Chair: No, Mr Turnbull, please. I am simply going to suggest that now you have engaged the minister in a question and answer, it's incumbent on the two of you to give each other enough time to ask your question and to respond.

Mr Turnbull: Okay. Could I have a succinct answer?

Hon Mr Pouliot: You've asked your question. I'm sure you'll have the decency and courtesy to let me answer in a broadly summarized form.

Mr Turnbull: When you get it.

Hon Mr Pouliot: We intend to proceed by way of Mr Hansen's private member's bill. It was tabled yesterday.

Mr Turnbull: Why?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Because it's the intention of the government to address the matter.

Mr Turnbull: Why aren't you bringing the legislation forward?

Hon Mr Pouliot: We would expect your support. We're also competing with other legislation, but we will be back in the fall, so we're trying to expedite it. It was tabled yesterday and it will see the light of day. We intend it and we appreciate your support.

Mr Turnbull: Don't you think it's more appropriate that you bring forward government legislation?

Hon Mr Pouliot: As long as the job gets done, in the final analysis this is the most --

Mr Turnbull: No, no, Minister, let's be very, very clear about this. The job of the government, when you're bringing forward legislation, is to subject the government to scrutiny with respect to the bill. If you bring forward a private member's bill, as you are well aware, it is subject to a very limited amount of scrutiny, and I am concerned about the ongoing process and the precedent that we set with this kind of conduct.

1650

Hon Mr Pouliot: I won't repeat it again, but we intend to proceed with Mr Hansen's private member's bill, and this will get the job done.

Mr Turnbull: Okay. Turning to 407, I have a letter here which is addressed to you, dated May 25, from the Better Roads Coalition. Just reading in part it says:

"The Better Roads Coalition has a major concern with the procedure used for the analysis of the competitive bids....

"First, the public was advised that private financing was a major objective for this work. The question still remains, would there have been more competitive bidding if the engineering and construction industries had been aware that the government was going to do the financing?"

That is question one, which I'd like answered now. Secondly, their question is:

"The Ontario government and the construction industry over many years have established an open public system of tendering that has the confidence and respect of the people of Ontario. In fact, it has been followed by many jurisdictions not only in Canada, but throughout the world. To throw this openness out to safeguard the competitiveness of the bidders in other business ventures, in our opinion, is not in the public interest. Public contracts are just that, `public,' and the contractors are aware of this when they enter into this work."

Now, Minister, could you answer those two questions that are posed by the Better Roads Coalition?

Hon Mr Pouliot: A valid question indeed, and I thank you. We have assembled a team of experts from all sectors within the Ministry of Transportation, because we wish to address the questions in depth, and by way of expertise I will ask Mr George Davies, who is our deputy minister, to answer those two questions.

Mr Daigeler: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I have no objection if the minister chooses to answer some of the questions Mr Turnbull asked as part of his opening 30 minutes, but I do have objections if we now start what is the normal rotation process with responses from staff and so on. It's up to the minister whether he wants to --

The Chair: No, it's up to the Chair, Mr Daigeler, and the Chair has --

Mr Daigeler: Well, I know. I'm saying --

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Daigeler.

Mr Daigeler: I'm saying that under the rules of this committee we have 30-minute opening statements by the opposition parties, including the minister, and then the minister will use 30 minutes to make some final remarks and then we start with the officials and everybody else.

The Chair: Mr Daigeler, the Chair has assigned a 30-minute period to Mr Turnbull. He has determined that that is how he wishes to use it, and it would be up to Mr Turnbull to determine if he wishes the deputy to respond. He has indicated he wishes to hear the response from the deputy, and they will proceed. This is not a matter for debate, Mr Daigeler, and I will now call the deputy who has been suitably introduced for Hansard to respond.

Mr Daigeler: I appreciate, Mr Chairman, what you said.

The Chair: No, I'm sorry, Mr Daigeler. If you call a point of order, you're in order, but otherwise you're out of order. Please proceed, Deputy.

Mr George Davies: Thank you, Mr Chair. There have been two questions raised: one, the nature of the competitive-bidding process and could it have been made more open and, two, the nature of the openness itself. I'll deal with them in that order.

The bids that were produced were produced as a result of an invitation from the Premier in February 1993. We did have three consortia that came forward. Those three consortia constituted probably among them between 80% and 90% of the engineering and construction capacity within the province of Ontario. One of the three bidders we did not qualify. The proposal that had come forward fell outside of the terms of reference.

Mr Turnbull: This is the Bechtel bid?

Mr Davies: This is a third party. We have signed confidentiality agreements with all of these parties. There is a third party, and I don't think it would be appropriate for me either to comment on the content of that proposal or to even identify who was in the group, and that's by a request of those particular groups. The provisions to submit bids that provided for a development design-build -- in other words, the possibility that the crown would do the financing -- was specifically stated in the RFP. It was not only specifically stated; it was also confirmed in an exchange of correspondence with both sets of bidders on two different occasions. Indeed, there were responses back from both bidders in terms of what their bids would be, absent their financing.

There should not have been any particular questions raised about the fairness of the process, since it was explicit and it was understood. The process itself was fully agreed to as a result of negotiations and formal sign-off by all parties involved, including both consortia.

I think the important thing is that what the Better Roads Coalition is raising is the question of whether it would have been merited to go back to the old process, which would be to break up 407 into component parts and hold standard competitive processes associated with each of these, where it was the government that dictated the specifications for each of those components and then there was the standard Ministry of Transportation bidding process.

We felt that would have significantly detracted from the kinds of savings we have been able to obtain as a result of the integration of engineering with the construction companies and the invitation to those companies to exercise innovation in the proposals they came back with.

Mr Turnbull: Let me ask you, based upon that, is it not reasonable to suggest that if you wanted to get the maximum number of qualified bidders -- under the process you set up the impression was given, I believe to everybody, but certainly to the media and the opposition parties, that it was to be financed by the private sector -- is it not reasonable to believe that there would have been other consortia possible that would have had the capability to have done the project without breaking the contract up into pieces, had they not had to have the financial wherewithal to be able to carry it through?

Mr Davies: The RFP was a public document and it provided for the crown doing the financing. It also provided for other variations that were left to the discretion of the crown. While there may have been the impression, it was initially our preference that the financing be done by the private sector as part of the overall integrated proposal.

Unfortunately, when we did the analysis, as we worked our way through, having picked the best overall proposal and done the comparative analysis with the financing included, having then reaffirmed the choice of that best overall proposal as a result of that comparison, we came down to the issue of, how do we ensure the best value for the public?

When we did the comparison between the financing proposal that was being offered versus the risk that the government was being asked to take on -- which is something we had said we didn't want to do; we had a preference that the risk be assumed fully by the private sector -- as soon as that risk came back to us, we had to make a decision. Was the risk we were being expected to take on commensurate with any conceivable benefits associated with them financing it? The answer was no.

Mr Turnbull: Was the risk that you were being asked to take on equal in both of the bids?

Mr Davies: It was roughly comparable. There were different variations in it, but it was roughly comparable. But remember, we had gone through, we had made the risk assessment, we had made the choice. Having made the choice, we then dealt with the question of, would it make sense for the private consortium to finance or the public sector? The difference in net present value was between $65 million and $130 million: net present value. If one were to do the arithmetic figures, it would be in the realm of several hundred million dollars over the life of the project.

1700

Mr Turnbull: You're saying that the winning bid, compared with the other bid, the difference was --

Mr Davies: No, I'm saying that for the winning bid, for them to finance it versus the government to finance it, the difference in the net present value -- the government was being asked -- sorry, it's not necessarily the government. The government was being asked to accept a certain degree, a very high degree, of risk.

Secondly, the users, who are paying for 407 through their tolls, were being asked to pay a significantly higher price in order to pay for the additional costs of the private financing. We calculated that at between $65 million and $130 million net present value. That was the difference between public sector versus private sector financing of that winning proposal.

Mr Turnbull: Based upon what ridership, or what user volume were you basing that on?

Mr Davies: Based on our forecast, which was done by an independent, respected forecaster, one of the three firms in North America that is recognized by financial intermediaries as producing bankable forecasts.

In addition, the impact of that additional cost adds somewhere in the realm of about half a cent per kilometre to the toll that would have to be paid. By raising the toll cost, because of the elasticities, one also has an impact on the ridership, so there would be a somewhat diminished ridership. As it was, we didn't have to factor that in.

Mr Turnbull: This decision that was made by deputy ministers was very complicated, on a very important project. The evaluation team must have used some criteria and some weighting in terms of selecting the winning bid. Can you give me some details as to what criteria you used and what weighting you used? For example, I'm specifically speaking to the fact that I know the winning bid is substantially a six-lane highway, most of the way, made of concrete. Was that the same materials and construction for the losing bid?

Mr Davies: I'm reluctant to disclose what was in the losing bid because we have signed a confidentiality agreement with the bidder, but let me just make some general comments about differences. There was a difference in the material between the two bids. There was a difference in other features, such as the level of illumination. There was a difference in terms of some of the features associated with interchanges. There was a difference in terms of shoulder width, gravel versus paved.

As you point out, those differences in material, as well as the difference in the standards, as well as the difference in capacity, all have an impact in terms of the marketability of the highway, the life-cycle costing of the highway. Therefore, in order to do a direct comparison of the bids, we had to do some standardization so that we were comparing apples with apples.

Mr Turnbull: So you were using a life-cycle approach to this. There are only two materials that I know of in constructing a road, one is concrete and the other one is asphalt, so presumably we're talking about asphalt. When you're comparing two bids of dissimilar material and you're using a life-cycle approach, can you tell me what sort of assumptions were built in to your life-cycle calculations?

Mr Davies: You're asking a very specific technical question. We did use the AASHTO standards.

Mr Turnbull: The what standards?

Mr Davies: That's the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials.

The Chair: The deputy indicates there is someone here who could give a more fulsome response. Would you like that?

Mr Turnbull: Let's just stick with this line of questioning for the moment.

You have indicated that in fact this is a very technical type of process, and I would agree with you. Can you tell me what sort of qualifications the deputies who made this had to make this technical decision? Was there anybody who had any road construction experience to be able to base this decision on?

Mr Davies: We had several technical teams that were producing analysis and providing the results of that analysis -- not the recommendations -- to the deputies.

Mr Turnbull: And these teams were made up of?

Mr Davies: Not only ministry, engineering and economic and financial people, but also we had an independent engineering firm that was part of the advice to the team, and then of course, as you know, we had an overall process consultant and then independent financial advisers.

Mr Turnbull: Speaking of your independent financial advisers, is it not correct that these independent financial advisers in fact are people who are actively involved in raising money for the province?

Mr Davies: There were several teams of independent financial advisers, some of whom are actively involved in raising money for the province, others of whom are not.

Mr Turnbull: Is that not a conflict of interest, suggesting to the government that it's not a good idea for the private sector to finance it, perhaps finance it through the government and then we'll go and finance the money for you at a fee?

Mr Davies: We did not ask for recommendations from those people. We asked for their analysis in terms of what the comparative costs would be. One also has to recognize that there are in the realm of a half a dozen or so key firms that do most of the financing, that arrange for most of the financing for the government, and two of those half-dozen were part of one particular team that was providing this analysis and advice.

Mr Turnbull: When did you advise the bidders in fact that you were leaning towards doing the financing yourselves?

Mr Davies: The decision was announced -- I don't have the specific date -- on the day that we made the public announcement. There were specific requests back to both bidders to produce their guaranteed maximum prices for a design-built proposal which would be absent government financing, and there was a clarification process that occurred. Therefore, they were fully aware that was an option that was being considered. There are specific dates in terms of when that interaction occurred, and it did precede by several months the final announcement.

Mr Turnbull: I understand that there was a commitment made that the two consortia would do a certain amount of outsourcing after they got the contract. Is that correct?

Mr Davies: We did not seek that commitment. We made that an option that they may wish to address in the bids themselves. One of them chose to make a fairly explicit commitment, another one gave a general target.

Mr Turnbull: Is that the winning consortium that gave the explicit commitment?

Mr Davies: You're asking me to, by omission, disclose details of a bid for which I've signed a confidentiality agreement.

Mr Turnbull: Let me say, I'm sure you're aware of the invitation of the Daily Commercial News, from June 16 of this year, to pre-qualify for subcontractors, and I read the last line: "All tenders will be closed." These in fact are people who are going to do the traditional small pieces of roads, but it's going to be by closed tender. Does that not give you any cause for concern?

Mr Davies: We have an overall guaranteed maximum price from the winning consortium which cannot be exceeded without severe penalties being paid.

Mr Turnbull: As I'm sure you're aware, within the winning consortium, there are several companies that were subs or parents of the winning consortium that could conceivably be brought in under the guise of being subcontractors.

Mr Davies: That is the normal way of doing business, even in our conventional contracts.

Mr Turnbull: Just one last question. What experience does this winning consortium have of roadbuilding in this province, or in fact in Canada?

Mr Davies: The combination of members are highly experienced.

Mr Turnbull: Have they built any roads in Ontario?

Mr Davies: Yes.

The Chair: Minister, you now have up to 30 minutes to provide responses to the questions that have been raised in the opening statements. I should indicate for the record that both legislative research assigned to this committee and staff of the ministry have been taking down the questions. If a more fulsome response is required, Minister, it's always appreciated to receive those in writing and in a timely fashion through the clerk. Then they will be circulated appropriately. Having said that, Minister, if you'd like to proceed, please do.

Hon Mr Pouliot: By way of general remarks, I'll certainly attempt to entertain some of these subject matters, some of the issues that were raised. However, again, we have assembled -- I hear there is a bell.

The Chair: It is a 30-minute bell.

Mr Duignan: They want it shorter.

Mr Turnbull: Can someone go in and tell them we will not be there until such-and-such a time?

The Chair: No. I'm guided by the standing orders here. Please, I appreciate the assistance of the committee members with their suggestions, but if we're called to the House, we must go to the House. It is a 30-minute bell. The clerk advises that the vote will be called early. So this committee must recess for the vote and then reconvene when the vote has been completed.

Mr Turnbull: If it is before 6.

The Chair: Well, a 30-minute bell, according to my watch, is going to get us -- yes?

Interjection.

The Chair: We're coming in early, so this meeting stands in recess until the vote has been completed, and then we will return. The Chair would like everyone to return as quickly as possible.

The committee recessed from 1713 to 1734.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Ted Arnott): The standing committee on estimates will resume its deliberations this afternoon. The Minister of Transportation is in the midst of his response to the opposition critic's questions. Minister.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank you kindly, Chair. Mr Daigeler, with respect, on the 416, we have a commitment. We take that commitment seriously, the commitment from the minister responsible for the infrastructure program, Mr Eggleton.

You will be aware that we have committed substantial money over the past years to address the need around Highway 416, referring to the northern part. Many would wish to have the process accelerated, meaning 416 south. Well, we acquiesce. However, we can't do it alone. We heard Mr Eggleton commit to one third: simply put, to maybe $60 million. What is needed is $180 million. Let's keep in mind that this is a departure from form.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Pouliot: We don't get a nickel, a penny, from the federal government with those people, Mr Daigeler. You must be aware that at times you say little, but one thing for sure with those people, you always pay.

It has been said that Ontario pays for a lot more than it needs. It was viewed as a rich province. It continues to be so. However, our shoulders aren't as broad as they used to be. So we're counting on your assistance, and we know of your commitment to the people in your riding. We know that you're fully cognizant of the importance of having the 416, for its obvious needs around the national capital, and that you will help us get the cheque from your federal counterpart.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): It's in the mail, right?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes. In this club of ladies and gentlemen, surely the words of Liberals are a sacred trust. I know that this can be taken very seriously. We'll look forward to your support on the 416 and look forward to a $60-million cheque so we can put some women and men to work and address the need at the same time.

On the subject matter of what has become, let's say, controversial photo-radar, I can't help but notice that throughout the debate on photo-radar, everyone has been consistent. The government always talked about safety. The government always referred to the human dimension: lives. The opposition was equally consistent, for they always talked about money and about a tax grab. I guess that's the basic difference -- well, it's a matter of philosophy. We have an obligation; we're seizing the obligation.

Our situation is improving, but we of course don't have an immaculate record. You saw them on the 401 surely, going back and forth to Ottawa, where 130 kilometres at times won't keep you in the left lane. They don't pass you, they zoom by, and at 150 or 160. I don't wish to catastrophize, Mr Daigeler, but at those excessive speeds, if you make a mistake you go straight from the highway to the bag. You're dead, dead, dead. We're introducing photo-radar for those who exceed or surpass normalcy. It's an obligation and we're going with it. It's part of our safety program.

The construction of the 407: I wish to thank all those not only during the initial remarks, but with the expertise of Mr Davies, and we have members of our first brigade here. They represent the very best, not only in engineering but in all forms of expertise related to transportation. We had to be imaginative, innovative. We can no longer afford to do things the way things were done traditionally. It doesn't work any more.

1740

There are better ways. We involve entrepreneurs at the infrastructure level and we form the corporation to give us the flexibility to allow us to expedite the 20,000 jobs that are created now, building 69 kilometres of a superhighway parallel to the 401, which is now the busiest highway in North America -- 69 kilometres in a relatively short time, four and a half years. It's equivalent to 20,000 jobs.

The government did the borrowing. Well, it did because of anywhere from 50 to 75 basis points difference. We have the ability to borrow which far exceeds -- and it's true of all governments -- the ability of others to be competitive.

Mr Turnbull: Does this come as a surprise to you?

Hon Mr Pouliot: It shouldn't come as a surprise. However, opportunities were given to Liberals and Conservatives. NDPers don't have a monopoly or shouldn't profess to have a monopoly on the intricacies of the market. It belongs to everyone. We've had many, many years since Confederation.

In fact, history will attest that the Conservative Party of Ontario served for 42 consecutive years, with ample opportunity to go to this method of financing, but I guess times were different then. Oh, it seems so long, Mr Chairman.

Mr Wiseman: We are getting $4 billion more revenue.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, yes, yes. Then the Liberals were given an opportunity to do it. Well, we're proud we did it. It's there right at the marketplace and it's going to relieve traffic.

Since we were able to borrow at a cheaper cost, when you give the loonie for your county you won't have to give as much, so everybody wins here. It won't cost you as much per kilometre because your borrowing costs are less. It makes good sense to us. Is there anything we don't understand?

Mr Turnbull: Yes, I don't understand. Did you factor in the cost of a potential downgrade in the --

The Vice-Chair: Mr Turnbull, the minister is still talking.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Mr Turnbull, I see nothing provocative in my remarks. Will you please -- thank you very much, Mr Chairman, for reminding one of our colleagues that there will be ample time during the process to respond.

Let me talk about mergers. We talk about the contributions, about the roles of CN and CP. What is the future of the railroad in the province of Ontario?

Our government is very concerned about public necessity and convenience. Our government also questions the process. I know that in our special part of Ontario, in the great and vast and magnificent northwest, both CN and CP take on an extraordinary proportion. For us it's a way of life. It gives us a chance to be like the others in other special parts of Ontario. We feel that we're urbanites. We're not as remote. We have access to goods and services by way of railroads. It levels the playing field. It's our vital link, and we know of responsibilities.

Mr Daigeler, Jean Chrétien is the CEO. He's the chairman of Canadian National; let's make no mistake. Doug Young has delegated authority. Our government doesn't wish to see the federal Liberals tear up the tracks, tear out the heart of the community, so we will avail ourselves of the opportunity to represent the heart and soul, the way of life of northern communities.

We will oppose, not only with all the sincerity at our command but with all our strength. Where it makes no sense, in our humble opinion, we will recognize that things change, but where it makes sense, in our humble opinion, we'll go to the wall, for we are resource-based, we are dependent and we must be given a chance to integrate economically.

On the subject matter of GO Transit, I think an exotic place -- what is it, the Bahamas or Bermuda? I don't know. Being a person of moderate means, I can only read about those places. I wish it would have been said with tongue in cheek. Leaseback is an innovative way of doing business.

Mr Turnbull: Excuse me, Minister. For clarification, you said it was a leaseback --

The Vice-Chair: Mr Turnbull, the minister has the floor. You'll have opportunities later to ask questions.

Hon Mr Pouliot: We'll go into details. I'm just giving the guidelines. If I make a mistake in terms of interpretation, you will -- I make the same mistake in three languages, so you will forgive me, please, with respect. Mr Turnbull, there's no shell game here, there are no new tricks, there is no cooking the books. Everything is transparent. It's the way to finance.

Mr Turnbull: So why did you close in Bermuda?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Because we've long learned how to spell Liechtenstein, and in this case it's spelled Bermuda.

Mr Turnbull: So it was a tax dodge.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Not a tax dodge; it's a tax haven.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Turnbull, I can't tolerate your repeated questions. The minister has the floor.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank you very kindly. I appreciate the contribution of Mr Turnbull. We're colleagues and we're friends. Mind you, I'm the one saying this, David. You know, I can appreciate -- we're going to do it together in the remaining time. These are members of our first brigade; well, it's like the seventh fleet here. They're all experts in their own field.

We have people here, Mr Daigeler, Mr Turnbull, my distinguished colleagues, who can spend years and years informing us about the fascinating world of axle weight, slack adjuster, hydraulic brake, and if we miss out on those informative sessions, we have failed to grab yet another opportunity of lifelong learning.

Mr Turnbull: Gilles, would you get on with answering questions?

Hon Mr Pouliot: It's my half-hour. I'm always talking about transportation. I'm committed to this; I'm dedicated.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Pouliot: No, no. I find everything about transportation passionate. I'm going to ask Mr Vervoort, who's --

Mr Wiseman: If you don't think those axle weights are important, go take a look at the highway.

Hon Mr Pouliot: That's right, of primary importance.

Carl, can you tell us, can you share your expertise? Will you please privilege us with your expertise as to what is the building season -- we have more than 400 contracts out there -- in a broadly summarized form.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Vervoort, could you come forward to the microphone and identify yourself for the purposes of Hansard.

Mr Carl Vervoort: My name is Carl Vervoort, and I'm the assistant deputy minister of operations. I understand the question is the extent of, duration of the construction season?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, please, for the benefit of all of us.

Mr Vervoort: Typically construction season starts in earnest in March and, depending on the nature of activities, can extend into November. Some operations can in fact be year-round.

Mr Turnbull: Can I just get some clarification? Who asked this?

The Vice-Chair: The minister has the time, and he is asking.

1750

Mr Turnbull: Okay, but the minister is supposed to be answering our questions. That's the idea of estimates.

The Vice-Chair: Is this a point of order?

Hon Mr Pouliot: You have an opportunity to watch a master work in his craft. This is not a carnival, please.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Vervoort, could you continue?

Mr Vervoort: Depending on the nature of the construction activity, it can in fact stretch throughout the course of the year. I would say, generally speaking, activities associated with construction are temperature-dependent, and in Ontario, particularly northern Ontario, that means a shorter season.

Mr Turnbull: And what's the cost of rice pudding? It's about as useful to this conversation.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Turnbull, it's the minister's time.

Mr Turnbull: Well, I'm sorry; it is the opposition's time. Estimates are for the opposition parties to be able to --

The Vice-Chair: Mr Turnbull, the time is for the minister to respond to the opposition critics' questions.

Mr Turnbull: Yes, but he's not responding to the questions like this.

The Vice-Chair: He has requested the advice and the contribution of Mr Vervoort. Mr Vervoort, could you continue?

Mr Vervoort: The season, therefore, starts really in earnest in southern Ontario throughout March and typically ends with November 15, that being the date, a criterion we use for asphalt paving because the temperature drops. Typically that would be the emphasis of the season.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank you kindly. There was a question from Mr Daigeler, a colleague, about northern --

Mr Turnbull: I asked you about the construction.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Oh, pardon me. I'm sorry, yes, about the northern commitment. In the political sense I think it was --

Mr Daigeler: The Agenda for People.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Oh, yes, the Agenda for People. Yes, I recall very vividly. I recall the document, and I think we are exceeding or surpassing our commitment. But there again that's us --

Mr Turnbull: You have $100 million a year?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, our northern highway component is in excess. You have to look at transfer payments as well. We have a supplementary, we have transfer payments, so we're exceeding our commitment. But there again, that's us; the need has to be met.

Mr Turnbull: On the Trans-Canada Highway you're exceeding your $100 million a year. That was the example you gave. Am I not correct in thinking that your document, An Agenda for People, called for $100 million a year on the Trans-Canada Highway?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Carl, do you want to take us through, for the edification of my distinguished colleague, what we are doing on the Trans-Canada Highway?

Mr Turnbull: How much are you spending?

Mr Vervoort: I don't have a tabulation of all of the investments on the Trans-Canada Highway. That network consists of, as you may appreciate, Highway 11, Highway 17 across the north, Highway 69, which is primarily a north-south connection, Highway 11 also, the extent that it goes all the way south to Metropolitan Toronto, plus Highway 17, from the Quebec border right through across Ontario.

Mr Turnbull: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the northern component.

Mr Vervoort: The northern Ontario provincial highways component is the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. That estimate for capital construction is in the order of $124 million. That, I believe, is comparable to estimates for investments on northern highways compared to the previous year.

Mr Turnbull: Good. Thank you.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I welcome the question, and I think the response will satisfy the needs, our commitment to all parts of Ontario. It hasn't been easy. We've had difficult times: the recession, and then you're competing for capital dollars. But we keep securing fully 50% of capital allocation, building things from the budget in Ontario.

The Premier and the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Finance, in their wisdom, have recognized the multiplier, the two and a half dollars for every dollar that you spend that is returned to the taxpayers. You're getting $2.50, and that's action directe, and you're building an infrastructure that renders you more competitive.

Of course, I repeat, our flagship is the 407. If Jim Jones, truck driver, can make one more trip, he'll have more money in his pocket to address his priorities, his needs, and if he works for you, you'll have more money in your pocket as well.

Mr Turnbull: Excuse me, Minister, what question are you answering?

The Vice-Chair: Mr Turnbull, I'm afraid I cannot --

Mr Turnbull: I'm just wondering which question the minister's answering.

The Vice-Chair: No.

Mr Daigeler: Mr Chairman, I really hope you'll enforce your ruling.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I'm talking about the 407. There have been questions raised vis-à-vis the 407. Will you please bear with me? It's my time and I have a pot-pourri of and have identified several items of crucial importance at Transportation. But I can understand, for most of them are very good news. I can understand the reaction. It's the real story, it's the real world of Transportation Ontario which we are sharing with you, sir, so that we are all better informed and can spread the gospel, the message of the contribution of the government and Transportation Ontario. This is what we're here to do. It's reflected on your estimates.

This is not a vehicle, a forum for political bias, for the needs of Ontarians are far more important than political stripes. This is why I was attempting, without prejudice, to stick to the philosophy of estimates, to its true meanings, so that every tax dollar is accountable and value for money becomes the order of the day, for the money is well spent indeed.

Those are not wasted words. They're not out of context or out of order. They're directly relevant to the job that we do on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario. They're reflected in the estimates. They're reflected out there in the real world, once we get away from the cocoon.

We could talk about the contribution of GO Transit: reasonable, affordable, reliable, 98% on-time delivery, a system hors pair, bar none. Everyone wants to be on track. We're meeting the people at their doorstep. We're establishing equilibrium, balance, and we do it very well. We do it well because we're responding to the needs of the people, the tax dollars coming back to your community, transfer payments, 882 communities, the same money as was spent last year. That's not easy. Recession has hit big time. No one has been immune. Everyone has been impacted.

Supplementary: The same money as was spent last year. Spending more money on highways than ever before. We're punching four subway lines. We're attempting to do that, the first time that any shovel-in-the-ground work has been done in over 10 years. We want to have balance, use public transit, and yet we respect the convenience of a car on highways.

We're moving on all fronts and we're doing it with Ontario's tax dollars, and people are saying yes, they're saying uh-huh, and it gives them a chance. You see, some of the people haven't brought a paycheque home for some time. It has been pretty hard. Now I saw them going to the cinema last week. They were smiling. You know, they tell me: "Maybe not next year but the year after, maybe I'll go to Florida. I'm back, I've got a job here, I believe."

It's a boulevard of success, and each and every one of our foot soldiers -- those are the people you see here -- go beyond in terms of providing. We cheer one another up. This is a good-news ministry. We cut the ribbon, it's palpable, and yet it's related to people.

Mr Turnbull: Gilles, it's drivel.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank you very kindly.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Minister. It is 6 o'clock and we will meet again at the call of the Chair.

I thank the officials from the Ministry of Transportation and thank the minister for his participation, as well as the opposition critics. The meeting is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1759.