Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION

CONTENTS

Wednesday 23 October 1991

Ministry of Transportation

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South PC)

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

Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)

Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L)

Farnan, Mike (Cambridge NDP)

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

Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville NDP)

McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)

McLeod, Lyn (Fort William L)

O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York NDP)

Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview NDP)

Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands NDP)

Substitutions:

Abel, Donald (Wentworth North NDP) for Mr Farnan

Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East NDP) for Mr Johnson

Turnbull, David (York Mills PC) for Mrs Carr

Clerk: Carrozza, Franco

The committee met at 1539 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION

The Chair: I would like to welcome again the Minister of Transportation. We have two hours and 38 minutes remaining to complete estimates for the Ministry of Transportation. When we left yesterday Mr Turnbull had the floor, and I would like to return it to him at this time.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, when we have second reading of Bill 129, will you have available the regulations covering the bill, because we have some concerns about the interpretation of this legislation, and it would certainly speed the process if the minister were to make the regulations available.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, Mr Turnbull, as you are aware, the regulations give teeth or give life to a bill, and within a reasonable time they have to be made public. There is an evolution: a beginning, a middle and an end to the legislation, and then the regulations have to follow suit, because there is a built-in momentum and your question is most valid. I will do it as soon as we can.

Mr Turnbull: No, my question was not as soon as you can. I said, "Will you have available the regulations at the time of second reading?"

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes.

Mr Turnbull: Because I do have a concern that successively this government has come forward with bills and the regulations have not been available at the time we have been debating second reading. Housing is a perfect example of this. A tremendous amount of time has been wasted because we do not know what the legislation is going to cover until we see the regs.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, we will. Mr Guscott, would you like to add to that?

Mr Guscott: Yes, Minister. Perhaps I could add that we are working at full speed on the regulations now in order to have them ready for second reading. We certainly have that instruction to proceed in that way, and I expect that they will be ready in time.

Mr Turnbull: Okay. Minister, with respect to the ministry's stance on the regulation of truckloads, there has recently been some question as to who is responsible for ensuring that loads are secured properly. Can you comment on that?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, I would like to. When we talk about payload overall and the distribution of that load with axle, no one, I say this with certainty, is better enlightened and informed than Alex Kelly.

Mr Kelly: The security of loads, was that the question? Who is responsible? Right now in the legislation, it is a shared responsibility between the carrier and the shipper for securing the loads. We have national standards and processes they are supposed to check for securing a load. We check the vehicles on the highway system to ensure that they comply with the regulations and the processes.

Mr Turnbull: As I am sure you are aware, some municipalities have been frustrated by accidents. They have attempted to pass some municipal bylaws, but the Highway Traffic Act does not allow this type of amendment. I quote a ministry official as saying, "The ministry feels the legislation is adequate to ensure steel coils will be held securely if the legislation is followed." I guess my question is, what is the ministry doing to ensure that the legislation is enforced so that no more lives are lost?

Mr Kelly: We had some problems with steel coils in the Sault Ste Marie area and we have been increasing our enforcement. We have been meeting with both the carriers and the shippers, and we are going through an educational process to make sure that people understand what the process is and what the requirements are in the legislation.

Mr Turnbull: Thank you. Minister, my understanding is that the Ministry of Transportation conducts very thorough environmental assessments when undertaking planning for construction. This process takes many years to complete, and I would particularly direct your attention to the question of the extension of the subway system in Metropolitan Toronto. As you know, the studies are on the desk of the Ministry of the Environment, and with respect to a subway system, it is almost impossible to think that people are going to be negatively impacted by a subway. Indeed, I would suggest that they are going to be positively impacted, when you look at the environment. I wonder if you could comment on this process as to whether you will persuade the Ministry of the Environment to avoid further public discussion of the environmental assessment with respect to the subway extension.

Hon Mr Pouliot: The EA can be immensely more complex. In a broadly summarized form, David, would you please take us through the step-by-step process of an environmental assessment, in this case focused on the addition to a subway line?

Mr Guscott: Yes, Minister. The Environmental Assessment Act in fact began because of a transportation initiative with the Spadina Expressway in 1971. That is what prompted it to be brought into force. While a highway may be of more obvious environmental concern, those who live along the route of a proposed subway also consider they need safeguards developed through a process which allows for full documentation of the effects of an undertaking and the measures needed to minimize those effects. This is why transit projects, while for the public good, are subject to environmental assessment.

The government has made it clear it would prefer to see a streamlining of the environmental assessment process to make sure there are no unreasonable delays. But I think we can all agree there is reason to make sure things are evaluated thoroughly. The amount of time taken to do that is the issue and I know the Ministry of the Environment is addressing it.

On the subway routes under discussion, the minister and deputy minister have asked that we check with the Ministry of the Environment and this morning I was speaking to the MOE deputy minister. He is aware of the fact that they need to be dealt with quickly and promptly and that it is holding up those particular measures.

Mr Turnbull: I guess it is the question of redundancy, with the Ministry of Transportation conducting a study and then the Ministry of the Environment conducting one. I am all in favour of making sure that everything is environmentally correct, but the idea of doing two separate studies seems to waste a lot of time and a lot of money.

Mr Guscott: Maybe I can address that. There are not, in fact, two studies under way. The Ministry of the Environment has conducted no studies on the details of the subway extensions. The Ministry of Transportation does the overall studies which show if there is a provincial interest in the undertakings. But that is a very general system-type study and nothing more than the front end of an environmental assessment. There is only one study being done of the subway extensions themselves and that is being done by the TTC.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, during the last election, your party committed itself to four-laning the Trans-Canada Highway and promised $100 million per year. I do not believe any money has been committed so far. You, Minister, above all, should understand the importance of the economic development of the north. What sort of priority does this have with you?

Hon Mr Pouliot: It has a very high priority. As you are aware, Mr Turnbull, the present federal government does not contribute to the four-laning or twinning the Trans-Canada Highway. It does not contribute a dime, a nickel or a penny to the province of Ontario. There is no reciprocal arrangement. So Ontario is forced to go it alone. In 1990 dollars, we are talking about a sum exceeding $400 million or thereabouts and a project that will take 12 years to complete. In 1993, we will see first-phase construction between Thunder Bay and the township of Nipigon, a distance of approximately 65 kilometres. The first shovel will be in the ground in 1993, from Balsam Street in Thunder Bay to the junction of Highway 17 and 527. That is the road, as you know sir, that leads to the community of Armstrong, which is also in the riding of Lake Nipigon.

So, 12 years and the sum of $400 million for the entire project. The commitment is there. Some engineering studies have been done. We will be following the construction timetable to the letter if we can.

1550

Mr Turnbull: Minister, you committed $100 million a year in the election. I do not think you have quite answered my question.

The Chair: Okay, he has his briefing notes here now.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I can speak offhand. I have been living up north for some 26 years. I appreciate your kindness and the need to shelter and protect your flock, and I say this with the highest of respect, Mr Chair. But sometimes one must break away a bit and be quite candid. I am not guarded in the least. I know the feds do not contribute. I did not say whether or not --

Mr Turnbull: Minister, I have heard this government for over a year now talking about what the feds do not do. I have also heard municipalities saying what you do not do with your downloading program. Ultimately, in this country we have to get to the point that we unscramble all these programs so that people can truly place all of the blame where it belongs. This is the trouble. We have all this finger pointing that your Premier says you are not going to do any more.

The intersection of Highway 69 and Highway 11 in the north has become, as you know, the cause of numerous deaths, and I noted that you took it upon yourself to say that you are going to speed construction of the modifications. Yet the Minister of Northern Development had announced only the day before that there was no funding immediately available. Could you give me some details of what the ministry is doing and how you magically came up with these funds that Miss Martel said you could not have?

Hon Mr Pouliot: This is the plan in terms of Highway 69: Here you are talking about a project that will cost more than $1 billion. The ministry has given it high priority. It is a most important highway. "Considerable planning and design" -- I am quoting from my notes -- "work is under way on this 221-kilometre section. The section between Port Severn and Mactier is being designed with construction scheduled to start in 1992 and be completed by 1996. A route-planning study is being undertaken for a section between Mactier and Highway 559. It is expected to be completed by mid-1993. Environmental approval will require 12 to 18 months after which a construction program will be developed. Planning for the section between Highway 559 and Sudbury will start in the fall of 1992. The ministry has a plan in place for the four-laning and will continue to work towards it." This is where we are now.

Mr Turnbull: But Minister, my question was, "How did this miraculous change come about?" I mean, one day we have the minister for the north saying there are no funds available; the next day you are saying there are.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Mr Turnbull, I know it is difficult to take "yes" for an answer. You cannot have it 18 different ways. A few minutes ago -- let me answer, please -- you were chastising, and that is quite all right, the lack of action. Now you term it a miracle or a conversion on the road to Damascus. We are talking about the road to Sudbury. I threw all those roads at you. It is difficult to digest, and I know for some the digestive process is simpler --

Mr Turnbull: I would not get as biblical as you; I am far less eloquent than you are, Minister, of course. Let's turn our attention to another issue. On Monday you will recall I asked a question in the House about driver licensing offices and you said you were not planning to change the present system, and you were most categoric. When I came with my supplementary, you responded by saying, "Well, weren't you listening to the first answer?"

If you have no intention of closing these very efficiently, inexpensively, privately operated licence bureaus, why is it that the assistant deputy minister of safety and regulation from your own ministry is participating in a committee with the financial institutions and the auto industry to discuss this issue along with others?

Hon Mr Pouliot: We have 10,000 employees at the ministry and I cannot keep track of each and every one, but I will refer it to a person who has a timetable and a file on everybody's itinerary in the Ministry of Transportation, our deputy minister Pat Jacobsen.

Mr Turnbull: Okay, but Minister, will you now instruct your ministry staff to stop these discussions if you have no intention of doing it?

Hon Mr Pouliot: This is an open-minded government. People consistently, daily in fact, go beyond the call of duty. I am not biased one way or the other and I have full confidence in people from our ministry. This is an open-minded administration, as you well know. We encourage people to consult. The consultative program is alive and well and is something we are very proud of. Thank you for giving some of your evenings without pay, Mr Kelly. I for one appreciate it. It does not go unnoticed.

The Chair: Is that for the record, Mr Kelly? It was without extra pay, was it? I always wait to see the employee corroborate that. That is wonderful.

Mr Turnbull: Do I have any more time?

The Chair: No, the deputy wants to respond.

Ms Jacobsen: Alex Kelly is the assistant deputy minister who was referred to. I think Mr Turnbull should be aware that the ministry, on behalf of the government, is looking at various ways the government can work with the issuers and with the insurance industry to look at whether there are ways we can ultimately save money in terms of people's --

Mr Turnbull: But it is a very inexpensive system at the moment. I believe something like only 3% of the funds they gather covers the whole of the cost of the pay and running the office -- the rent, the heat, the light. I cannot believe any government office would be as inexpensive as that. I have never ever heard of a government office running that lean. I am a little alarmed at the fact that we have 1,500 people who are working in this sector who are most concerned about their jobs.

If it is a question of making sure that people are insured when they get their licence plates, that is very easily done. You mandate that a computer link-up be established in each office and you just punch in and make sure they have insurance. It is not complicated and yet it is cheap the way we run it at the moment. Why are you looking at this?

Ms Jacobsen: That certainly is part of the discussion of the ways, including computerization, the issuers can make the best use of their system. We are having discussions with the issuers similar to the ones we were having with the insurance industry.

Hon Mr Pouliot: We certainly welcome your idea. It is so commonsensical to me. We blend all information. That is the process of consultation. Alive and well, it is imaginative and innovative. Our duty is to listen and we do that rather well. We gather the information, we blend and we come up with the focus on value for money for the taxpayers of our province.

Mr Turnbull: Value for money is exactly what I am talking about.

The Chair: You can revisit that in a moment.

Mr O'Connor: I have an English copy of the briefing book before me and it is indeed colourful. In fact, the binding matches my tie, which is quite nice.

Mrs Marland: Is it English or French?

Mr O'Connor: English.

Mr Turnbull: Have you been getting lessons from the minister?

Mr O'Connor: On page 17 of the estimates book there is some talk about the anti-recession program and the money that was allocated by your ministry for the anti-recession program. I was just wondering if I could have a little help from someone in your ministry in explaining to me what it actually means. Although the pictures are nice and colourful, I would like to know whether they are on track and where they are going with it.

The Chair: Does somebody want to explain the colours in the graph to Mr O'Connor?

Hon Mr Pouliot: You are right. I can attest that after the last 13 months we are back on track.

Mr Barr: I am Graeme Barr, the manager of the budget office for the ministry. The total anti-recession budget for the ministry for this year was $80 million. That $80 million will be spent. There may be some fine-tuning between the municipal roads and the provincial highways programs, in terms of moving money from one to the other, but the total funds are expected to be spent.

Mr O'Connor: In the municipal roads portion, was there a joint-share program? You asked municipalities to bring their projects forward and then you matched dollars or something?

Mr Guscott: Yes, the municipal roads portion was done in consultation with the municipalities. Essentially what we did was go to them and say, "For those projects you are unable to fund, are there activities which will help the anti-recession program by employing workers in your community to carry out those activities?" So they were projects which fit the municipal priorities yet which did not have sufficient funding from either our funds or from the municipal level to allow them to be carried out.

1600

Mr O'Connor: In this, it does not say how many person-hours of work it has created. As it was an anti-recession program, could you tell me how many job-hours this was?

Mr Barr: We have that information available. Unfortunately, I do not have it here, but we could certainly provide it, because we report on that to Management Board or treasury board on a regular basis. We can provide it.

Mr O'Connor: In a value-for-money audit-type setup then, is there any way of checking on what the long-term benefits would be of this spending that has taken place under the anti-recession program?

Mr Barr: It would be subject to any normal audit process. Please be aware that a lot of these projects were maintenance-intensive; for example, cleaning the side of the road, the types of things that are able to be initiated immediately. So in terms of the long-term benefit, if you talk about cleaning the side of the road in terms of value for money, if the auditor does not get out there right away, it would be very hard to assess if they did not do it in the particular year. But it is subject to the normal audit of any process that the ministry carries out.

Mr O'Connor: In transferring then, you said within a program there may be some change within the municipal and provincial highways portion. What would be the reason for that?

Mr Guscott: Between the provincial transportation and the municipal one, for example, some activities related to airports would be under the municipal transportation area. In others it was provincial highways where the money flowed. It had to do with the ability to get up and running with the contracts quickly so they could be done in the time available. This program was announced in the spring, I believe in March, and there was very little startup time to get the projects under way. We wanted to make sure the money was in fact spent wisely and where they could be quickly begun. It should be noted, though, that whether they were municipal roads or provincial highways, they still followed the same criteria with respect to the areas that needed anti-recession funding.

Mr Barr: Just to add to that, on the municipal roads, some of the municipalities could not match the funding the ministry required and therefore they had to move over into the provincial highways program. So there was very minor fine-tuning in that way.

Mr O'Connor: Do you believe that all the money, or most of it, that was set aside for this process will it be used up then?

Mr Barr: Yes, it will.

Mr Perruzza: My question has to do with the Let's Move announcement, the major transportation initiative that was announced for the greater Toronto area. The minister well knows that Metropolitan Toronto in certain areas is faced with some very aggravated transportation problems and many of our major arterial roads are technically at gridlock, some of them well above or under, depending on how you work the equation.

I just wanted to know from the minister how that major transportation plan, the $5-billion announcement, is proceeding. Is it still on track? What are the priorities? Is the Spadina-York University-Yonge loop still the number one priority of that announcement and is the Sheppard subway still the fourth priority, that kind of thing?

Hon Mr Pouliot: We are committed. We are still on track: The Spadina LRT -- that is light rail transit -- the Yonge-Spadina subway loop, the exciting project which is the Sheppard subway, the Eglinton West rapid transit line, the Scarborough extension, the Bloor West subway extension, the Harbourfront LRT extension, the Mississauga Transitway, GO Transit service expansion. I could tell you so many details and we could go on.

The Let's Move program is a commitment from this government. What it means is the recognition of the reality of today, simply --

Mr Turnbull: I believe the question was, what sequences?

Hon Mr Pouliot: You will have the decency to let me answer, please. It is simply this: the recognition of the needs of today in the greater Toronto area and to anticipate and act on the needs in the future for the greater Toronto area, Toronto and the 35 municipalities that surround Toronto. Population at present? Some four million people. Within 18 years, the forecast is that it will grow by 50%, from four million to six million people.

Yes, the Ontario government announced a multibillion-dollar rapid transit system. We are on track. Dave Guscott could give you all the details. This is an exciting project. This is a project that lives, and we live the project, because it has such a human dimension. It impacts also on each and every citizen who is part of the greater Toronto area. Mr Guscott, please.

Mr Guscott: The only thing I might add to that is the question of how we are implementing the --

Mr Mancini: How could you possibly add to what the minister was saying?

The Chair: Give us a pulse on this living project of yours.

Mr Mancini: We are waiting breathlessly.

Mrs Marland: This is such a silly exercise. The money has already been spent.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Mr Guscott: As I was saying, the only thing I could add to the minister's comment on that would concern the method by which we are proceeding with the implementation of the projects. At the time the projects were announced, a group of municipal and provincial representatives was established called the transit implementation group. This group has the objective of making sure that the projects proceed expeditiously and that they are co-ordinated, etc. In that regard, all of the projects are proceeding on time and on budget at the present time.

The Chair: And the sequencing? I think that was one of the elements of Mr Perruzza's question.

Mr Guscott: The transit implementation group has made a decision that the sequencing will proceed concurrently on all projects for the present time and that they are all in fact on time and all at roughly the same point in their proposal right now.

On the question of the magnitude of the loop of the Yonge and the Spadina subways, the particular route that loop takes is an important part of the alternatives being discussed in the environmental assessment.

Mr Mancini: I am noting that the minister is a little sensitive this afternoon. We are going to tread very carefully in our questions. Before I get into the text of my comments, I want to follow up on the important questions my colleague Mrs Marland asked you today in regard to the Disabled and Aged Regional Transit System strike. I thought the question was very important and very well put. I thought the answer went partway in satisfying members of the Legislature and maybe no way at all in satisfying the needs of persons with disabilities who may, because of this strike, be forced to remain in their apartments or their homes without any opportunity whatsoever to go to their jobs, to shop for essential groceries and to do what all of us take for granted whether there is a transit strike or not.

We clearly saw inaction from the government during the TTC strike here in Toronto -- and I will talk about that in a few moments -- and we are seeing inaction from the government in regard to the DARTS strike. We have an organization that is providing an essential service to a group of our citizens who absolutely without question need this service in order to have any semblance of normality.

I want to know from the minister how he could tell us this afternoon that he is doing all he can when in fact we know that hundreds if not thousands of people are unable to go to work, shop for essentials and maybe even have difficulty getting appropriate medical care.

1610

Hon Mr Pouliot: You have raised a question that is most relevant. I did give some answers this afternoon. I trust our distinguished colleague the member for Mississauga South had the second leader's question, which is one question and two supplementaries from the third party. The question addressed, "Exactly what are you doing?" The tone was not what I have become accustomed to or what I would prefer, although the opposition chooses to impose that tone, because this is a collective matter which goes beyond partisanship. The human dimension is such that we can all relate to it.

If from time to time you accuse -- and I am quoting verbatim -- not the minister responsible but the Minister of Transportation in this case, regarding this legal work stoppage, of being paternalistic and going away from his duty when you are talking about a labour matter, then so be it; but I want to tell you it leaves marks you do not escape; this is not a game.

What we are talking about here is 33 full-time and 40 part-time employees, many of whom are disabled, who have been without a contract since July 31, 1991. The outstanding issue right at this time is not money but job security. The dispute is between the bargaining unit representing those 33 full-time and 40 part-time workers in Hamilton-Wentworth. The legal work stoppage to which you have referred started yesterday. The province is very willing and most able to provide a negotiator.

In terms of emergencies, contingencies have been put in place so people can have access to medical care, people can have access to hospitals and clinics. What is impacted are social and recreation trips. It is very difficult to accommodate all components of normalcy during a legal or otherwise work stoppage. We are encouraging both parties to get together and resolve this situation, because this is a most important service. I agree with you that it weighs very heavily in the daily lives of people.

I do not wish to convince you by concluding, but I must say this -- and please allow me to say the following because I can only say it once. In the whole transportation system, if someone in a mythical world, in a world of make-believe, said you had the authority and the capacity to do something where a mark would be left, what would you do? You have a dozen components. Would it be high-speed rail? Would it be better planes? Would it be ferry boats? Would it be a cleaner environment? I do not know, first or second, whether I would focus on safety or accessibility.

I have mentioned in the House today, with all the sincerity at my command, that we are all on the waiting list for a place under the sun, a chance to be like the others. It is not a monopoly, it is not a cartel for anyone, it is not debating in an adversarial system whether someone is right and it will look good, "The substance was not there but the body language was 80%, and who crucified whom?" You lose and you leave a bit of yourself there. The point is well taken.

You have collective bargaining. It is the law of the land, the right of people to withdraw their labour. You also have the jurisdictional capacity if you feel that the impact is too severe, and that society is being impacted beyond normalcy in the context of labour bargaining, and that, sir, is the Ministry of Labour. We run, fund and monitor compliance on running the system. Labour laws -- I am not passing the buck, not shying away from the question. It is a difficult dilemma. It is the second day of a legal work stoppage, and hopefully the matter will be resolved shortly.

Mr Mancini: While we appreciate the minister's sincerity, we are disappointed with his lack of action.

I want to talk a little bit about the TTC strike, which caused substantial disruption to hundreds of thousands of people in the greater Toronto region not too long ago and, if memory serves me correctly, I believe the work stoppage was for a period of eight days. I want to know whether the minister, after the strike, requested any economic analysis as to the effect of the strike: how many hundreds of millions of dollars of business was lost, how many jobs were lost, and the long-term impact of that strike. I would like to know the answers to those questions.

Then I would like to know -- the people have a right to know -- the long-term impact of that work stoppage on the Toronto transit system itself. How many passengers have we lost permanently to the system? What is the cost of this permanent loss of passengers? How is the Toronto transit system going to make up for this economic loss at the fare box, and what is the minister doing in co-ordination with the Toronto Transit Commission in order to get riders back on the system?

I want to ask the minister further, how many days of transit strike do we need before we get action from the government? How many days of strike, how many days of disruption, how many millions of rides need to be cancelled before we get action from the NDP government?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Before I yield to Mr Guscott and Mr Smith -- because during the legal work stoppage that lasted eight days people resorted to the most imaginative and innovative ways -- really, Mr Mancini, you do not have much of a choice. Mr Smith can give us some accurate figures, but my understanding is that people patronized the GO Transit system and that superhuman efforts were not out of the ordinary. Everything was put into place to pick up the slack. I am told today that in terms of the TTC, people are coming back. They are flocking back to the system. In fact, the numbers are higher than they were pre-strike. You are right; it is important, and it poses questions for the future.

Who would have thought that the disruption would not have been more severe? I am not wording this the way I wish, but I had anticipated -- and I will be very candid, very honest with you -- that given the congestion and the possibility for chaos the disruptions would be more severe.

Mr Turnbull, I say this very seriously, each person, without any motives, having at heart the welfare of his fellow citizens, pitched in, including your leader, Mike Harris, who supplied a bus for transportation, and I am very happy that this was done without publicity. I heard about it in a roundabout way, and it was done without any ulterior motives, so everybody chipped in. People are coming back.

1620

Mr Turnbull: I am pleased to see the minister recognizes that.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Mr Guscott, Mr Smith, in terms of numbers, how did it impact?

Mr Mancini: My time is very limited. I would like to make sure I can ask my question. I am not worried about what Mr Harris did during the strike.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I was interrupted. Mr Guscott or Mr Smith, do you wish to add anything?

Mr Smith: Maybe a few comments on Go Transit. During the strike, we added something like 30 trains. Now most of those are on the shoulder of the peak, and many were midday trains. We carried something like 40% more people than we would normally carry each day on that system.

Following the strike, early reading indicated growth across the system of 5% to 10%, depending on which corridor you were looking at. One of the interesting things was that the early indication indicated a significant growth in the northern corridor, our Richmond Hill line, which feeds from York region into Metro. I think that is significant in that we are then carrying people who are not within Metro, and although we may be in some competition with TTC, in fact, we seem to be attracting some people who found us during the strike, and they may have given up their cars.

We are in the midst of a detailed survey right now -- we do one twice a year -- that will tell us what the change is this year over last year by every station throughout the system. We will have those results in about two or three weeks. By that time we will know for sure the kind of ongoing change, but there seems to be a growth in ridership.

Mr Mancini: Sir, I would appreciate it if you could review my opening comments and questions in Hansard in regard to this issue. I would appreciate it if I could obtain a written response to every question that I ask, because either my questions were not clear or there is confusion as to what I was asking, but I do not believe I am getting the answers, Minister, that I requested. Unfortunately because time is so limited, I do not want to use my time to get into a debate with the gentlemen or yourself, Minister. I would just appreciate a review of Hansard and answers to those questions.

I would like to move on to another issue. Recently I was contacted by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and received a letter from it. and I would like to read the letter into the record, into Hansard, and make its concerns known. I know that some members opposite probably are not interested in what the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has to say, but its views are as important as anyone else's.

The letter dated October 1 --

Mr G. Wilson: Madam Chair, on a point of order, I find that a gratuitous remark by the member that we are not interested. I am not quite sure what he is basing that on.

The Vice-Chair: I accept the point of order that one member may not impugn the motives of the other, so Mr Mancini, I think it would be better if you --

Mr Mancini: In order not to waste any time, I will withdraw those remarks, but it is too bad that Hansard cannot show chuckles.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Please stop fighting and let's get on with the business of the day.

Mr Mancini: No, we are not fighting. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association is an important organization in this province, and they have a right to be heard without having their name laughed at.

The letter dated October 1 is addressed to myself and it reads:

"Further to our discussion this morning, I am forwarding a copy of the material presented by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association to the advisory committee on the Truck Transport Act re the `moratorium.' It indicates very clearly why a moratorium as outlined in Bill 129 is not acceptable to the CMA. Additionally, it should be pointed out that other provinces, notably Quebec, have not found it necessary to introduce similar restrictive legislation. Also, not all trucking companies would support the position of the Ontario Trucking Association.

"We have requested the government to allow for public comment after second reading and we hereby request your support for such action. I would be pleased to meet with you further to discuss the CMA position on Bill 129."

It is signed, "Yours sincerely, Don Wiersma, manager, transportation."

While I do not support the CMA's position on the moratorium on trucks, I think public hearings on the matter would shed a great deal of light and would help us all understand a little bit better the government's action. We may be able to help the minister through these public hearings. We may be able to advise him as to how long this moratorium should last, who is being hurt by the moratorium and who is being helped by the moratorium. I think all these facts have to come forward. We must assist the minister in making some of these judgements.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Mancini, you are out of time for this portion.

Mr Mancini: Thank you.

Mr Turnbull: I would like to return to some of the questions I asked in my opening remarks and the responses you gave. I do not feel I have enough definition here. With respect to the question on page 5, my question was: Will you put forward the private member's bill 124 for third reading? You will recall that is my colleague, Mrs Cunningham's bill on bicycle safety helmets. It has passed second reading and it is a question of getting your House leader to bring it forward for third reading.

Mr O'Connor: It is going to committee.

Mr Turnbull: Okay. Will you get it to committee? We want this process moving forward. It is very important.

Hon Mr Pouliot: We are not the proponents of this bill, but certainly we are committed to public consultation on all safety-related matters.

Mr Turnbull: Could you ensure that this gets a high priority in terms of getting to a committee? There are lives being lost and there are head injuries occurring every day as a result of the fact that we do not have this bicycle legislation.

Mr Perruzza: Madam Chair, on a point of clarification.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Perruzza, there is no such rule as a point of clarification.

Mr Perruzza: I just wanted to know whether --

The Vice-Chair: No. Could you wait until it is your turn and then you can comment? Thank you. I will put you down if you want to speak. Would you like to speak?

Mr Perruzza: Yes.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, can you move this forward? It is tremendously important. It is non-partisan and there are lives being lost.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, and given the high profile, the importance of the bill, kindly take notice that it has been referred to the standing committee on resources development for review, for analysis; possibly they will decide for consultation as well. But the intent, the spirit, when you look at the compendium of what is intended by the bill sponsored by the member for London North, I am fully supportive of it. In my humble capacity, I will try to do as much as possible.

Mr Turnbull: Thank you. With respect to the interlock devices which we spoke briefly about yesterday, could you describe exactly what tests are being done on interlock devices at this moment?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I cannot do your question justice because I do not know that much about it. Can I call on someone to help explain? Mr Kelly, please.

Mr Kelly: Our ministry is not doing any tests on interlocking devices. We are following the tests that are being done by other provinces. We have certain concerns with the methods used.

Mr Turnbull: What are these concerns?

Mr Kelly: If I understand the situation correctly, in order to keep his vehicle operating, a driver has to blow into the system while he is operating the vehicle.

1630

Mr Turnbull: That is not the only interlock device. The one which is typically in use in the US and which is mandated for Alberta, the only province that has these devices, you must blow in initially.

There is another device which has just been brought to the market which in fact measures the breath from the driver. It cannot be foiled, because you cannot have the situation of somebody else blowing into it, and it seems there are some significant safety advantages it has over the blow-in device.

Mr Kelly: I will have to get up to speed on that, Mr Turnbull.

Mr Turnbull: I view it as a very important way of stopping drunk driving, which is costing a tremendous number of lives, particularly among our young folk. I am not singling out the young folks for blame. In fact, drunk driving by our young people has gone down. Nevertheless we have to address this problem and the fact that technology exists to address it. I think it is a program that would not cost the government anything and it really is overdue.

Mr Kelly: We will check into it.

Mr Turnbull: My question on page 10 is, will the NDP commit to another five-year transportation capital program? I did not feel the answer was clear enough. I am sure the minister would agree that it is critical to maintain the momentum with respect to these projects. Will the minister make an announcement before the year is out?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Fiscal year or calendar year, Mr Turnbull?

Mr Turnbull: Choose one of them and just tell me if you will make it within the fiscal year or the calendar year.

Hon Mr Pouliot: If only we had such latitude in understanding -- we are committed to $2-billion in capital spending that ends in 1993-94. The future can last a long time, one step at a time. We have made a commitment. It is a substantial commitment. It is capital-intended dollars, which is real work with a very high degree of multiplicator, if you wish.

Mr Turnbull: As we move into these programs, the closer you come to the end of one program the more vital it is that there is a continuance of the program. That is what people are looking for, some commitment from the government at this stage or before whichever year you wanted to choose is out, be it fiscal or calendar.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, you will be pleased with the following because I am going to reiterate the commitment that we are doing the very best we can under the most difficult of circumstances. You are aware that the transfer payments, for instance, from the federal government to the province have been severely impacted. It has been on a negative basis, so we have to pick up the slack at the beginning. It puts tremendous pressure on the Treasury to honour commitment, but we are determined and we are going forward to the best of our ability.

Of course, depending on availability of funds, you will certainly sympathize with our position, if out of literally nowhere a commitment that had been made by another senior government ceases to exit from one day to the next. That poses some pressures. I am sure you can appreciate that, Mr Turnbull. We are doing the best we can.

Mr Turnbull: Now, when you talking about another senior level of government, are you referring to the federal government?

Hon Mr Pouliot: You are so insightful, so profound. I was not pointing a finger, but I must admit that yes, I was referring to the federal government.

Mr Turnbull: I would like to quote your own words from the Hansard of October 24, 1989. "What are you going to do, Minister? You will stand tall with 800 municipalities in Ontario and dump on the federal government, and then you will say that northerners dump on Toronto and Torontonians dump on Bay Street. Then I guess you could go to Wall Street.

"I do not know, Minister, but that is not good enough. Your responsibility is to address the needs, to anticipate the service for the population of Ontario that is called planning." Your words, Minister. You said this very conveniently and it serves the public well to demonstrate that we can always talk about another level of government, but ultimately --

Interjection.

Mr Turnbull: Excuse me, Mr Chair, could you silence this member of the NDP? He is cutting into my time.

Mr Perruzza: You mean slap a gag on me?

Mrs Marland: Yes.

Mr Turnbull: It would not be a bad idea, actually.

The Chair: Gentlemen, please.

Mr Perruzza: All I wanted to know was the name of the minister at the time.

The Chair: You can direct that through the Chair. That would be very helpful, Mr Perruzza. Please continue.

Hon Mr Pouliot: What did the minister say?

Mr Turnbull: My point, minister, is that at the time, you were frustrated with the minister pointing the finger. All I am asking you to do is say what your ministry is going to do. I am not interested in what some other ministry is not doing. We are here elected as Ontario representatives.

Hon Mr Pouliot: You should have better things to do with your time than to peel off or reel off old Hansards.

Mr Turnbull: They are rather embarrassing, are they not?

Hon Mr Pouliot: They are not embarrassing in the least. I am interested in seeing what the minister said. What I am saying is that in the circumstances of the day, we are doing the best we can. I am not here playing games, Mr Turnbull, as to what has been said in or out of context.

Mr Turnbull: That was then and this is now. Okay.

Hon Mr Pouliot: We always speak with all the sincerity at our command. There is no scoring points here. I am surprised that you would have spent a lot of time finding out that the cup is half empty when this administration evaluates and starts from the premise that the cup is half full. But there again, sometimes the opposition can be viewed as somewhat negative. It is a normal reaction.

Mr Turnbull: I suppose, minister, I am concerned that we have a cup. Let's move on then.

The Chair: No winding road analogies.

Mr O'Connor: I like the one about the road to Damascus.

Mr Turnbull: On page 21, concerning the construction of the Spadina line, my question was, when can we expect to see action? Could you discuss what options for financing you are exploring?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Mr Guscott is moving and about to make another career-enhancing statement.

The Chair: Do not forget there is no overtime.

Mr Guscott: We have already established that.

I referred earlier to the transit implementation group. Among its responsibilities are looking at methods of ensuring the financing capabilities for the various projects. The government is on record with $5 billion over the 10 years to achieve those projects. Some of them will require more than that to get under way. We have worked co-operatively with Metropolitan Toronto, other municipal governments and other ministries to look at ways where this can be achieved.

As you know, 75% of the capital costs of transit works are now paid for by the provincial government. As we move into a more aggressive transit construction program the magnitude of those funds becomes harder and harder in terms of the provincial deficit. So we are trying to find ways of ensuring that the projects happen and happen on time and that we look at some of the benefiting parties to the facilities contributing towards those needs.

As you are probably aware, Metropolitan Toronto tabled a report at its last council meeting, before it adjourned for the election, which dealt with some options for capturing some of the extra value that flows to a particular piece of property or an area as a transit station is developed.

Mr Turnbull: Along the same lines, yesterday, Minister, I asked you a question and you responded, if I understood you correctly, that you were not considering selling off GO Transit. I must admit I was somewhat perplexed. I went back and studied my copy of the Financial Post and I see that the Premier is talking about considering those options.

Mr Perruzza: That is where you get those ideas from.

Mr Turnbull: I am somewhat perplexed as to what the story is. I would say to you that I understand you have very difficult times and the deficit is always the great concern. My question to you is, why not? I will not play too heavily on the discrepancy between what you were saying and what the Premier was saying. Let me just say that it might be an interesting option to consider privatizing GO. When we look at the example of Britain, where it has privatized the transit services quite heavily, step by step, it seems to have been fairly successful. Why not? Would that not be one of the options you would consider, either creating a private section of the subway system or selling off parts of the GO system and funding the subway system extension?

1640

Hon Mr Pouliot: On what the Premier was alleged or reported to have said and what it is recorded I have said, I am in the position, and I can attest to this on a daily basis, that it so happens that philosophically I find the arguments put forward by the Premier not only compelling; we run almost exactly parallel on any subject. Also, candidly, I find his judgement almost flawless. What a coincidence indeed.

Mrs Marland: Is that a career-enhancing statement?

Hon Mr Pouliot: No, just an observation and a compliment.

Mr Turnbull: However, it would be nice if I could have an answer to my question.

Hon Mr Pouliot: At least another three years. Be patient.

The Chair: In fairness.

Hon Mr Pouliot: These kinds of complex questions, with respect, cannot be answered by a yes or no. They deserve more than that. I appreciate the question, Mr Turnbull. What the government has done -- no more, no less -- is find out and list what is there in terms of programs and physical assets. Who does it belong to? As appalling and shocking as it may sound, the government of Ontario does not have today, in 1991, an accurate list of what it owns. Being open-minded, keeping all our options open, it is only natural that, once we go as far as finding out how much those assets are worth, this due process and due diligence be solicited.

That is what we are doing -- no more than that, no less than that. If people wish to speculate about what will happen in phase 2 or phase 3, we have no control over this. That is fair. What is being done at the present time is a listing of the assets that belong to the province of Ontario.

Mr Turnbull: I have no problem with that process; in fact, I think it is most admirable. Frankly, I applaud the Premier's stand if indeed he was saying what I think he was saying, according to the newspapers: that there was nothing sacrosanct and that he would consider selling off portions of the transit system to raise funds. Would that not be an option to fund the extension of the subway line?

Mr Guscott: I would like to relate that question back to your earlier one, which had to do with some of the Let's Move programs. In the initiatives I have spoken of, as the transit implementation group has examined them we have been hard-pressed to find any examples of where private sector contributions have raised more than 15% of the cost of works. It would be very difficult, I think, to fund a GO train expansion program on that basis, in that, unlike transit initiatives, which depend on high density and for which there is a land redevelopment portion, there is relatively little land redevelopment which goes with commuter rail facilities. It would be very difficult to fund GO Transit in that way. I am not saying there is not some way GO Transit could be privatized, but on that level it would be very difficult to see how the funds, which as you can see in our estimates now come from the province, could be realized in another way, through privatization.

Mr Turnbull: But using the British example, if you privatized the bus lines within the greater Metro area and used some of the funds you realized from that to fund the extension of perhaps a continued publicly owned subway system, would that not be something that should be considered?

Mr Guscott: The bus system in England is essentially different from the way it works here. We have tried to improve the integration of our bus and train systems, especially in Metropolitan Toronto, less so in areas that do not have rapid transit. We have tried hard to integrate those measures. It is a lot harder to integrate them. There are 17 transit systems in the greater Toronto area. It is an uphill battle to integrate those public sector facilities, and it would be much harder, in my opinion, if we then subdivided out the bus portion.

The Chair: With the committee's permission, having sat through the last four estimates of the Ministry of Transportation, might I be permitted to pose your question in a more direct way that flows from the last series of estimates?

Mr Turnbull: Surely, Mr Chair.

The Chair: It has to do with part of the linkage of the GO system, which includes the parking lots, for example, to GO stations. There has been some study and discussion about privatizing the parking lots that form part of the total GO train service, and to that extent, that is one of the component elements of a privatization, as opposed to just simply looking at privatizing the whole system. There are component parts. As Mr Turnbull has indicated, it also implies the integration of a bus system to a GO train, to a subway system in Toronto as part of the total system, which involves private sector participation.

Are there further discussions in this very narrow area regarding land holdings and privatization of parking lots? This was raised when the previous government was administering or was supporting GO Transit through your ministry. Is there any area I am introducing now that is an area of discussion currently, that Mr Turnbull has raised?

Mr Smith: We recognize that in the case of parking lots, GO holds a lot of land that has great potential for development, and in time there will be significant development on those sites. The work that is going on now is to work with municipalities to look at their land use plans, the kind of zoning that takes place in those areas, and to encourage them to upgrade the area around the GO stations so that we create a higher density development both on private lands as well as on our own.

As you know, we are moving towards all-day service on a good many of our corridors. When that occurs, what I would like to see, in the building of new stations or in the expansion or creation of new development on our sites, is that the private sector be involved. It is an ongoing, evolving thing. Frankly, until about a year ago, we had a few contacts from a number of developers who wished to do things, and we were involved in discussions, but all of that has gone cold at the moment.

The Chair: Maybe we can revisit this, but I would like to briefly recognize Mr Farnan, who has been waiting. Thank you, Mr Turnbull, for allowing me to raise that question.

Mr Farnan: I would like, Minister, to draw your attention again to GO Transit and the considerable interest in GO Transit within the Cambridge community. As you may be aware, the former minister did have meetings with municipal officials and a group of concerned citizens who have been working on this issue for many years. The report itself clearly appears to me to indicate that Cambridge stands at the forefront as a community that would merit such an extension. I would be interested to have an update from the ministry as to the status of GO Transit vis-à-vis the Cambridge riding. Of course, Cambridge would be serving a very large catchment area and linking that catchment area into the system.

Hon Mr Pouliot: The question is, in terms of GO Transit, what is in it for the riding of Cambridge?

Mr Farnan: And surrounding areas. We would hate to be parochial about this.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Passenger demand. What about the study of the railway committee? Can someone shed some light please and bring us up to date on it? David?

1650

Mr Guscott: The study the government announced on November 26, 1990, dealing with passenger transportation in southern Ontario, is designed to address exactly the question of extension of the GO Train service to Cambridge. As you may be aware, other communities have expressed a desire to have GO Train service and we have undertaken this study in an effort to conduct that kind of expansion analysis in a planned manner.

Over and above that particular study, we have done studies of the ridership that might be expected in the area of Cambridge and Kitchener, which has also asked for an extension of GO Train service. These have been recently completed and will be fed into the overall southern Ontario passenger rail transportation study.

In areas where we are extending the GO Transit network, or evaluating its extension, we are trying to answer such questions as cost, availability of equipment, the nature of the equipment, and some of the other factors that relate to rail operation. One concern is that the anticipated length of trips would be greater than the equipment was intended for. For example, fibreglass seats with an insert are not that comfortable for long rides.

We have almost completed the very first phase of the overall study. From that point we will be doing a series of substudies that deal with particular ranges and areas. The Kitchener and Cambridge area is one that we will be following up on.

Mr Farnan: I appreciate that. I am sure the minister would be interested to know, and I just put this forward, that there was a Canada-wide study, as I am sure your staff are aware, which identified the extension to Cambridge as one of the highest priorities. I think it was in the first two or three -- I would be happy to look at it. The fact remains that the track is in place, the signalling is in place, there is a railway station there, there is community support, and there is ridership. I would hope that all of these things taken into consideration would support the very strong case for the extension of the GO to Cambridge.

Mr Mancini: I would second that.

Mr Farnan: I would like a comment on that.

Mr Guscott: Those are very strong factors and will be used as we evaluate the extension. Those factors and the factors I mentioned are what we will be using to evaluate it and GO operations as well.

Mr Farnan: When could the people of Cambridge and surrounding areas anticipate some definitive decisions on this matter?

Mr Guscott: The first study that I refer to is virtually completed now. We know from the questions that have come up in the study that there will have to be further analysis. I do not have a time for the follow-up studies. In fact, we have not made a decision on which follow-up studies will be done at what time. The duration of the follow-up studies, once they are approved, is probably nine to 12 months.

Mr Farnan: The one other point I would like to make, Minister, is that the train itself actually goes to bed beyond Guelph, halfway between Guelph and Cambridge. So in fact the train is making the journey to Cambridge but not actually going to Cambridge. All we are asking in Cambridge is that when it gets up in the morning, the train will go to Cambridge and then go to Guelph. We are only asking for one train in the morning and one train in the evening. It will have a huge impact on our area and the whole area surrounding it. I would have to say the people of Cambridge are becoming somewhat tired of studies in this regard.

Hon Mr Pouliot: If I may add, I marvel at the capacity of Mr Guscott to digest and assimilate the very, very complex transportation system. What he was doing again for our benefit was looking at the whole system. I am sorry he is so busy, but I have such confidence in Mr Guscott's ability that if Mr Guscott and I were to say that we are committed to giving you an answer before the end of the fiscal year on the Cambridge situation, that we can sort of pull it out of the system, would that be relevant to you, Mr Farnan?

Mr Farnan: I appreciate that response very much, Minister, thank you.

Mr Mancini: How much time is left for the entire estimates, Mr Chair?

The Chair: By arrangement we will complete today by 6 o'clock, and we are rapidly making up the 20 minutes that we will be short. It would be our intention not to call back the minister and his staff for 20 minutes next week. The vote will be done at 6 tonight, hopefully.

Mr Daigeler: Is there not a vote in the House?

The Chair: There could possibly be, but it will only take a moment to do our votes, so when the bells ring I would move directly to votes. Mr Mancini, both you and Mr Turnbull and your caucuses will be dividing substantively the time left.

Mr Mancini: About an hour?

The Chair: That is correct; between you equally, almost equally, I am sorry. If there are any further questions that any member would like to table, please attempt to get those tabled in clear and concise form. They can be done verbally, so that the minister is aware of those items they are unable to answer today and they can make available to the clerk of the committee, who will then make sure they are distributed. Please proceed.

Mr Mancini: Thank you. that is a good point about the questions, Mr Chair. I would like to reiterate my request that the minister have appropriate staff review Hansard, not only to catalogue all the questions, but of course to provide answers. I was wondering if we could get a commitment from the minister and deputy minister today as to a time frame for the response to these answers. I was wondering if two or three weeks would be adequate. Perhaps, say, by 7 November or something, we could have a commitment that all questions asked by members participating in this committee would be at least initially answered. We may not like the initial answer and we may have to come back for more information, but at least we will have the initial answer.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Sounds fair and reasonable, sir.

Mr Mancini: Thank you, minister. I would like to move on to discuss a matter that is very important to the Hamilton-Wentworth region, the unilateral cancellation of the Red Hill Creek Expressway.

There are several things which greatly disturb me and the Liberal caucus in regard to the actions of the government. We in no way want to take the opportunity of governing away from the government. You had the choice to either proceed with the expressway or to cancel. You chose to cancel.

You were in cabinet at the time, Minister, in a different role and responsibility, but I am assuming, with the limited experience I had in previous cabinets of only three years, that such matters are often debated, and I am assuming that the cancellation of such an enormous project that had been worked on for so many years had the support of the entire cabinet. So while I am holding you responsible for the actions of your predecessor I am, in fact, holding the entire government responsible for the decision.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Those are bold words, Mr Mancini.

Mr Mancini: Bold in what respect, Mr Minister?

Hon Mr Pouliot: "Holding you responsible."

Mr Mancini: Yes, I am holding you responsible, minister, and the government for cancelling the Red Hill Creek Expressway. You are the minister. You get the car and driver --

Mr Daigeler: You get paid for that.

Mr Mancini: You get double the salary --

The Chair: One at a time, gentlemen. You did say the whole Liberal caucus was excited about this, but I would like to take you one at a time, please.

Mr Daigeler: If the minister does not want to follow through on his responsibilities, he should resign.

1700

Hon Mr Pouliot: They would only appoint another one, sir, so let's get on with the questions.

The Chair: As we both know, they have an awful lot of them to choose from. Please proceed, Mr Mancini.

Mr Mancini: I am holding the minister and the entire NDP cabinet responsible, and the members for the Hamilton-Wentworth region in particular, who, I understand, led the way in cancelling this major project in the Hamilton area. Great economic harm has been done to the Hamilton region.

The local municipal officials, along with several hundred other people, paid a visit to Queen's Park and held a demonstration in front of our buildings. Indeed, the government did send a spokesman from its caucus from the Hamilton region to speak to the crowd assembled, but from my personal observations I can attest that the government spokesperson was not very well received. The government spokesperson did not in any way address how this economic loss would be made up, did not in any way address what the Hamilton region itself could do to proceed, and did not address any of the concerns that were voiced that day. We had, as I said, local officials, we had construction workers, we had business people, among other concerned citizens, who came to Queen's Park looking for answers. Of course they received none.

We were especially disappointed by the manner in which this entire matter was handled by the minister of the day. I cannot hold this minister responsible for that, but long-held traditions of cabinet secrecy were broken when more than one minister told local officials in the Hamilton area that this project was going to be cancelled. Private meetings were held. Under normal circumstances I believe ministers caught in this situation would probably have had to resign, but we got an apology, and I guess at that time that was as much as we could expect.

I will not read into the record the course of events that transpired in order to get the Red Hill Creek Expressway approved by the last government. I will not read into the record, because we do not have time, every indiscretion that took place and each detail of what has transpired before or since, except to make one point with the minister. Your government promised that it would be working with a group in the Hamilton-Wentworth region and would come up with some kind of alternative plan. Then I believe it took a number of weeks, if not months, to get a reference for this committee to work with, and I am not entirely sure whether that reference was accepted by the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, and I do not know of any meetings that took place with regard to the promise that was made.

I would like to know from the minister, where do we stand today? Where do the people of Hamilton-Wentworth stand today with regard not only to the cancellation of the Red Hill Creek Expressway but to the subsequent promise made to work with a local committee to come up with an alternative plan?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I can talk about the policy decision. It is my role, my mandate. But I would like, if permitted, to have Mr Vervoort talk about the process.

Mr Vervoort: Mr Mancini, the indication was quite as you say, that there would be a joint review, participation with the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth and the Ministry of Transportation, a joint undertaking, fully funded by the ministry, which would look at alternatives to the transportation services which would have been afforded by the construction of the Red Hill Creek Expressway, that portion in the valley.

At present the terms of reference for that planning study have not been finalized, and we expect that those will be --

Mr Mancini: Can I ask a question? Sorry, I do not mean to interrupt your flow of thought, but can I request from you the date that the commitment for a reference for this committee was made? I am not asking you for a specific date, but can you say the first week of what month, or what have you?

Mr Vervoort: I believe it was close upon the heels of the announcement, and I would place it in late December or early January.

Mr Mancini: So we are talking at least 10 months?

Mr Vervoort: That is correct.

Mr Mancini: In 10 months' time we have not been able to agree upon a reference for the committee to meet to discuss a reference?

Mr Vervoort: There have been several discussions with respect to the language of the terms of reference. There has not been finalization of those terms of reference.

Mr Mancini: Is there an official name for this body that is to meet to work out these terms of reference?

Mr Vervoort: At present there is no formal body per se developing the terms of reference. The terms of reference are being developed in conversations with me, as the regional director of central region, and with my counterpart, the commissioner of transportation, Mr Dale Turvey, of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, in addition to each of us being advised by our respective elected representatives.

Mr Mancini: Okay. I hope you do not mind, but as we are going through this question and answer session it may appear as if I am cutting you off. If it appears that way, it is only because I have the answer I want and I want to quickly move on.

So we have a scenario here that the government cancels a major expressway for the Hamilton-Wentworth region and this causes an uproar in the community, as should have been expected. In response to the concern by the Hamilton-Wentworth region, the government says, "Okay, let's sit down and we're going to work out terms of reference for an alternative to this expressway we cancelled."

We have here today a senior official of the ministry telling us, Minister, that in 10 months' time we have not been able to work out a reference. That leads me to believe, sir, in that you are not trying yourself personally, that this is not a high priority with the government. It should be a high priority with the government. It should be a number one priority with the minister, in view of the way the project was cancelled, where ministers had to rise in the House and apologize for leaking confidential cabinet information.

The Chair: Be careful. There were allegations, but it was never proven.

Mr Mancini: What did Mr Allen rise and apologize for then?

The Chair: The leak was confirmed by an alderman in the city of Hamilton. We did not have the authority to prove whether or not Mr Hinkley, the NDP candidate for mayor, lied to the Hamilton Spectator. That is what we were unable to prove. The matter --

Mr Mancini: The minister apologized.

The Chair: Precisely, but please --

Mr Mancini: So he must have apologized for something. I do not know what he apologized for, but we have a situation where the circumstance, I say to the minister, was clouded. Ministers do not get up and apologize because, while they are eating their Cheerios in the morning, they think that is what they should do at 1:30 in the afternoon. So having all of that surround this issue, having several hundred demonstrators in front of our buildings, having senior officials from the region, having locally elected officials from the region, having business people, construction workers and a cross-section of Hamilton in front of our buildings, that would have led me to believe that the minister of the day, your predecessor and you, would have given this a high priority for the Hamilton-Wentworth region. We have a situation here where we are told that even the terms of reference for an alternative have not been decided upon and it has been 10 months.

1710

Mr Daigeler: It is disgraceful.

Mr Mancini: It is a disgrace. My colleague Mr Daigeler says it is a disgrace and it is a disgrace. In your best estimation, when might we get agreement on the terms of reference?

Mr Vervoort: It has been my sense that we have been close to reaching agreement. I had a meeting with Mr Turvey approximately four weeks ago and it is my sense that we have concluded the discussions. I would estimate that within a period of six to eight weeks we would achieve agreement on the terms of reference.

Mr Mancini: What you are telling me this afternoon is that the minister is overseeing a process where the terms of reference are going to take one year to accomplish, to agree to, and then we have to have a study. This is unacceptable and today I ask the minister on behalf of the Hamilton-Wentworth region that you make this a priority in your ministry, that we get the terms of reference approved as quickly as possible, noting that it has already been 10 months, that you make arrangements to have whatever money is needed to move forward with the terms of reference and that we work hand in hand with the local municipality to see when we can proceed with an alternative that is vital to the economic rebirth of the Hamilton-Wentworth region. They are suffering like everybody else in this province.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Mr Mancini, you have not only my personal assurance but, more important, that of the Ministry of Transportation that it is a high priority and that we are working collectively with the Hamilton-Wentworth region's representative. It is a priority and we are rushing to establish the terms of reference. Yes, we are concerned; yes, it is high profile; yes, it is a priority; yes, we are working on it; yes, we are hoping to have an agreement as soon as possible.

Mr Mancini: Minister, I have said before these estimates, I am not in any way questioning your sincerity, it is the lack of action we are disappointed in. No one can in any way say that 10 months to get terms of reference is rushing it, especially when the commitment was made by this government to the people of the Hamilton-Wentworth region: "Yes, we know you're upset about our cancellation," referring to the NDP government, "of the Red Hill Creek Expressway; yes, we know you were promised that; yes, we know that the project could have been worth $100 million; yes, we know people made business decisions based on that project; yes, we know construction jobs have been lost; and, yes, we are going to get terms of reference to give you the best alternative," and nothing has happened. I appreciate the minister's commitment. We await the minister's action.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I am happy you mentioned the word "alternatives," because 10 months seems to be a long time, but let's keep in mind that the region wished to explore legal alternatives first. That is a fact of life.

Mr Mancini: Our view is that the Red Hill Creek Expressway should not have been cancelled and we would not be going through this process. Hamilton-Wentworth region has been left out in the cold. They have had their expressway taken away, they have had future development taken away, potential jobs have been lost, investment has been lost and we are 10 months later sitting here in the estimates chamber discussing with the minister why the ministry at the highest levels did not make this a priority.

Minister, as I have said many times in these estimates, it is not your sincerity. We know you as Gilles Pouliot, we know you as an individual and we like you. It is your role as minister we are questioning and the representation from the members for Hamilton, a full slate of NDP members and they cannot ensure that a term of reference in fact gets approved.

The Chair: Mrs Marland wanted to raise a question, as we move in rotation, and then Mr Turnbull.

Mrs Marland: Minister, I know you were sitting on my side of the House when I first started to raise the question about the risk of sight-impaired and blind people stepping off the edge of subway platforms, and, because you are the compassionate person you are, I know you would still be as concerned no matter which side of the House you are sitting on. We are aware that the TTC did receive money from the government to install warning tiles across the front of subway platforms. We had a commitment for a certain number of platforms that would be installed.

Unfortunately, it has been brought to our attention that there has been some question raised -- I am not making this as an allegation, Minister, I am making it as an observation as to how this whole process happened after the Ontario government gave the money to the TTC.

The questions on which I would like your commitment, to investigate and report back to this committee, are whether the whole process of tendering for this work was handled properly, whether the decisions that were made as to the most functional tile were made without bias as to who the producer or manufacturer of the tile is. Because of your personal integrity and the integrity of this ministry, I hoped we could have this commitment from you to investigate and report back to this committee. While there are allegations out there which I am bringing to your attention, I think it is necessary to establish why this installation has not progressed the way it was promised on behalf of sight-impaired and blind people who in the interim are still at extremely high risk in these stations. I have made inquiries, I have visited the sample station and looked at the sample tiles and walked on them and so forth, by the way, so I have been quite involved in trying to find out how they were making the decision as to who would do the installation and who got the contract and so forth. It is a fairly straightforward question. If you do not have the answer to it now, and I do not really expect you to, I would be quite happy to receive it in writing at a near future date.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Simply put we have done lots, but if this is a specific inquiry -- and it is; it sounds most legitimate -- we had better have a good answer. If we do not have it, we will come up with a project that will address this particular situation. The point is well taken.

Mr Guscott: The only thing I was going to add, minister, and Mrs Marland may well have addressed this at the end of her question, is that I was involved in the process of selecting which particular tile as it related to the users of the system. As you are probably aware, they used the unused station below the Bay Street station for that purpose.

Mrs Marland: That is where I was.

Mr Guscott: They brought in various samples of tile and various users from the CNIB, among others, to investigate which ones met the purpose. Other than that, we will have to get some more details and get back to you.

Mrs Marland: Was it properly tendered?

Mr Guscott: We will look into it. I have no information on that.

Mrs Marland: That is fine. I do not expect you to. I look forward to the response. Thank you, Minister.

1720

Mr Turnbull: I am certainly pleased to note the comments made by the Liberals about the Red Hill Creek Expressway. I cannot help feeling that we in the Conservative Party were awfully pleased when they made their conversion, because as you will recall, the previous time they were in opposition they were against the Red Hill Creek Expressway. The Conservative Party is the only party that has consistently been in favour of this project.

Mr Daigeler: But they never did anything about it.

Mr Turnbull: We are moving forward with it. The Hamilton-Wentworth area is suffering and I was most alarmed that none of the six NDP MPPs from that area showed up at the meeting, a rally which Mr Jackson and I attended to get support behind getting the Red Hill Creek Expressway at least started. I would urge you to make this a great priority to ensure that the terms of reference are fixed very soon so that we can get this important area of our province kickstarted again. Minister, that is just a comment. It is not a question and I suppose there is a certain amount of frustration there.

The TTC strike had the effect of reducing the ridership and typically we have seen that 68% of the cost of ridership has been borne out of the fare box. The TTC estimates that this year, as a result of the drop in ridership and the ongoing costs, it will be down to something like 63% to 64%. Of course this increases the burden and they will be looking to you for moneys. My question to you is, first of all, how will you respond to that?

Second, on another issue which relates to housing, there is a sufficient number of apartment buildings which are actually built on TTC rights of way, and they are on land leases. The land leases will be coming up predominantly during your term in office. Typically, when a land lease comes up there is a massive increase in the amount of money which is charged. We are not talking about 5% or 10%; we are talking about maybe a 150% increase. Quite obviously, the legislation that your party brought in, both Bill 4, the interim rental legislation, and Bill 121 when it is passed, does not allow landlords to pass this increased cost through, and yet there is absolutely nothing that landlords can do about it.

My question to you, Minister, in conjunction with what you will do about the drop in the percentage that would be borne by the fare box, as part of any plan to help fund that, will you ensure that either your housing legislation is amended to reflect the inability of landlords to pass this money through or will you stop the TTC from increasing these land leases?

Hon Mr Pouliot: In the first instance, you are right, our records will attest as close a percentage as can possibly be named -- 68% comes from the turnstiles or the fare box. The province splits the difference in terms of operating costs. It also picks up 75% of capital dollars. The province pays 75% and the TTC pays 25%. I do not wish to speculate. I really do not know what the final figures will be because of the strike where no one rode, but hypothetically you can assume anything, so let's go with the scenario you have mentioned.

We will have to look at it and we will have to give consideration as to how many dollars it means. What about the established formula? What about responsibility? The question is valid. I do not have the answer. I would like to wait for the figure. We do not have a set view on how it will impact the provincial responsibility.

Mr Turnbull: With respect to the second part of my question, could you respond as to what you will do in that area?

Mr Guscott: The second part being the question of --

Mr Turnbull: The land leases to various apartment buildings.

Mr Guscott: I am having trouble finding the transportation aspect to that question.

Mr Turnbull: To the extent that the ministry shares in the difference between what the fare box brings in and the fact that you will presumably be asked to make up this difference, or at least your share of it. You have some ability either to influence the TTC with respect to negotiations with the landlords so that there is not any wild increase, or alternatively, you, Minister, have the ability to influence the Minister of Housing with respect to the legislation and make some special case to cover these situations.

Mr Guscott: I am sorry, we do not tell the TTC how to make its business decisions, so I cannot accept your premise. What we do have influence on is what items are subsidized under operating and capital, etc. I think maybe an elaboration of the sharing, though, may point out some of the lack of control we have over some of those areas. The minister has mentioned that 68% comes from the fare box and 16% from provincial subsidy and 16% from Metro. We built into that formula an incentive so that, as ridership grew or as the TTC became more efficient, our 16% value would remain constant and the TTC would, in fact, have money to put away for a rainy day to that end.

Over the last 10 years that would have amounted to somewhere between $40 million and $70 million that would now have been salted away for a rainy day. I would argue that now is a rainy day, and that Metro and the TTC did not salt the money away for that purpose; it went into general revenues for the metropolitan government. I do not think we have the kind of influence you are talking about, Mr Turnbull.

Mr Turnbull: Thank you. Moving to truck lengths, Minister: As you know, the problem in Ontario is that we have a differing regulation from the adjoining provinces, and the requirement of a 25-metre overall length, including the truck, would allow for a safer coupling. I believe the B train -- it sounds rather romantic, the B train -- is preferred as being a safer type of coupling, but is not possible with the present regulations. In fact this safer coupling is allowed in Quebec and in western Canada, but they have to uncouple and change the configuration of the truckload as they go through Ontario because of this regulation.

Will you comment on what you are doing about this, and what sort of time frame before we can see a response on it?

Hon Mr Pouliot: My friend and colleague the member for Cambridge and I addressed this subject in the House previously. Some of us did it with emotions and passion; it is something that we have at heart. We have no plans at the present time, Mr Turnbull, to lengthen the trucks. Ms Kelch and Mr Kelly can tell you more about it.

Mr Kelly: I am supporting what the minister says. We have no plans in Ontario to allow longer trucks.

Mr Turnbull: What about the information that the trucking industry brings forward with respect to the safety factor with the B train?

Mr Kelly: I understand that -- Margaret will have to support me or give me advice on this one -- the B train is the safer device.

Mr Turnbull: But surely the B train is the one which requires a 25-metre overall length.

1730

Ms Kelch: That is not always the case. There are B trains that are operating in the province today, but what the 25 metres would afford is for you to have the full-sized tractor plus the full-sized trailers. With the 23 metres you can run a B train, but you either have to run one of the trailers shorter or you run with a cab that is shorter.

There are many B trains that function in the province today. In fact, in the northwest, the lumber industry has moved in a very significant way to use almost exclusively B trains because of their stronger safety characteristic.

Mr Turnbull: It seems a shame that we do everything in our power to make sure that we are really not a nation. The fact that most of the provinces have regulations allowing 25 metres, and we in Ontario -- and I think there are a couple of provinces on the east coast -- do not allow it, is a great inconsistency.

Ms Kelch: Perhaps it is worth some clarification in terms of the Canadian situation. Quebec currently allows the 25 metres only on designated roadways. It has looked at and studied this issue as we have, but it has not come to a full conclusion in terms of the broad and extensive use of that longer dimension.

Also, your information in terms of the eastern provinces: there are no provinces east of Quebec that currently allow 25 metres. The 25 metres are all in western Canada, and the circumstances of traffic and urban conditions are significantly different in western Canada.

Mr Turnbull: Is that the overriding consideration, the traffic conditions?

Ms Kelch: It is one of the considerations.

Mr Turnbull: What are the other considerations?

Ms Kelch: There are considerations in terms of manoeuvrability and in passing. Alex reminds me that one of the significant studies that was done under the auspices of the Canadian Trucking Association was passing visibility. In Ontario and Quebec, certainly we have terrains that require you to have significant passing visibility when you pass a truck that long.

Mr Turnbull: Turning to the move of the ministry to St Catharines, Minister, your answers on page 28 of your response: As I expressed in my opening speech, I am concerned about the significant numbers of civil servants who elect not to go with ministries -- it is typically only about one third who do -- and the government's commitment to ensure that they will retain jobs.

My question is as to whether this will, in fact, result in a larger civil service. The other aspect is that those who do move or are located as new staff members in the new location often come to Toronto for discussions, and there are significant costs associated with that. Have you addressed this? My question originally was, have you done a complete financial impact study, taking in all of these factors?

Hon Mr Pouliot: An impact study, but just as important, the very fact you mentioned, the people, the way it will impact on people. Where are they going? How many people propose to go? Pat Jacobsen has dealt extensively with this issue; she may comment.

Ms Jacobsen: We have done the detailed analysis in terms of the cost of the move. Certainly in terms of the government's policy, its interest was both the cost and the impacts on the communities that would receive these jobs. There has also been a cost benefit of those salaries to the communities.

Your question in terms of the staff impacts: Our surveys within the staff show a higher uptake on St Catharines than is normal in the government operations, in that our surveys are running at about 38% of the staff who are indicating they wish to go and 40% who are undecided. Of that 40%, over half are eligible to retire in the next three years. Therefore that number would -- depending on the time of the move -- be substantially different. Twenty-two per cent are not in a position -- we have over 2,000 positions in the central region that are not affected, that are part of our delivery, and we have a joint planning committee with the union and with our management to look, job by job, for each of the people to find jobs within the central region and the rest of government.

Mr Turnbull: Are you suggesting this will not result in an increase in the civil service, that there will be sufficient attrition? You are saying you will not be creating new jobs?

Ms Jacobsen: We believe that between the base of the ministry that is already in the Toronto region and by managing that well and managing it with the affected staff in Downsview, combined with the government's policies on surplus that are going to be very strong and very supportive in terms of other jobs in the Toronto area, coupled with the fact that we are getting a fairly high interest rate in terms of moving within our ministry, we can do those moves with very minimal impact in terms of people.

Mr Turnbull: Can you table for this committee afterwards the complete financial impact study?

Ms Jacobsen: Yes, we would be happy to do that.

Mr Turnbull: With respect to travel, the experience of other ministries has been that there have been a great number of people who have travelled back to Metro for conferences. What are you doing to alleviate this?

Ms Jacobsen: We have looked at that and included that as part of the cost of doing business. We also are totally looking at, within the cost, the technology in our ministry. We believe that as a ministry we should be making much more substantial use of information technology, whether we are in Toronto or in St Catharines, to try to minimize the movement of people back and forth.

Mr Turnbull: What about video conferencing and things like that?

Ms Jacobsen: Yes, that is very much a part of it. For a large decentralized program like ours, many of those head office people are on the road anyway by nature of their operation. We would be happy to table that with you.

Mr Turnbull: Do you already have a video conferencing facility in the ministry?

Ms Jacobsen: No, we do not.

Mr Turnbull: Is there any plan to have that in the near future?

Ms Jacobsen: We are looking at whether there might be some merit to do it starting earlier so that the ministry is used to that form as an alternative to travel, and actually as a cost-saving in terms of our travel costs as they are now.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, the Ontario truckers are at a competitive disadvantage to US firms, as you know by your own report which you received the other week. The head of the Ontario Trucking Association has said, and I quoted him in the House the other week, that it is all very well talking about moving to more efficient trucks, but there is no money to go to more efficient trucks. Indeed, in the pre-budget briefing, the trucking industry emphasized the importance of reducing the fuel tax. Notwithstanding that, we have this massive increase in fuel tax which now makes us the third most expensive administration in the whole of North America in terms of fuel tax. Can you comment on that?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I am sure you would like me to point out what recent initiatives this administration, our government, has taken in responding to the trucking industry's concern. We met with our counterparts in the federal government in Winnipeg last September and we talked about trucking. We had a consultant's report, the competitiveness study, and the focus was transborder trucking. It identified some of the problems truckers face: Why are we less competitive? Why is trucking in Ontario in such trouble? Why is it that 5,000 jobs in a relatively short period of time have been lost?

There are just too many trucks, so you have to shake the can. You have to balance the law of supply and demand. There are too many trucks, so what you do is you impose a moratorium. The province has done that. You say to people: "So many licences for so many trucks, but no more. If you want to operate, you must buy from within, but no new ones. There is already a glut on the market."

Why is there a glut? Because of many factors. It all happened at once. There was very little time for the transition to take place -- and I am answering your question. The recession, free trade, deregulation, all those components are plain. Many people will say, "We told you so." I know I certainly did, and I will say it again, on one component after another. But people would not listen, so it is coming home now.

What we are doing is imposing Bill 129, a moratorium on trucking. We are strengthening the enforcement of fuel taxes for transborder, for people who are trucking across the border. We are saying, "You're going to pay taxes to level the playing field." Bill 129 will give us the opportunity to force load brokers to post a bond so that people will be paying for the services rendered.

I appreciate your concern, Mr Turnbull. I am on side with you. It is a problem, but we are working on it.

1740

The Acting Chair (Mr Farnan): If I may interrupt at this point, I want to thank you, Mr Turnbull, for your contribution to the estimates. It is time to move on.

Mr Turnbull: Excuse me, Mr Chair. I believe the understanding was that the NDP members were forgoing their questions.

The Acting Chair: I think there was an agreement that there would be five minutes left for the government members.

Mr Daigeler: Could I have half a minute at the end to put some questions on the record?

The Acting Chair: I will put that to Mr O'Connor, and he will try to facilitate that, I hope.

Mr O'Connor: I will try to keep myself as brief as possible so we can perhaps allow that. Some comments have been made that should not be let go without comment, that is, about the forum in Hamilton. In fact, I believe that was a $100-a-plate fund-raiser, and no Hamilton members were invited. Hamilton is quite well represented in this government. In fact there are three members of the cabinet who come from Hamilton. With the six members there, I think they are quite representative.

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Chair, I have to correct what the member is saying. The NDP members were invited. The offer was that MPPs pay $40. I paid $40 out of my own money and I do not get that from party funds. In point of fact, opposition MPPs earn less than cabinet ministers and also earn less than MPPs who are parliamentary assistants. I paid it out of my own pocket.

The Chair: Mr Turnbull, that really is not a point of order. Mr Turnbull and Mr O'Connor, I do not know how you were able to get the floor in my absence, but you did have it and that is fine. We were going to try to slip you in for a short question but Mr Turnbull had the balance of the time for the day and I was going to prevail upon him to give you some of that time.

Mr Turnbull: I was told they had another five minutes. I have some further questions for the minister.

The Chair: No, that would have been misleading information and I apologize for that. I had to call my wife.

Mr Farnan: On a point of privilege, Mr Chair, may I just make an explanation here? I was informed by the clerk while I was in the chair that there was an understanding that there be five minutes remaining and that is why, as Chair, I made a decision in that direction.

The Chair: Thank you for that clarification.

Mr Farnan: If it was a misunderstanding, I certainly look to the clerk for advice and usually it is very efficient.

The Chair: Thank you for clarifying how you arrived at the decision, but at this point, I would now like to move into any final summary comments because it is my intention to call the votes.

Mr O'Connor: Because I was led to believe that I had an opportunity for a vote, could I then table this question before the vote?

The Chair: If you put it in the form of a question, but I really do not want to revisit attendance at meetings in Hamilton.

Mr O'Connor: I do not think that was necessary either. The question I have is about capital initiatives as far as transit goes outside the GTA. It is something I am sure a number of members of the Legislature are quite concerned about. We have talked extensively about GO Transit, in fact I believe we are even getting trains to Hamilton in the near future. But the rest of the province is probably curious about capital expenditures around transit. That was what my question was going to be and perhaps we could leave that with the minister and the ministry staff to provide the committee with an answer. I would appreciate that.

The Chair: You are asking for a break-out of the capital projects inside and outside the GTA?

Mr O'Connor: What capital expenditure initiatives have taken place outside the GTA? We are talking about transit because we have dealt with public transit quite extensively today.

The Chair: Mr Daigeler, did you have a final question you wanted to place for the record?

Mr Daigeler: As I indicated for the record, if we could have it in writing -- I may be wrong on the title, but you initiated a study on bicycle transportation -- where that is at.

Second, under your recession package, which ones were initiatives put forward under your ministry; a status report on that. Also, how much money was spent this year and how much was not? Will you now be able to spend next year and therefore reduce your deficit?

Third, and this is somewhat of a local question, how do you view the operation of OC Transpo in the Ottawa area? What is your general view on that? Do you intend to continue the policies of the former government with regard to OC Transpo in Ottawa-Carleton?

The Chair: Mr Turnbull, did you have any final questions?

Mr Turnbull: No. Thank you.

The Chair: If I can ask a standard question, did the deputy present to the committee those items in the estimates which represent a reduction because of the ministerial requirement to reduce programming in any of the areas as a result of the Treasurer's announcement of a month ago?

Ms Jacobsen: I am sorry, I do not recall the request.

Mr Daigeler: It was not asked yet.

The Chair: In the last two sets of estimates we customarily made the inquiry.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Regarding reduced expenditures.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I am not clear on how you are doing this. You went last, you allowed another, and now you are putting in a request. The other thing that really strikes me --

The Chair: Is that a request for information or is it a point of order?

Mr Perruzza: It is a point of order.

The Chair: What is your point of order?

Mr Perruzza: My point of order is coming. There are also a number of interjections that you make from the Chair from time to time, and interjections that get into Hansard. I am questioning the appropriateness and your judgement as Chairman as an objective, impartial presider of the meeting and your ability to do that.

The Chair: Mr Perruzza, would you like to put that in the form of a motion which would be a more appropriate use of your objection?

Mr Perruzza: It is an observation, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: Then it is out of order.

Mr Perruzza: Clean up your act.

Mr Farnan: It is not shared by this caucus.

The Chair: I do not think that is appropriate. If we are all trying to help Mr Perruzza understand the standing orders then we could all be helpful if we tell him when he does not have a point of order, but if you wish to challenge the Chair, there is a formal process.

Mr Daigeler: Since you were being criticized from the other side of the House, I would like to indicate that we do not have criticisms of your chairing. I think the procedures of this committee may not be liked or the interventions may not be liked sometimes by other members of the committee, but I do not think we should blame the Chairman for that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Daigeler.

Mr Farnan: I would like to go on record. Mr Daigeler has done so on behalf of the Liberal Party. I would like to make a similar statement of endorsement of the manner in which you have acted as Chairman. You continue to enjoy our strong support, Mr Chair.

Interjections.

The Chair: The bell is going to ring in one minute and I want to get this vote done. It is the role of the Chair, when questions are raised, to assist in clarifying. I thank you for the comments. However, it has been the custom for the standing committee on estimates to make a final request that they share with the committee those adjustments to the final estimates, as they are before us, that may flow from any ministerial orders. We did this in all estimates subsequent to the Treasurer's announcement that there would be cuts.

I apologize if I did not make that clear at the front end of these estimates but we request, at the closing end of the estimates, that you identify those items that have been adjusted. Is that understood?

Mr Daigeler: Agreed.

The Chair: I have been directed by the committee to make that request. Could we have a few moments, please? Now that we have completed the time allocated for the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and it being near 6 of the clock, I will now call the vote.

Votes 3901 to 3907, inclusive, agreed to.

The Chair: Shall the estimates for the Ministry of Transportation for the year 1991-92 be reported to the House without amendment?

Agreed to.

The Chair: This meeting is adjourned until next Tuesday at 3:30. Thank you, Minister, deputy and all staff who were in attendance.

The committee adjourned at 1751.