CONTENTS
Wednesday 16 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
Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock NDP) for Mr Perruzza
Haslam, Karen (Perth NDP) for Mr G. Wilson
Mancini, Remo (Essex South L) for Mrs McLeod
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC) for Mrs Carr
Clerk: Carrozza, Franco
The committee met at 1535 in committee room 2.
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
The Chair: We are convening to begin seven and one-half hours of estimates for the Ministry of Transportation. I would like to welcome the minister today. As is our custom, and in accordance with our House rules, we would afford you up to 30 minutes to make your opening statements. We will then recognize the critic for the official opposition, who will have up to 30 minutes to respond, and then the critic for the third party. Following that sequence, we would afford you an opportunity to respond to the questions they have raised.
I would ask you to introduce those who have accompanied you here to the table. As members of your ministry, they are invited to respond and to identify themselves and their position when they come forward when called upon by you to be of assistance.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank you very kindly. It is a pleasure being here. With us today are: Pat Jacobsen -- most of you know Pat, she is our deputy minister -- David Guscott, Margaret Kelch, Norm Mealing, Carl Vervoort, Bob Cohen, Graeme Barr, John Menary, Joan Cappa, Mary Anne Henderson, Marj Welch and Tom Smith. It is a field of experts. They are part of our 10,000 employees across the province and they offer a dedicated service -- I can attest to that personally -- very often going beyond the call of duty. They are here to serve the public of Ontario via the representation that members of the committee give their constituents and their respective parties.
I intend to take a few minutes to talk about the importance of transportation to Ontario and about some of the activities being undertaken by our ministry. The people of Ontario require safe transportation systems and services which enhance quality of life, are environmentally responsible, promote Ontario's economic competitiveness and provide a high level of customer service.
There are very few sectors as important as transportation to Ontario. Transportation provides a means for every resident of this province to participate in increasing our economic prosperity and social development. Every household, business and public agency depends on transportation. From the residents of Fort Severn on the shores of Hudson Bay in my riding to the people of Pelee Island in southwestern Ontario, every Ontarian depends on well-developed and co-ordinated transportation systems to get to schools or to work, to visit the doctor or to enjoy recreational and social activities.
Our ministry's job is to continue development of an overall transportation network that satisfies Ontario's current and emerging needs.
Tout le monde dans cette province peut être fier de nos systèmes de transports. La population de l'Ontario a été bien servie par les employés qui composent le ministère des Transports et par les 300 000 travailleurs et travailleuses de l'industrie des transports : les pilotes d'avion, les conducteurs des transports en commun, les préposés aux ventes de billets, les chauffeurs de camions, les employés des chemins de fer, les marins, les mécaniciens et les préposés à l'entretien des routes.
Just a few weeks ago, many past and present employees joined in celebrating the ministry's 75th anniversary. Ministry employees can truly take pride in their work and their accomplishments over the past 75 years. When the Department of Public Highways was created in 1916, it was responsible for roads, bridges and vehicles. Today, the ministry is responsible for an integrated transportation network involving all types of transportation systems, rail, road, water and air. It is indeed a huge responsibility.
As we move towards the 21st century, there are many changes taking place in our society that we must be prepared for: an aging population, new economic relationships and pressures and the growing multicultural nature of Ontario. The ministry is responding to these evolving social priorities by making some fundamental changes in the way it does business. For example, our approach is changing away from a focus on individual types or modes of transport to a more integrated, efficient and environmentally sensitive transportation network. Part of this process will make the ministry even more responsive to the needs of the people of Ontario as we move into the next century.
One way this will be accomplished is through our recently established customer services and communications division. It is being designed to provide a way for the public, the taxpayers of Ontario, to obtain information and service from the ministry in a way that is efficient and convenient for the customer. We will become better able to respond to the needs of people in individual regions and communities by giving them greater input into the decisions that affect them. Our field operation staff will have greater autonomy to respond to local conditions. In short, we will provide even more effective and responsive service to the people of Ontario.
We are developing a more comprehensive approach to long-range transportation planning. It will focus on the people who use the transportation system and on how we can give them the most convenient, efficient and cost-effective services possible.
The development of a common vision of Ontario's transportation future began during the last fiscal year. The activity, which we call Getting There, is gathering input on future priorities from the people who provide and use Ontario's transportation services. This input will be used to develop the vision. In turn, the vision will enable the development of a long-range provincial transportation plan. Staff at all level made suggestions on what they foresee as major issues and future priorities. This input is now being analysed in preparation for the next phase of Getting There. The phase of consulting with the public to obtain their views on Ontario's future transportation needs is to begin this winter.
Throughout this process and all other ministry activities, we have certain priorities. In all that we do, safety, both for the traveller and for the environment, is a key component. Creating jobs and other economic opportunities for the people of Ontario are also major considerations. Transportation can and must contribute to the fulfilment of the social and economic goals of Ontario and its people. A good transportation network is vital for Ontario to achieve economic renewal and sustainable prosperity. Ontario's highways, rail, air and water transportation systems are an investment in our future. Our planning is a dynamic process that takes into account new technologies, issues and social changes.
Turning to specifics, each member of this committee has received a copy of our estimates book. The information provided is far more comprehensive than ever before, so I will not go into detail on all our program areas.
The total Ministry of Transportation budget is $2.84 billion, of which just over $2 billion is capital spending. More than half of the capital funding, almost $1.3 billion, is transfer funds, primarily for municipalities for such things as roads and transit. Our operating budget totals $819.9 million, with $323.2 million designated as transfers, primarily to municipalities for transit operations. This leaves the ministry with an actual operating budget of $496.7 million.
Our operating budget has increased by $56.9 million, or 7.7%. On the capital side, we show an increase of 16%. These increases are an indication of the importance this government places on transportation.
The capital budget of $2 billion will create the equivalent of one year of work for almost 60,000 people. On the operating side, we have 10,000 employees all across Ontario. In the north, our ministry is one of the largest employers, with 2,000 workers and a payroll exceeding $87.5 million.
Some of the capital funding involves more than $80 million in spending carried out under the anti-recession program. The largest portion of our anti-recession funding was used in our municipal roads program. This allowed the money to be used where it would do the most good: providing jobs in communities throughout the province.
The projects ranged from road reconstruction in Hornepayne township and the city of London to culvert replacement in the village of Beachburg. We provided $55.8 million which in turn created a total of 46,500 weeks of work and completed many very necessary local projects.
Funds from the anti-recession programs were also used to expand truck parking facilities at six services centres along Highways 400 and 401 as part of our initiative to help Ontario truckers. We also made improvements to ministry driver and vehicle centres across the province to make the offices more accessible for persons with disabilities.
As I mentioned a few moments ago, safety is the primary consideration in all our activities. We work closely with all groups involved in safety, particularly in respect to traffic. Our statistics show that a higher percentage of young drivers become involved in crashes and collisions. This is why one of our key communication activities this year was a major advertising campaign aimed at younger drivers. It involved some very graphic messages. Before starting the campaign, we asked young people what kind of message would get their attention. They told us the messages would have to be strong. I think we succeeded.
In co-operation with police forces across the province, we also actively promote the use of seatbelts and child safety seats. This spring, seatbelt use rose to 80%, up from 72% a year ago. It is not enough, but ours is a record of improvement and shows our messages are reaching people.
Efforts to improve truck safety are ongoing. We have increased our enforcement efforts on Ontario's roadways. Again this year our ministry participated in an annual 72-hour truck safety blitz that is part of a campaign across Canada, the United States, Mexico and Puerto Rico. Here in Ontario more than 2,000 trucks were checked by our inspectors during the blitz.
We have announced that effective in January, Ontario will require annual safety inspections for commercial motor vehicles and trailers. All other provinces are implementing similar programs as part of a national movement to improve highway safety. The federal and provincial trucking industries are participating in developing the standards to be followed. Most trucking companies and their drivers are concerned about safety and work with us to bring about improvements.
We are also working with the trucking industry in an effort to find solutions to some of the problems that are having a serious impact on the industry, especially the individual owner/operators. Competition from American truckers, deregulation, and the recession have led to serious financial problems for many Ontario truckers. The stress and trauma on individuals and their families is horrendous. As part of our efforts to find solutions to the challenges facing the Ontario trucking industry, we recently published a consultant's study into transborder freight movement. The report indicates Ontario's truckers are at a competitive disadvantage relative to their American counterparts and identified 23 possible options for industry and government. The report will help us work with all sectors of the industry including owner/operators to improve Ontario's position and develop the long-term strategy for its revitalization.
As most members of this committee are aware, the riding I represent, Lake Nipigon, is the largest geographical riding in Ontario, with its 114,000 square miles going from the native community of Mobert to the shores of Hudson Bay, the northernmost community in the province, the community of Fort Severn. Simply put, Mr Chair -- and I know you are concerned and you can appreciate this -- if you were to add Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and multiply by two, that would be the equivalent of the riding I have the honour of representing. Therefore you will share with me the need for our ministry's remote airport program and what it has meant for the good people of Fort Severn, for instance.
The Chair: As well as your trips to the constituency.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Indeed. Thank you very kindly.
To leave the community of Fort Severn and venture south, in relative terms, we have completed new airports now at Wapakeka and also at Wunnumin Lake, giving people an opportunity to be like others, giving them the right in this great province of ours to look at the future with confidence, making commodities and essentials such as food a little more affordable, giving them the sincere belief that they will leave the conditions that plague them, conditions that in Ontario in 1991 still resemble the Third World.
1550
I cannot overemphasize the importance of small, remote airports. There is no alternative; it is the only game in town. It costs so little out of a budget of $2.8 billion that if there was ever a case in need, a case where value for money found its true significance, it is the remote airport program of the Ministry of Transportation. Therefore, it is only natural that we in the north know the value of a community airport. It is in many cases, as I have briefly indicated, our lifeline. Medical care is now more accessible. I cannot overemphasize the value of fresh foods, which are now available year-round. People can visit friends and relatives in other communities. They also create business and employment opportunities.
In other parts of the province, we assist municipalities in the operation of their airports. This year we are helping complete new airports in Barrie, Owen Sound, Hanover-Walkerton and Temagami. These airports will provide new opportunities for economic development in their communities and, in turn, help create new job opportunities for the people of Ontario.
The residents of Pelee Island, the southernmost point of Ontario, will benefit from the new ferry being built to serve their communities. This vessel will make it easier for islanders to visit the mainland, and for tourists to visit the island. This will provide new job opportunities on Pelee Island. The $26.5 million contract to build a ferry was awarded to Port Weller Dry Docks, boosting job creation in the Niagara Peninsula. Right now 235 people are working on the vessel.
Under our provincial highways program, we are carrying out construction and rehabilitation projects throughout the province. By far the largest project is construction of the new Highway 407. This multi-year project will relieve congestion on other highways and roads in the greater Toronto area. This project will benefit more than just the people of the Toronto area; it will provide an alternative route to bypass Toronto and Highway 401, North America's second-busiest freeway.
In northern Ontario, we are repairing and repaving almost 500 kilometres of highways. The funding for construction projects in the north comes from the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. Staff from our ministry undertake the work. Other major highway construction projects include widening of Highway 401 in the London area and Highway 7 in the Kitchener area and construction of the new Champlain Street interchange on Highway 17 in Ottawa.
Although it is not included in the estimates for the current fiscal year, we expect to tender construction of a new interchange at the intersection of Highways 124 and 69 near Parry Sound next spring. We have fast-tracked this project because of the serious collisions that have occurred at this intersection. In the meantime, we have reduced the speed limit in this area and installed traffic lights at the intersection. In addition, the Ontario Provincial Police continue their enforcement blitz at the intersection to help reduce the danger. Our ministry recognizes the need to upgrade Highways 69 and 11. Work is already under way on planning and design for both of these highways, and we are moving as quickly as possible.
I should point out that from the time we begin planning to the actual start of construction the time frame can vary from seven to 10 years. This applies to all roads, not just Highways 69 and 11. This time frame is necessary because several factors must be considered before construction begins. For example, the environmental impact of the project must be considered. As with all ministry construction projects, environmental assessments must be carried out to ensure that the impacts on the natural and cultural surroundings are fully understood. Where necessary, appropriate mitigating or remedial steps are taken.
We must also allow time for public input in the planning process and in the environmental review process. In addition, lead time for property acquisition may be necessary. To deal with people fairly, we must look at all reasonable alternatives before we make a final proposal to land owners if it is determined that private land holdings are required. In these situations, we must properly determine fair market value. We also consider the impact on local businesses. These processes take time, and I must stress that this time and effort is appropriate.
Our ministry is recognized around the world as a leader in the area of transportation research. This year we will spend close to $12 million on research into such things as highway safety, construction, alternative fuels and transit vehicles.
Au cours des 75 dernières années, notre ministère s'est distingué comme chef de file en Amérique du Nord en assurant des services de transport qui visent aussi bien à renforcer une économie prospère qu'à respecter un environnement sain. Nous employons plus de 50 personnes qualifiées dans des domaines aussi divers que la pollution par le bruit, l'archéologie, l'histoire, les pêches, en plus de la gestion des déchets et des sols pour mener à bien notre mission en matière d'environnement.
In November 1990, the ministry launched a series of initiatives designed to encourage the greening of transportation in Ontario. We are continuing that effort this year. Motor vehicle emissions are a significant contributor to global warming, acid precipitation, urban smog and other serious environmental problems. Encouraging less use of private vehicles can reduce this environmental impact. One means of reaching that goal is to provide efficient public transportation systems. A major portion of our ministry's estimates is allocated to transit under two major programs: provincial transit and municipal transit.
The provincial transit program covers the operations of GO Transit, which each weekday carries 130,000 people to and from their jobs and other activities. GO Transit is undertaking a number of major capital expenditures this year, including service extensions on a number of routes. GO is also conducting a program to improve platform access for persons with disabilities.
Ontario is a leader in municipal transit. We provide operating and capital funding to 78 conventional and 125 special transit systems across Ontario.
One of our long-term goals is to make conventional transit systems more accessible to persons with disabilities and to elderly and frail persons. It is important to remember that accessibility also means getting the passenger to and from his or her destination at times that are convenient. Our ministry is looking at a variety of ways to meet the transportation needs of elderly and disabled persons. As well as specialized transit services, we have programs to support features on conventional transit vehicles that allow easier access, such as more hand rails, low floors and better lighting. This program is called Easier Access.
It is important that our programs are tailored to the needs of local communities and increase the transportation options of all transit users. Our vision of the future is integrated, accessible transit systems bringing all these services under one umbrella to co-ordinate policies, planning and operations.
We are working with the Ontario Urban Transit Association to raise public awareness of the program to make transit more accessible, now that several demonstration projects are coming to an end. We hope to see the association taking a greater role in introducing Easier Access service in more municipalities. We also hope to involve citizen and consumer groups in these efforts.
Last November, we announced a number of initiatives designed to bolster public transit, especially in the greater Toronto area. We also confirmed our support for transit infrastructure improvements included in the Let's Move program. This is North America's largest transit-building program. It includes three new subway and rapid transit lines, two extensions of existing lines, three new streetcar routes and a busway linking Mississauga and Toronto. With an anticipated population increase of two million people in the greater Toronto area over the next 20 years, this is definitely a step in the right direction.
I want to make it clear we believe in public transit, wherever feasible, throughout Ontario, not just in the Toronto area. Each and every transit system in Ontario is an important part of our overall transportation network. That is why the 1991-92 allocation for the municipal transit program is close to $500 million, an increase of 18% over last year. This capital allocation covers a variety of projects, including a reserved bus lane in Mississauga, passenger terminal work in several communities and the purchase of new buses in over 30 municipalities.
There is also funding available for other initiatives, including environmental assessment studies for some of the Let's Move projects and improvements to the TTC's subway service reliability. We are also backing up our commitment to transit for disabled persons, whose transportation needs are increasing rapidly. This year's allocation is about 23% more than last year. That will attest to our commitment.
1600
While we continue to work on a comprehensive approach, we have set aside funds to address the following areas: new Easier Access features, demonstrations of the community bus concept, support for accessible taxis, and development of new computer applications.
Ontario is a world leader in transit innovations, whether it be special services for disabled persons or new developments in mass movement of people. We have unlimited opportunities to market not only our vehicles and systems but also our technology and expertise. We have an excellent transit industry. It is one of the best in the world, with good systems and innovative services. Much of the credit for that excellence belongs to the transit systems. They have anticipated and responded to the trends that have changed the face of transit in our province.
We are working with several transit operators in the assessment of alternative fuels, including methanol and natural gas. We are also working closely with Ontario Bus Industries on development of low-floor buses powered by hybrid power sources such as electricity and natural gas.
Ontario's position as a leader in transit has not gone without notice. Gerry Johnston, our assistant deputy minister of planning, was recently named the 1991 winner of the American Public Transit Association's State and Local Distinguished Service Award for his three decades of leadership and vision in North America. To further mark Ontario's status as a transit leader, the American Public Transit Association held its annual meeting here in Toronto just a few weeks ago. The 3,000 delegates from all over North America were most impressed by our commitment to transit.
Seventy-five years ago, our ministry's first employees set about locating, designing and building the backbone of the excellent highway system we now enjoy. Over the past 30 years, traffic volume in Ontario has increased by nearly 60%, and the number of passenger vehicles increased by 156%. About 6.3 million people are now licensed to drive in Ontario. The capacity of the provincial highway system is currently being stretched to the limit, as roads throughout southern Ontario become increasingly congested. Unfortunately, clogged transportation arteries make the movement of Ontario's economic lifeblood more difficult, and that can adversely affect the province's economic performance and overall quality of life.
Our ministry's staff are dedicated to bringing Ontario's future transportation needs into clear focus. For us, the key to contributing to economic growth and social prosperity is to ensure that safe, efficient, accessible, reliable, technologically sound and environmentally sensitive transportation continues to be one of Ontario's major strengths.
Our society and the transportation system serving it have changed dramatically over the past 75 years. They will probably change even more in the next 75 years. The Ministry of Transportation is ready to respond to Ontario's evolving transportation needs.
Mr Chairman, members of the committee, this is our ministry's initial presentation.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. As always, very colourful, almost romantic, the way you present your estimates each time. You have outdone yourself. I thought Mines was an exceptional presentation and really enjoyed that.
Mr O'Connor: I do not believe the written Hansard does justice to the essence of his speech.
The Chair: He was quite something with Mines.
Mr Daigeler: This might be something on which the Conservatives disagree with the Liberals.
The Chair: We will see what you thought of those opening statements. I invite Mr Mancini now to use his allocation in any way he wishes.
Mr Mancini: I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the minister and to make opening comments on behalf of the Liberal Party in the Legislature. As this is my first opportunity to do so, I want to congratulate the minister on his recent appointment and I look forward to working with him.
I have to say, as my colleague Mr Daigeler has already pointed out, that we were not quite as enamoured with the minister's opening statement as others in the room may have been. As we listened to the minister's statement, I was particularly concerned with its shallowness. The minister makes a comment on page 5, where he refers to the estimates book and says, "The information provided is far more comprehensive than ever before, so I won't go into detail on all our program areas." I think the minister has used that as an out. I have gone through innumerable estimates hearings on the Ministry of Transportation going back to the 1970s, and I do not believe the information that has been provided to us by the minister is any more comprehensive than former minister James Snow, who was minister for a decade, provided to the committee, or others did who followed him in the mid-1980s and early 1990s.
As my colleague Mr Daigeler has pointed out to me, the only noticeable difference we see is that a number of very colourful graphs have been used. For a person like me, who has great difficulty following charts and a lot of numbers in a very small area -- I will not go into details about why -- I appreciate the colourful graphs. I have to say to the minister that it is certainly an improvement on what we have had in the past.
I also want it to be very clear in my comments early on that whatever criticisms I have, unless specifically directed, are not directed to ministry staff but to the minister, who is the representative of the government and who, through his position, uses his influence to put forward policy initiatives, if there are any. So unless specifically directed by me, I want to assure the staff that my comments are directed to the political masters in the Legislature, who must take responsibility for what goes on in each and every ministry. I think the minister understands me when I say that.
This estimates procedure in this particular committee is new to me. The last time I attended an estimates hearing it was in a regular committee and both the minister and the opposition critics had far more than one half-hour to respond. I feel considerably restrained by the 30-minute framework that probably was agreed to by the previous Liberal government, for whatever strange reasons I am not sure. But the 30 minutes, Minister, probably did not allow you to do justice to such a big ministry, and it will not allow me to do justice in responding to your opening statement and bringing forward the many areas of concern and the areas where you and your predecessor have failed to respond in an adequate way.
Minister, last spring the former minister, your colleague, announced he had received an award for innovations in bicycling policy. At that time I raised the question of how the minister and the entire NDP government's record on transportation could possibly merit such an award. It was certainly an astonishing thing for us to witness, and to this date is still very clouded, as far as I am concerned.
I said to the Legislature at the time that this award could not have been given to the minister for the decision to give an engineering firm $150,000 to ask the public what it thought of bicycling. As far as I can recall, there had been no announcements related to bicycling by the former minister or from this government. Looking beyond cycling, the awards could not have been given for the NDP's decision to leak the cabinet decision to cancel the Red Hill Creek Expressway. There are a lot of leaky, loose lips in cabinet. How is it that cabinet colleagues can give away secret cabinet information? I hope you remember the oath you took when you were sworn in as Minister of Transportation, the oath swearing you to secrecy and not allowing your cronies or your friends information worth hundreds of millions of dollars in advance of the general public.
1610
Certainly, the minister could never receive the award for his cancellation of the long-promised and needed Red Hill Creek Expressway. We are going to talk a little bit about that expressway in these committee hearings.
As well, it could not have been for the NDP's decision to break the party's election promise to extend GO Transit rail service to Peterborough and Brantford, and we are going to talk about that in these committee hearings.
It could not have been given for the NDP's reannouncement of previous Liberal multibillion-dollar funding commitments for new transit services and highway construction. It could not have been given for reannouncing the previous government's announcements. Certainly that does not merit an award, nor does the reality that not one inch of new subway transit services will be built this year or next year, in my opinion, by the socialist government in charge today.
I am sure Ontario truckers would not have given your predecessor or you an award for having to face a 31% increase in diesel taxes from this year's budget. I am sure they do not feel the socialists deserve an award. I want to know from the minister why he failed to mention that in his eloquent representation to the committee this afternoon. Maybe he forgot about the 31% diesel tax increase that Ontario truckers are facing.
The fare hikes, layoffs and service cutbacks that we see going on at the TTC in my view do not justify any kind of award. The inaction of this government in leaving commuters stranded during the TTC strike left the public and all of us thinking that the last thing the NDP's transportation policies warranted was some kind of award.
What does the minister have to say about the strike that took place? Are you here to speak for the users of the transportation system or are you, like the rest of your colleagues, here only to take instruction from the union bosses? We would like to know. We would like to know what you think about that. I cannot recall, sir, were you appointed prior to the strike? You were minister prior to the strike?
Hon Mr Pouliot: Prior to the legal work stoppage, I was indeed minister.
Mr Mancini: You were the minister. I cannot remember you saying a word; not a word.
Hon Mr Pouliot: With respect, one could not fault you.
Mr Mancini: I cannot remember the minister issuing a press release. Maybe it was overlooked by myself and my staff. I cannot remember the minister saying a word when we returned to the Legislature. Maybe he did and it was overlooked by myself and my staff. If that is the case, we apologize, but if that is the case, I would like to see and read what the minister had to say. It is too bad we do not have access to what the minister had to say in cabinet. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to know. Only people opposed to the Red Hill Creek Expressway are allowed to know in advance what goes on in cabinet.
These are some of the important issues which the socialist government has stumbled over in the past year in office and these are some of the areas which we will be pursuing, as I said earlier on, during the limited time we have in these estimates debates.
The record of this government on transportation has been one of breaking election promises, delaying necessary transportation initiatives for further study and driving up the cost of transportation services through taxes and mismanagement of our transportation infrastructure. During these estimates proceedings we hope to get the government to explain some of its transportation mismanagement decisions and we hope to be able to pressure it to do the right thing.
It is true, as the minister stated, that roads and highways are increasingly acknowledged as more than transportation corridors. They are routes to economic growth and development, but I doubt whether or not the socialist government understands what economic growth and development actually are and what they mean outside of the public and parapublic sector. The most recent government allocated significant funding for our municipal roads and our provincial highway system and our transit system.
We believe in an effective and balanced transportation system. It is critical that this take place for the future of this province, so that some day we may once again have a leadership role in economic growth, not only in Canada but in North America. At one time Ontario was looked upon as a jurisdiction of opportunity and economic growth, where the private sector had an opportunity to give jobs to people and pay taxes to the government.
The past Liberal government recognized the importance of a strong road system by significantly increasing funds for our local municipal roads in addition to supporting highway expansion. The Liberal commitment was evidenced in three successive budgets. In my view, the NDP socialist government's lack of action and planning and renewing our transportation services is leaving our economy waiting at the bus stop.
Transportation promises in the Agenda for People included GO Transit improvements and expansion announcements in the Golden Horseshoe area, authority for GO Transit to raise money on the bond market to finance capital costs for expansion, and $100 million to four-lane the Trans-Canada Highway. Other transportation promises -- and I want the minister to remember these; he had no trouble recalling them during the election -- were featured in the Toronto Star transportation survey during the election, when everything was fair ball. They included a promise to increase the provincial share of TTC funding above 16% -- I want to talk about that a little later on -- and specific commitments to expand GO Transit service to Brantford and Peterborough. All these promises, all of them, have been broken.
In this budget year, in our view, there were no additional funding allocations for transportation needs, just reannouncements and reannouncements. As noted above, it is correct. It is too bad, Minister, that this committee does not have the time or money to have auditors brought in so that we could do comparisons with the way you have instructed your staff to move figures around so that you can pretend something is being done.
1620
The Chair: I would rather that you raise that kind of point in an exchange, when the minister can react to it.
Mr Mancini: Mr Chairman, I sat for 30 minutes and listened to the minister's statement without breathing a sigh. I was not able to respond.
The Chair: I am encouraging you to be less provocative, in the best interests of the estimates process.
Mr Mancini: Mr Chairman, I do not know what your concern is. If I am concerned or perturbed that a government has broken all its promises, I have a right to say so, and if I believe and can place facts in the records of this transcript that it has reannounced projects and not committed new moneys, I have the right to say so and the minister has the right to respond. He is the one with the 8,000 employees. He is the one with all the records. We do not have that privilege.
The Chair: Mr Mancini, we are not taking exception to your statements about broken promises. We are concerned about your imputing motive on the part of the minister, that the circumstances of this estimate are very much part of some sinister plot to move numbers and mislead people.
Mr Mancini: It is done all the time, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Far be it for me, in my position as Chair, to reference activities of a similar nature of a year and a half ago. I am simply suggesting to you that it would help the estimates process if --
Mr Mancini: Mr Chairman, I --
The Chair: I do not wish to take more of your time.
Mr Mancini: I was going to ask you for my time back.
The Chair: Oh, you will get your time back. I am simply asking you to be helpful to the process and the committee. If you would like to raise those points in the open exchange, fine, but the minister is not in a position -- I am not allowing him -- to respond. I would like to acknowledge both your efforts at restraint at the moment.
Mr Mancini: Mr Chairman, I respectfully request from you, sir, that you be very specific when you call members to order. If there are any specific words --
The Chair: I did not call you to order.
Mr Mancini: You interrupted.
The Chair: I interrupted you, which I said I was doing.
Mr Mancini: For what purpose?
The Chair: For you to assist the committee.
Mr Mancini: In what way, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: By not at this time making inflammatory comments which will engage this process in a major debate. I am fully prepared to throw this matter open to the committee for a free-for-all, but we are taking valuable time away from the estimates which I believe you came prepared to work on today. I am on hand, Mr Mancini, if you would like to discuss my interrogative.
Mr Mancini: Mr Chairman, I think committee Chairs should make rulings based on either a specific circumstance or historical precedents and I wait for you to do that. When a Speaker or a Chair has specifically brought attention to certain words that are historically non-parliamentary, those, in my view, have always been automatically corrected by most members, including myself.
I am offended that a year ago this group of people, the minister included, went around the province and made election promises. They made promises in Brantford and they won the seat in Brantford. They made promises in Peterborough and they won Peterborough. They promised to expand the GO Transit service -- and we will talk about that later, I say to the minister -- and that promise has been broken.
The Chair: Unfortunately they did not make a lot of promises in Essex.
Mr Mancini: Mr Chairman, that is offensive and I ask you to withdraw.
The Chair: I withdraw, Mr Mancini. Are you still waiting for a ruling or would you like to proceed with your time?
Mr Mancini: I do not know what you could possibly rule on, sir. If you can, please move forward. I will await your ruling.
The Chair: I indicated I was not making a ruling, but you asked me to make one. I simply ask you to proceed and I will begin your time again.
Mr Mancini: Since there is no ruling as to anything that has occurred that is unparliamentary, I will continue with my opening remarks. If the minister finds some of the broken promises offensive, I say to the minister, we also find it offensive. Transportation is too important an issue. I have known my colleague for several years before he was a minister and I know how he feels about promises made and promises being kept. It is nothing new, we have heard his speeches in the past.
Let's turn to gas taxes and the trucking industry. In my view, this is one area where the socialist government has indicated its lack of understanding of how important transportation is to the economy and how its tax policy affects business, industry and, indeed, transportation. What is the minister's opinion on the budget, which announced a 1.7-cents-per-litre increase in tax on unleaded and leaded gas and diesel fuel as of April 30, 1991, and an additional 1.7-cents-per-litre increase as of January 1992? I have had truckers tell me they find this offensive.
The gasoline and diesel tax increases will cost taxpayers an additional $250 million. These tax increases work out to $88 per year for each person in Ontario. The NDP was going to eliminate higher average gas prices in northern Ontario, and I am going to want to know later on during these hearings what is being done to equalize gasoline prices across Ontario. I remember the speeches made in the Legislature by NDP members who constantly pointed to the unfairness of higher gasoline prices in the north and how they would do something about it. While the gasoline tax increase works out to an average of $88 per year for each person in Ontario, in northern Ontario it works out to $110.
The minister took considerable time to tell us how large his riding is. I am assuming people in his constituency would have to drive greater distances for banking, shopping, work, etc. He and his cabinet colleagues have placed upon them a $110 tax increase, while everybody else in Ontario got an $88 tax increase. These taxes are another example of the NDP's policy of hurting small business and stifling economic growth. We are in the middle of a recession. The first people in the Legislature to announce there was a recession were the NDP members of the Legislature. Well before any economists, financial institution, or any other government in Canada made such a pronouncement, they were the first to state that Ontario was in a recession and that we needed economic policies to lift our province out of the recession.
Mr Johnson: You mean the Liberals did not know it first?
Mr Mancini: We will get back to what the Liberals knew or did not know at the time. It must be difficult to defend these promises, I understand that. It must be difficult, but they were made and I have never yet questioned the sincerity of how and when they were made.
These taxes I speak about were foisted upon the travelling public, whom the minister is supposed to represent, in the middle of the recession. We may not have hit bottom yet. You saw fit to have those taxes placed on the travelling public. I say to the minister, if I was a northerner, I would be particularly upset and particularly let down that the long-held views of the NDP in opposition about equalizing taxes is another broken promise.
1630
When the Liberal budget review committee toured northern Ontario last spring, complaints about the increased costs of gas and diesel taxes were among the strongest criticisms that came forward. Everywhere the budget review tour travelled in the north, people criticized the effect that increased gasoline prices would have on them directly, on their family life, on their business, on their opportunity to make greater investments in our province, on their opportunity for survival in the middle of the recession.
Truckers in Ontario are also leading the charge against NDP tax policies. Figures published by the Toronto Star show that Ontario truckers and truck companies pay 50% more for fuel, almost double the wage costs, over 10% more for their equipment and have more restrictive tax write-off provisions than their US counterparts.
The new government had a choice. They could have taken action on the cost of diesel fuel. As a matter of fact, they did take action. They put a new tax on the diesel fuel. These new diesel fuel tax increases will raise over $90 million in new revenue -- $90 million in new taxes on a trucking industry that cannot compete with its American counterpart. The minister says it is a revelation, those new regulations, so I am assuming that the new $90 million in taxes helps deregulation somehow and helps the truckers somehow. I am assuming that is the logic and the rationale. This represents a total increase of over 30% in taxes for diesel fuel. Any benefits truckers have received from the lowering of interest rates have been washed away by this new diesel tax.
Truckers were, along with the rest of Canadians, hoping and praying that our national government's tight monetary policy would be reversed. As soon as we see a reversal in that policy, another level of government heaps upon the trucking industry a new $90 million in taxes. Trucking is a $5-billion industry in this province and for every trucker on the road there are other workers employed to service and repair the trucks, to load the trailers, and in truck and trailer manufacturing and sales.
Mr Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Chair: Another five minutes.
Mr Mancini: Due to the limited time, I just want to put one final matter on the record in regard to the trucking industry. I want the minister to know that we will be talking extensively about the Red Hill Creek Expressway. We are going to be talking extensively about GO Transit. We are going to be talking extensively with the minister and with our colleagues about municipal transfers, about highway construction, about the April budget and how it affects transportation and innumerable other issues I have been compiling in regard to and in anticipation of these estimates proceedings.
I want to say to the minister that, while he was not minister at the time, he was certainly a member of the executive council when the executive council, the cabinet of Ontario, decided, I am assuming on the advice of the previous minister, to give the 700 remaining licences for extra-length trailers -- that is the proper description -- the 53-foot trailers, exclusively to American firms. The previous Liberal government had put in place 2,000 licences, the first 1,300 given exclusively to Canadian truckers. When the change of government took place, the remaining 700 were given exclusively to American firms and I have been wondering how this squares with the anti-free-trade position that was taken by the government during the last election, and previous and since, and how this squares with the fact that our own people, who are in a desperate circumstance, were excluded exclusively.
I see my time is up. I thank the minister for listening and wait to hear from my other colleagues.
The Chair: I now invite Mr Turnbull to commence his comments as the critic for Transportation for the PC Party.
Mr Turnbull: I would like to thank you for your comments and take the first public opportunity of congratulating you on your appointment as Minister of Transportation. I wish you every success. I know the task is formidable. I certainly offer my co-operation and encouragement, where I believe we can co-operate, and I will not hesitate, as I think the minister knows, to point out when he is making mistakes.
I could not help but be struck, and I have to get it into my opening comments, that while the previous speaker, the critic for the Liberal Party, spoke about the government's anti-free-trade position in the last election, I would remind my colleague it was also his government's position.
Mr Mancini: Are we going to allow rebuttals?
Hon Mr Pouliot: There will be no deal; that is the bottom line.
Mr Mancini: We did not give the licences away.
Mr Turnbull: I would point out, and I am sure the minister would like to correct the record, that in his opening statement on page 15 he states, towards the bottom, that over the past 30 years traffic has increased by 60%. I believe it should read 360%.
The PC Party is committed to continued economic growth and improved quality of life for all Ontarians, and quite obviously transportation is the cornerstone of our economy and the quality of our lives. The problem of unmanaged growth, not rapid growth, is the problem we face. We want a balanced transportation system where each mode is carrying its share of the transportation needs of the province, which means efficient interaction between road, rail, air and marine transport.
We must have plans for the transportation system that will allow Ontario to carry its goods and people efficiently, safely, reliably and environmentally acceptably into the 21st century. It is important that we know where we are going to be in five years, 10 years and 15 years from now.
The minister's opening statement, while very eloquent, as it always is, is lacking in plans for the future. Can we continue to respond to crisis after crisis and existing transportation demands? What we need is advanced planning for our transportation strategy. We should use transportation as a tool to shape the pattern of development. Thirty per cent of the cost of a product is transportation costs. To stay competitive, we need a transportation system that allows for quick, safe and inexpensive movement of goods and people.
1640
In 1989, the Minister of Transportation noted that congestion alone had added 40% to the cost of delivered goods in the GTA since 1977. This increased cost is passed on to the consumer and estimated costs will be $2 billion a year. It is estimated that the price of goods will increase by 20% to 50% by 1997, due solely to congestion.
First, I want to bring up several issues, and I am going to start off, in view of the limited amount of time, by giving you basically the shopping list of things that I am going to be speaking about.
Safety is paramount, and I am going to be speaking under the safety heading about seatbelts, bicycle helmets, graduated drivers' licences, drunk driving and non-resident violators of various traffic regulations.
With respect to roads, I want to speak about the Transportation capital program, and I particularly want to speak about the withdrawal of funds for the Red Hill Creek Expressway. I obviously want to spend some time talking about the roads within the GTA, electronic freeway traffic management and salt erosion.
Under the public transit section, I have to make some comments on the TTC, the Let's Move program, GO Transit expansion and the requirements of GO electrification, and I want to spend some time talking about the needs of the disabled and accessibility. I do want to speak -- and it is notably absent from your opening remarks -- about the decentralization of the ministry to St Catharines and the costs involved with that.
As you know from the question I asked in the House today, the trucking industry is a great concern to our party. Indeed, in view of the statement issued by your ministry two weeks ago, the report, it is a pressing issue. I also want to speak about the only piece of legislation you have brought before the House since this government was elected, which is Bill 129, and the Urban Transportation Development Corp and some of the problems we see with that.
Turning now to safety: As you know bicycle helmets can be great savers of lives. Statistics show an 85% reduction in the risk of head injury for bicycle people who wear helmets and an 88% reduction in the risk of brain injury. Each year in Canada 5,000 children are seriously injured and 60 children die due to bike accidents. Forty per cent of all paediatric injuries are attributable to bike accidents; 75% of cyclist accidents involve head injuries. My colleague Dianne Cunningham has brought in a private member's bill, Bill 124, which passed second reading on June 27. Minister, I ask you, will you bring forward Bill 124 for third reading? Graduated licences are an issue that is being talked about greatly at the moment. The number of drivers in a population which is growing at the rate of 2.5% per year, and the number of seniors who are involved in accidents, are growing.
Alcohol was present in 38% of drivers who were killed in 1989. Has the ministry made any attempts to test the interlock device now on the market? Alberta and some American states have already mandated the installation of these interlock devices for convicted drunk drivers. With respect to non-resident violators, how many provinces have we signed agreements with?
Turning to roads: Local roads and highways were unfortunately not built to handle today's increasingly heavy traffic load. Travel on highways has increased by 263% between 1954 and 1988. The kilometres of highways has essentially stayed the same during this period. The Metropolitan Toronto Goods Movement Study released in 1988, estimated that commercial vehicle traffic will increase by 80% over the next decade. The Better Roads Coalition tells us that a paved road has a lifespan of 25 years if it is repaved every seven years. Without repaving, it will last approximately 15 years.
Ontario roads built in the 1950s and 1960s are in bad shape, and becoming dangerous. The increase in municipal road budgets of 5.5% over 1990 is clearly a problem for many municipalities. I would ask the minister not to cut funding to municipalities for base and surface projects needed for local roads.
The transportation capital program for maintenance and improvement of infrastructure: The Liberals gave $2 billion. Will the NDP commit to another five-year program so the benefits gained from the current program will not be lost? Red Hill Creek Expressway: I was at a rally for those people three weeks ago. Five NDP members from the area were asked to attend and not a single person attended. The people in Hamilton and surrounding districts view this not only as a way of helping to kickstart the Hamilton economy, which is vitally necessary, but in addition they believe it will ultimately reduce the pollution in the area by having vehicles move quickly through the area, and reduce the number of accidents.
Turning now to the GTA: Congested roads are a real concern for people who live in the GTA. Gridlock is increasing. The ministry is strangely silent on the issues that face us on the mounting crisis in the GTA. The major transportation projects take many years and we see no planning to make sure these projects are addressed properly. How much is the minister prepared to do to address this difficult issue?
Electronic freeway traffic management is the way of the future. What is the present status, Minister, of Highway 401 and the Queen Elizabeth Way? Do you have plans for the extension of these systems?
The problem of salt erosion and the issue of alternative forms of getting rid of ice: Great damage is done to cars and the environment. I would prefer to turn that around and first of all save the environment and then the cars, because while we can replace our cars we cannot replace our environment. Freez-Gard is a product which is said to be 80% less corrosive than salt. Is the minister investigating this and other products. How much of the budget is allocated to research on the problem? Public transit -- the Toronto Transit Commission: Once, the TTC was the most efficient public transit system in the world. Metropolitan Toronto already has the highest level of transit in North America. We need to get people out of their cars and on to the subway and buses.
1650
I am concerned with the tremendous growth in the Toronto area over the next few years. It is estimated that over the next 15 years the population in the GTA will increase by 1.5 million people, mostly in the regions. According to the Ministry of Transportation, commuting time to work in the GTA now stands at one and a half hours average. This is up from the 1960s, when it took approximately half an hour, and is expected to rise to two hours by the mid-1990s. Minister, I would suggest this is intolerable. People have to stand during rush-hours. Delays and vehicle breakdowns happen too frequently. The system is failing to meet the demands placed on it today. What plans for transporting these people do you have? I do not find them in your briefing today. How will these people get to their jobs and to their schools? I cannot imagine having children spending two hours going to school. Let's finally move on the Spadina subway line.
With respect to the TTC, Minister, we must, all parties, look urgently at the question of essential services. It is intolerable that we can have a city which is the lifeblood of this nation ground to a halt in a transit strike, and yet the LCBO considers itself an essential service. It has to be wrong. I think people can live without a drink, but they cannot live without commuting.
Mr O'Connor: Job security does not mean anything --
Hon Mr Pouliot: Does the member profess a bias?
Mr Turnbull: I have hesitated to interject during the previous comments, and yet one of the NDP members is saying job security does not mean anything to me. I find that insulting; it shows total insensitivity to the people of this province who do not vote for the NDP, and complete ignorance of the issue. We are considering allowing the TTC to go out on strike. In Hamilton, the transit system for the disabled is considering a strike. Yet at the same time, the liquor board is deemed an essential service. I ask you, Minister, is this your government's priority?
Turning to the Let's Move program, we were first told this would cost $5 billion in investment. It seems to have recently ballooned to $15 billion. This is due to costly delays. Will the new minister give his support to this project?
I am just throwing out a lot of ideas that I think are important. Would the minister consider self-propelled trains? For those who do not know what we are talking about, these are single electrified cars with a single driver. If we had self-propelled cars on the GO system we would be able to have a greater amount of service. We cannot build ridership on the GO system or the subway system when we have a massive cost of infrastructure going in and then we wait for the volumes. Conversely, if you wait for the volumes before you put in the system, it is too expensive.
We should be looking at putting out streetcars in areas where we are suggesting subway extensions and convert to the subway system later. It is technically possible, I believe, to build a streetcar system which can be easily converted to a subway. In fact, I have myself observed it in Frankfurt, West Germany, and in Vienna, Austria, where they have partially made the streetcar system into a subway. I think we should be moving in that direction.
I do not think we can afford to drag our feet with the Spadina line any more. I encourage the Minister of the Environment to move the report on the Spadina line off her desk. Forget further public hearings. There have already been enough public hearings and there has been an environmental assessment. Minister, will you get the Ministry of the Environment to move on?
I have already started into the GO Transit system. We know that 125,000 passengers travel on GO Transit each day. The capacity of one full length of GO train equals 1,246 passenger cars and it has very important environmental considerations. We need to expand outside the GTA. We should be looking at areas such as Orangeville. We have at the moment overlapping services in some areas and no services at all in others. We have GO Transit and we have bus services all competing with one another. Surely we should look at cutting out the duplication and putting the money into those areas not currently served. I would urge you to push out the GO system as much as possible by rail, and let's not have one trip in in the morning and one trip out in the evening. You will never get people to use the GO system if that is the kind of service.
I have observed in Europe how much public transit is used because of the free availability of it. Here in Toronto I would not blame somebody bringing their car in from out of town, because they are concerned that they may miss that last train. Until we start thinking in terms of overall systems which move people and are available to them at flexible times, we will not get enough people to the GO Transit system.
It has been suggested by previous ministers that it is beyond the ability of the Ministry of Transportation to extend the GO Transit system outside the GTA. In case that is one of the comments that would be brought up, I would point out that we already have such exceptions as Guelph, Barrie and Sutton.
What is the minister doing about fare integration? We need fare integration to encourage ridership. Indeed I believe the new owners of Gray Coach are in favour of having such fare integration. If we can get coach services joining up with the GO system and with the TTC, we might be able to get people out of their cars. I cannot think of a better thing to do for our environment than that, Minister, and I hope we can work together to get you moving in that direction.
We have to look at the question of GO electrification. It was studied extensively in the 1970s, and we have had no movement on that. The environmental considerations are compelling. Indeed if you have electrification of the GO system, it does make it possible to have self-propelled vehicles which allow for more frequent service at more reasonable cost.
The Peterborough-to-Whitby corridor needs a transit system in place. People will not ride on a bus. In fact, Minister, I have to point out the fact that your government has broken its election promise with respect to the Havelock-Peterborough line. There was a proposal put forward by riders of that line that they wanted to create a private, for-profit -- that awful word that seems to be going out of fashion in this province -- transit system which would ride around the GTA, would feed into the GTA. I think we should take a serious look at that.
When we consider the financial pressures that are on this government, and indeed in view of your budget, that will be on future governments too, we have to look at alternatives, and one of the alternatives is getting the private sector involved in this area. It would like to compete and it believes it does not need subsidies. That in itself should be attractive to you in view of restraints on money.
Turning to accessibility for the disabled: The disabled have the same transportation needs as other citizens. In a report tabled in 1988 from the Ministry of Transportation Task Force on Improved Accessibility to Conventional Transit Services, it found that fewer than half the transit systems had priority seating, only 13% had accessible assistance alarms and 77% had no sensitivity training. In September 1989 the TTC was criticized as being among the four least accessible systems in North America by the American Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation.
1700
I want to speak now about the program of decentralization, Minister. In a recent meeting I had with you privately we spoke about a fully loaded impact study of the move of the ministry to St Catharines. I believe that one of the basic problems we have -- and this applies, unfortunately I suspect, to all three parties when they were in power, because it was the Conservatives who started the decentralization program -- is that a fully loaded cost estimate was not done. We know that the cost of moving people to and fro from northern Ontario with the ministries that have moved up there is horrendous. The hotel nights spent in Toronto and the transportation costs are very serious.
Minister, I am not saying it was wrong. I am simply saying it is time that we started accounting for it. Let's not have hocus-pocus economics where we say it is good or it is bad according to the political imperative. We have to know what the cost is, because governments today cannot afford these games. Indeed we see that by the crisis that we are in today.
When Frances Lankin was asked about the decentralization, she made the comment that no one would lose his job as a result of the decentralization to St Catharines. We know that approximately 30% of employees typically move with a ministry. That leaves 70% of the ministry employees from the Metro area who are either going to find another job in government -- and I would ask you, does that mean we are going to increase the size of the government by that amount, bearing in mind that you are the third-largest ministry in terms of the number of bodies -- or are we going to have one huge cost of laying these people off?
With respect to the trucking report published by your ministry two weeks ago, it clearly shows that Ontario truckers are at a significant competitive disadvantage to US firms. What initiatives is the Ministry of Transportation undertaking to improve this situation? The whole industry is suffering. I have met with independent truckers. I have met with the organized trucking industry. I have met with labour. I know it is a serious problem. I know also that the minister will respond that it is the fault of the federal government for allowing the -- what is it? I am going blank.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Allowing the situation to deteriorate to the point where it is now. It is partly that, but --
Mr Turnbull: Yes. The fact is that we are allowing Ontario truckers to compete in a North American market. They must be able to compete in it. We have seen that fuel taxes have gone up tremendously. The principal problem, the trucking industry tells me, is not the accessibility of this market by American truckers. It is the fact that at the federal level they do not have as quick write-offs and at the provincial level they have the huge cost of fuel.
If we go through with the second round of fuel tax increases, we will have the third highest cost in the whole of North America after Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. With great respect to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, what a hell of a position to be in. No wonder we cannot compete. We know that the federal fuel taxes in Canada are less than federal fuel taxes in the US. The high cost of fuel in Ontario is a direct result of the very heavy reliance on fuel taxes as a revenue generator.
The cost of the second round of increases due to come in in January will be an extra $2,000 per truck per year. This is characterized by the Ontario Trucking Association as insensitive and regressive at a time that the industry is reeling. The trucking industry is united in its condemnation of the tax. An Angus Reid-Southam news poll from June 17, 1991, said that 80% of the Ontario public were in support of truckers.
The suggestion that the fuel tax is brought in for some environmental reasons -- Minister, as you know from the House today, I am suggesting that is baloney. I do not know how letting Ontario truckers suffer and letting US truckers come in is going to help our environment. US truckers are going to pollute just about as much as we are except you might make the argument that they can afford to buy more fuel-efficient equipment, so to that extent it is environmentally friendly. But I think that would be a poor argument.
The fact is that we have a business where we know that their fuel costs, their equipment costs, their depreciation schedule and their labour costs are all higher than in the US. The answer has to be that we must give some relief to this industry as it rationalizes itself. I believe the Ontario industry, given the right tax position, can compete very well in North America, but at the moment it cannot compete at all. Minister, we will see an industry which is half the size within the next three to four years unless you take urgent action now. The industry cannot afford to buy the fuel-efficient equipment unless you give it the breaks now.
The industry needs a repealing of the fuel tax increases, temporary exemptions from provincial sales tax on heavy trucks and trailers and, I would ask you, will you commit today to meet with the Treasurer and request that the diesel fuel tax increase be cancelled?
There is a question too about the length of trucks and trailers running through Ontario. Minister, you are aware that most of Canada has a limit of 25 metres on trucks. As we move to try and encourage the growth of interprovincial business, we have a significant disadvantage in Ontario because we have a standard which is two metres shorter than the generally accepted Canadian standard. It means that trucks have to come to our border and be reconfigured to cross Ontario and then go somewhere else. It puts our truckers at a tremendous disadvantage.
I would like you to give the status on the public hearings on the truck safety investigation launched by Mr Philip in 1990. With respect to rail I would like you to comment on the provision of a rapid transit service from Windsor to Quebec. I think it is environmentally sound, but I want to hear your specific comments on what the government's stance is with respect to any subsidies. I do not believe we can afford any subsidies at this moment.
Minister, the only piece of legislation you have brought in so far is Bill 129. It is open-ended. It would appear to be a permanent moratorium. What is the definition of a load broker? What about Bill 88, the Truck Transportation Act of 1988? It requires that intermediaries obtain licences to operate. This was passed but not enforced. Why? What is your definition of an intermediary? The ministry should look at the problems of enforcement under Bill 88 before trying to license yet another group. There is concern in the insurance industry about surety bonds. They are not available to brokers at this time.
1710
The last point I wanted to make is with respect to the Urban Transportation Development Corp. Can we afford to put any more money into UTDC? By some estimates, we have already poured away $700 million. Originally it was intended to be for research and then became a manufacturing project. The province sold, approximately a year ago, 85% equity in this corporation to Lavalin, yet now, with only a 15% interest in the company, we are putting up money to guarantee jobs. Surely Lavalin should be doing this, the 85% owner. We should cut it loose like we cut the SkyDome loose.
Finally, I would like the minister to comment on the fact that the ministry received a confidential briefing from the insurance industry last week, last Friday, in moving vehicle licensing into the insurance industry sector and closing down the privately run car-licensing facilities.
That concludes my comments. I will, of course, have questions during the rest of the proceedings.
The Chair: Minister, as I indicated earlier, you have up to 30 minutes to respond in any way with respect to the points raised by Mr Mancini and Mr Turnbull.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank you very kindly, Mr Chairman. I have listened intently to what has been presented by both Mr Mancini and Mr Turnbull, respective Transportation critics for the official opposition and the Progressive Conservative Party.
I was able to note -- in fact I can quote verbatim, and could, if given the occasion under other auspices, imitate the tone of one. It was somewhat predictable, and I was interested in deciphering the tone and comparing the preparation that went in between the two. I will let people in our audience, if you wish, address that. One was a bit of an attack, but in our constitutional monarchist system, it is allowed and at times welcome. This kind of confrontational system or attitude is what the system lends itself to. Mr Turnbull, on the other hand, came well prepared. The questions were direct and there was an organizational sense to it, a sense of seriousness, and it was all wrapped up in decorum and good manners, the way parliamentary procedure would allow. These are just observations as I begin my brief response and before I look forward to the exchange that is sure to follow.
First, Mr Mancini, in terms of commitment, with the highest of respect, I want to remind you, sir, that this administration, this social democratic government, as you repeatedly referred to our administration, was elected by the people of Ontario on September 6 of the year of Our Lord 1990. The members of the first cabinet, as you appreciate, I am sure, were sworn in, were asked to serve, on October 1 of the same year. So we are talking really in terms of a period slightly exceeding or surpassing one year. Broadly summarized, it was preceded by five years of your administration, sir, and 42 years of your administration, Mr Turnbull.
When we talk about Liberal commitment vis-à-vis the commitment of this administration, vis-à-vis the track record -- again, with the highest of respect, Mr Chairman; you will allow me to continue in the following vein -- we tabled only one budget in the House, and that budget did, yes, increase. Not only did it respect the commitments that were made by the previous administration, but it also attached some dollars to them. On account of the haste of some of those commitments, not only did our government choose to protect those commitments, it also put the cheque along with the commitments to give them teeth, to bring them to life.
This was done despite most difficult times. Mr Mancini will be most aware, for no one has escaped, that Ontario is in the midst of a recession which rivals -- aside, perhaps, from the Great Depression -- every recession that we have encountered in recent memory. These are difficult times. We made difficult decisions, but let me tell you more specifically, because I am sure you relate to statistics, Mr Mancini, and you can readily attest to an 11% increase in transit, a 23% increase in provincial highways, a 16% increase in municipal transit, and we must not forget, an 11% increase in municipal roads.
This is not political rhetoric. These are real figures in the real world to serve the needs of real people during a very adverse, severe, difficult economic period. This is evidence. This will attest beyond any doubt to the commitment the province places on transportation in Ontario. Not only do we act on the needs of people, but we also readily acquiesce as to their needs in the future as well and we plan accordingly.
On the trucking industry, both respective critics have talked at some length, have mentioned the dire needs. There was some constructive element, and of course someone will rightly say: "You're the minister, now tell me what you will do. My job is to spend 90%, if not all, of my time as a critic telling you what is wrong."
We have done that too, and we have been doing that for some years. I remember so vividly, in fact as if it was yesterday, I was sitting right where Mr Mancini is sitting. Mr Mancini was not here, because he was doing his thing as the Minister of Revenue. But I too was sitting there defending the rights of truckers, of ordinary people, in a tone, Mr Turnbull, and I am sure you can appreciate this, that was social democrat. Not that we claim, or should, to have a monopoly on the social conscience. We have the social conscience of our means, but we do not have to wait in line for anyone. We have no lessons to take from anyone in our context.
I do not wish to be overly harsh. We are no better, no worse; people are people. But our association vis-à-vis this crucial service is something you will see we have been following from the word go. I spoke for three hours in the House. I spoke with passion and emotion and meant every word, left a bit of myself on this very bench here when we talked about trucking. So you hit directly. If you had chosen to have a tone to hurt someone, I would have been hurt. I live -- no more, no less than anyone else here.
It is difficult. There are too many trucks. I do not think that you need be too averse, too accountable to say that one of the things in the shake-out that is sure is that there are more trucks than the demand for them. That is one component. There is a deregulation system, Mr Mancini, that was put in place, and it is the reality of the day; I do not wish to be overly harsh.
Our Premier said at the swearing-in ceremony, "If we make mistakes, we will admit them." It would be easy for the Minister of Transportation to humbly suggest that deregulation has had a profound negative effect on the trucking industry, but I am not going to say this because we are looking for alternatives and this may sound negative. Too many trucks, one thing; deregulation, sir, another thing; the recession which has hit gradually and suddenly, savagely devastated our industry. You will say that each is an important component.
1720
Free trade: It is questionable how level a playing field it is. You put all those components together, give the industry very little time to allow for the transition, and then those components become the proverbial straw -- any one of them -- at any time, becomes too much, becomes the catalyst.
What are we going to do to shake the can? That is easy; we know what is out there. We know what is being done to lives. We have lost 5,000 jobs; we told you so. Now it is our job to fix it. You will say, "It's okay, Minister, but for a number of years you made a living kicking the can; now it's your time to carry it."
That is okay. It matters little. What matters here is the 5,000 jobs. What matters, Mr Turnbull, is the $5 billion, because that is real wealth. That is new wealth. Anybody knows, philosophically, economically, if you wish to afford the social programs that you preach, you go beyond putting them forth. The wheels of the factory must go full blast; otherwise you are going to borrow in the future. Inevitably, you are going to eliminate the perimeter, and then you will go to your core, and that will be impacted, and you will have to say, "No," and then they will put someone else there who is going to pick up the pieces. Then you will begin to understand that it is important that we address an important part of our economic system -- trucking.
We do not have the answer. There is no easy answer. We have met with our federal counterpart. There have been two studies; one was a transborder study. You have seen it; you got it; you are the critics. Then there was a federal study, fairly similar, saying: "How is it that fictitious Joan and Harry Smith in Buffalo or Detroit, from the time they buy a rig and move goats from point A to point B, seem to have more money in their pockets than the same fictitious two people on this side of the border? What gives?" What gives is several factors: You have economies of scale; you have climatic conditions. The tax system, ironically, I too was surprised that it is relatively equal. If you start pricing some of the things we now take for granted but we all pay dearly for -- there is no secret, it takes $18 billion out of $52.8 billion.
The OHIP system: What is it worth in terms of money in pocket? There is no question that when you calculate, and experts did this, when all was said and done, oh, the difference could be anywhere from 12% to 25% for doing the same job across the road, across the bridge literally, and across the border in the US. What do we do? What is our capacity to match this? What do we do in co-operation with the federal government? How do we best bridge the gap? Do we do it by fuel taxes? Mr Mancini, I understand you are the distinguished representative for southwestern Ontario.
Mr Mancini: Sarcasm is noted in the comment, Minister.
Hon Mr Pouliot: There was no sarcasm in attesting that you are the distinguished representative. Which area do you represent exactly? What is the name of your riding?
The Chair: Essex South.
Hon Mr Pouliot: There are six or seven --
Mr Mancini: The insult is also noted, Mr Minister. For the Minister of Transportation not to know the name of the constituency of the opposition critic is noted.
Hon Mr Pouliot: I wanted to make sure. People say I am from Nipissing, from Nipigon, or from Lake Nipigon, from Lake Superior. There is Essex South and Essex North. I just wanted to make sure.
Mr O'Connor: Essex-Kent.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Essex-Kent. Thank you very kindly.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Chairman, this is exactly the reason that the electorate are fed up with politicians, for these absolutely banal exchanges. Let's get on with the Transportation estimates.
The Chair: Including interruptions. I thank you for that point. Let's please get back. The minister has the floor. Please do not be so anxious to yield it.
Hon Mr Pouliot: I come here in a kinder and gentler way. I do not indulge in those things. You two gentlemen see me in the House. I do not contravene standing orders by going back and forth interjecting. I stay in my seat. But I will fight just as hard to keep my 30 minutes. Right, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: Do not ask me to corroborate that statement. I sit across from you. Please proceed, Minister.
Hon Mr Pouliot: In recognizing the trucking problems, we have done things that were easy to do first, some of our critics will say, like a moratorium on licences. We said: "There are too many licences, so for two years we're not going to issue any more. That's it. You can't have one. You can buy one from somebody else." This will help to restore a balance.
We are pressing the federal government, because in terms of jurisdictional capacity -- we talked about depreciation for instance -- it can help a great deal. It has the jurisdiction to do most things. I am not trying to dump on the federal government because they are Conservatives. It is not for me to be political. Let the record attest to that.
In fact, it was only last week that I chastised a person -- we were talking about trucking again -- who said to me, "Gilles, a curse on both their houses." He was talking about the federal Conservative government and the previous administration of provincial Liberals. I said, "No, no, don't say that." He said: "I have the figures. Those are the people who have punished us the most. The reason why we're in this kind of dilemma is because it's the fault of the previous provincial administration and the present federal government." So I had to say at great length, as you can imagine, that we are not political. We are going to try to work collectively to alleviate the problem, although the records speak for themselves.
We are looking at regulating load brokers as well, because Mr Mancini and Mr Turnbull believe it is a fairly important component. We are willing, and we have indicated to the federal government that if there is some way -- we have done two concrete things -- in which we can be in a joint venture with the federal government, we will do so to help the trucking situation.
We must also keep in mind that all sectors of the Ontario economy have been severely impacted by the recession. No one has escaped; so you have to be consistent and reasonable and also keep in mind that revenues are down and you have some social responsibilities. We also have a noticeable deficit. It is not easy to reconcile all those things, but we are a well-intentioned, knowledgeable administration and we are constantly looking for things that are innovative and imaginative, but that will not impact the taxpayers too much.
You will notice that the estimates book I have provided to help you do your job is immensely better than what was provided before. Technologically speaking, there have been significant changes in our ability to produce material in the past year. Put it under the title of evolution. It is called progress. These things happen. So we are not only willing and able, but we look forward to dispensing information.
If there is any briefing that you wish to have, Tom is there and there are other experts as well on GO Transit, on any sector, aside from cabinet discussions.
Interjection.
Hon Mr Pouliot: You have the oath of office. You have to keep working here and people have to trust you. You say, "No, I will not divulge what takes place." That is universally accepted. You will find there are very few secrets when all is said and done, working with the Ministry of Transportation. I do not spend a lifetime defending the civil service of this province or any other jurisdiction, I can assure you, but at least it does not pain me. From what I have observed, these are people -- and I do not say this only for the people here; we are representing the 10,000 employees of the rest of the province -- a good deal of resources.
The ministry has a significant budget, $2.8 billion. Add to it some $250 million plus for the northern component if you wish. You are looking at more than $3 billion. More seniority -- people see this as a career. They were there long before I was and will be there long after I leave. They know that; I understand that. They will continue because this is the job continuity. But it deserves more than a verbal pat on the back, and I want to make sure it gets recorded in Hansard. I am not trying to sidestep the question. If I do not have the answers technically, "those people" will, not because it will be a career-enhancing statement, but because you have asked a logical question, you deserve a logical answer.
You are right, Mr Turnbull. It was not 60%, it was 360%. Oops, small error. But in terms of transportation volume, we could talk about several factors. I have two books of briefing notes. We conducted a test yesterday morning during our briefing and nine of our 10-member team here repeated every word here verbatim. The other person has been sent on a tour of the province for the duration of these estimates. I see that I have occupied a lot of the time and I am sure some of our distinguished colleagues, also with the majority party, perhaps would like to have some input.
1730
The Chair: They will be given that opportunity, and it will be nice once you share the contents of that document with the opposition parties. That would be a helpful part of the process. I am in the committee's hands, but before I ask how you would like to proceed, let me state that both the opposition critics have put on the record a series of questions, and I would like to hear from the deputy or the minister how they wish to treat those specific questions. Our committee has tended to treat them in the same fashion as an order paper question except for time. The critics have put those forward early in the process so that responses that may be required to be prepared external to this room can be done and brought forward to be helpful to the process. So may I get some clarification from you on that point.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Again, if we are favoured with some questions, we will endeavour to answer. Just tell us your time limitations. What are you comfortable with? Just give it the minimum of time and we will have them. How many questions have reached us?
Ms Jacobsen: There are about 30. There are a couple of ways we could deal with this. We could make a commitment to have a host of them answered by the next time we meet -- most of them, in fact, given the content. You may also wish to set aside some period, particularly on highway projects or GO, where they are more detailed and where I think, if it is the committee's wish, the minister might want to be supported by the chairman of GO.
The Chair: That was going to be my next question: the additional personnel they would like to have present. The questions have been duly noted by the deputy, and they would be appreciated in written form. If they could be tabled with the clerk, he can ensure they are distributed, so that you only have one person to go through. If it can be tabled prior to our reconvening on Tuesday 22 October, that would be very helpful.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Chair, because I am unfamiliar with the proceedings of estimates, never having been through them before, perhaps I would have an additional list of questions I could submit to the Ministry of Transportation tomorrow for you to table.
The Chair: If the ministry will accept them in written form I would be pleased to, or we can have them read into the record. I am getting an indication from the deputy that it would be acceptable to get them to them as quickly as possible. I was going to say, if there are further questions you would like to share with the minister, you can do so through the deputy.
Hon Mr Pouliot: The deputy minister shook her head. She cannot believe there will be that many questions. We would be delighted. Let's welcome all questions.
The Chair: I have not received any special requests. It has been mentioned by the deputy that the chair of GO Transit might be available, but if there are any requests, let them be made through the Chair so that we can give these people sufficient time and notice. If I receive none at the moment, then I ask the committee how it wishes to proceed. We have been proceeding with a time-allocation approach but we can do a straight question-and-answer by vote areas. I am in your hands as to how you would like to proceed with the estimates.
Mr Daigeler: Perhaps you should indicate that we have been rotating in 15-minute segments. I think that would be fine with us, at least with me. It seems to have worked for the other ministries.
Mr O'Connor: That seems to have worked quite reasonably within this committee in the past, so I think we take no exception to that and we can agree to that.
The Chair: That is fine. Sometimes the ministers appreciate a more full and open exchange, but if that is the wish of the committee we will proceed on that basis.
Mr Mancini: My understanding is that traditionally, under the first vote, administration or however it is technically referred to, that has traditionally allowed all committee members to ask very wide-ranging questions. Once that is dealt with, once we get past that and into other votes, I have noted in the past that whoever is in the chair insists that we stick to whatever that vote is. I would appreciate following the long-standing tradition in the Legislature that under the first vote, administration, we be allowed to have a wide range of opportunities to question the minister, because I did not use my first 30 minutes to ask the minister a list of questions. I had wanted to reserve that time for what I considered to be a more appropriate occasion.
The Chair: I understand your suggestion. At this point we had only decided how we would rotate, recognizing that the parties may want to divide equally in time segments. My next question will be on your point, and I thank you for raising it. Do you wish to proceed through the votes separately or do you wish to stack the votes to the end of the process, when you will be free to spend as much time as you choose in any of the seven vote areas?
Mr Mancini: That is fine with me.
Mr O'Connor: I think this committee has been sitting as long as I have been a member, which is not very long, but for the ministries we have had coming before this committee it seems that stacking the votes is the most sensible approach to dealing with them. That allows some flexibility for members who have to respond to calls from their constituents or whatever.
1740
The Chair: Then I am hearing a clear consensus, and for that reason, Mr Mancini, given that it is 20 minutes before the hour, I will allocate 20 minutes for you, if that is all right, unless Mr Turnbull would be comfortable to start with five.
Mr Turnbull: That is fine.
Mr Mancini: I appreciate having the floor again. I consider these estimates proceedings so far quite extraordinary. I have never sat in an estimates debate before where, in the reply to the opening statements, which I have traditionally seen to be philosophical replies and not necessarily specific questions to the minister, a minister asks the opposition members more questions than he was asked. I appreciate the high degree of confidence the minister has in the opposition critics, but I want to make it very clear here that we are here to ask the minister questions, and through him, staff of the ministry. I am not going to be able to use my time to answer the many, many questions posed to us by the minister. I want to use my time and my party's time to find out where the Ministry of Transportation is heading in the next three to four years.
I want to remind the minister that I spent considerable time in my opening comments talking about the equalization of gasoline prices in Ontario. I heard no mention of that very significant problem in the minister's reply to the committee. I want to give the minister another opportunity, at his convenience, to reply to my questions about the equalization of gasoline prices for northern Ontario and for southern Ontario.
Mr Daigeler: And for eastern.
Mr Mancini: And, my colleague Mr Daigeler says, for eastern Ontario. I sat in the Legislature for a long number of years, listening, listening, listening to comments being made on this particular question, and very definitely was left with the impression that the minister's party, when and if it came to office, would have an answer to this troubling situation. I am waiting for that answer.
I want to finish my comments in regard to the Ontario trucking industry, because -- and this is not a criticism of anyone, or even the committee, by any stretch of the imagination -- 30 minutes is not a long time for the minister or for us to really cover the waterfront.
I want to say to the minister that when his Premier makes comments in the Legislature, I do take them quite seriously. When, during the opening day of this session, the Premier rose in the Legislature and said there would be less finger-pointing, I took him seriously, and I want to say that I am assuming that the members of the executive council took him seriously.
When we deal with the trucking industry and the problems the industry faces, with all due respect to the minister, I see nothing but finger-pointing. I did not hear -- and I will be prepared to re-read the record or have it retold -- a lot of initiatives the minister was in fact going to take. He made no comments in any regard on the impact of the increased taxes I spoke about, and certainly made no comments on what action his government would take.
Let me put on the record what it is that the Ontario government can do, and has jurisdiction to do, and is not impeded in any way to do. I want to read from the government of Ontario/Ontario Trucking Association adjustment strategy committee report.
The goal of this committee was to bring about the elimination of the current operating cost disparity that exists between Ontario-based and United States-based transborder motor carriers. They listed very clearly what was needed and what action the Ontario government could do on its own and they said this should be done in two phases. Let me put into the record what was asked for phases I and II. I want to know from the minister, in regard to each of these recommendations, what he and his colleagues have done. It says here:
"Phase I: Reintroduction of temporary exemption from provincial sales tax on heavy trucks and trailers." I repeat, provincial sales tax.
"Temporary one-cent-per-litre reduction in provincial diesel fuel tax." I underline, provincial.
"Establish interest rate assistance program for the trucking industry similar to that which was introduced for farmers in the 1990 Ontario budget." I underline, 1990 Ontario budget.
"Establish Ontario current cost adjustment tax incentive program for the trucking industry similar to that which exists for the Ontario manufacturers, and which was enhanced in the 1990 Ontario budget." I underline, 1990 Ontario budget.
"Ontario immediately review policies respecting enforcement of Ontario truck safety regulations on Ontario and US-based motor carriers and, where reciprocity with the United States does not exist, Ontario enforce provincial regulatory requirements against US truckers. Specific examples include enforcement of Ontario trip inspection report requirements and audits of US facilities.
"Phase II: The Ontario government become much more proactive in analysing and challenging US state taxes with respect to impact on international trade. "Re-examine Ontario's policy on longer combination vehicles and possible productivity gains." As a caveat to that, I add that in my opening comments I made mention of the longer combination vehicles, and I made mention that the last 700 licences were given exclusively to American firms. I am hoping the minister will explain at the appropriate time the cabinet's rationale and his support of that rationale as to why those remaining licences were given to American firms.
The Chair: Mr Mancini, I am sorry to interrupt you, but perhaps I may not have made it clear that you are allocated 20 minutes in order to have an exchange with the minister. At the end of the 20 minutes you will not be given an opportunity to respond. I will then go to the next party and then to the third party. I am only suggesting to you, if you want the minister to respond before 6 o'clock, then I should have warned you or advised you of that, and I apologize if I did not do that.
Hon Mr Pouliot: I will split the 10 minutes with the critic.
The Chair: You do not have the right to do that.
Hon Mr Pouliot: He had the first 10, can I split the 10?
The Chair: No, you cannot. I am directed by the committee and I was trying to be helpful with Mr Mancini.
Mr Mancini: I appreciate the Chairman's advice.
Another recommendation was: "Work to improve upon current availability and reliability of statistics on transborder trucking and market share shifts."
I truly wish I could spend a great deal more time in regard to the trucking industry, but it appears that at least for this portion of the estimates I will not be able to. I hear the minister and he appears to be anxious to respond to this first short series of questions. I am willing to listen to the minister.
1750
Hon Mr Pouliot: With renewed pleasure indeed, I would certainly note no other intention in mind but to help the member. I, too, Mr Chairman, was beginning to wonder as to the format that had been agreed to among the parties, but it is not rare for politicians to adopt that kind of style, method or approach, and sometimes we forget about time or the agreement that was made. More important, on the subject of relocation, relocation is going to --
Mr Mancini: I have to object to the minister's comments. I say with great respect to the minister, I did not realize I was out of order and the Chairman did not rule me out of order. The Chairman suggested, after your advice, that you might need 10 minutes to respond to my opening questions. I gladly gave it up. It is not a question of not knowing the rules. I could have taken the full 20 minutes.
The Chair: Mr Mancini, the minister did not suggest he wanted 10 minutes to answer you. I simply wanted to make clear whether you wished the minister to respond and I was not going to allow him extra time to respond to your questions. That is all.
Mr Mancini: I understood that clearly.
The Chair: The minister could be very helpful if he moved directly to at least four questions I heard Mr Mancini raise specifically. The committee gets its direction from its Chair and its attitude from its audience, and I would appreciate it if the minister could respond directly to the questions as Mr Mancini has posed them. Thank you.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The member has mentioned some interest in the relocation commitment made by the previous administration. It is intended to go to southwestern Ontario. You were talking about the movement of people from Toronto, from Downsview.
Mr Mancini: I did not ask that question, with all due respect.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Okay, on the relocation -- you said you asked four questions.
Non, non. Répétez-les. Il n'y a pas de problèmes ici.
The Chair: I suggest there were the extended-truck vehicles and the 700 licence issuance --
Mr Mancini: Equalization of gas prices.
The Chair: Maybe the deputy minister --
Hon Mr Pouliot: No, no, no. We have 10 members of staff here who are listening and I am sure they will be taking notes very shortly to make sure we get the right answer. All those questions will be answered meticulously so I do not make one mistake, if I say approximately 50-foot trailers and so on.
Broadly summarized, the intention of the government is that we have 48 feet. We are opposed to longer trailers. I think we are on record as having said that or we certainly were opposed, and I spoke at some length. You mentioned in your opening statement that the total for 53-foot trailers was 1,398 -- that is a note given to me, that those permits are held in the US, and 2,154 are Canadian.
The Chair: Mr Mancini, I hear a lull. You can jump right in. It is your time.
Mr Mancini: Can I ask the deputy what was the total block of special permits approved, for lack of better words, for the longer tractor-trailers, the exceptional-length tractor-trailers? Do you remember?
Ms Jacobsen: They were broken out into two types. They went to manufacturers, and as the minister said, this was broken down into even smaller units. Of the manufacturers, 1,224 were US-built and 776 were Canadian-built, and of the carriers, 1,378 were Canadian-built and 622 were US-built. They were on a first-come, first-served basis up to a cap of 2,000.
Mr Mancini: I want to deal exclusively with the carriers. The deputy has basically confirmed my figures. I used the figures of 1,300 and 700. I hope we can round off figures, if it is appropriate. I appreciate the deputy confirming that. What I want to know from the deputy is whether or not it is correct, as has been told to me, that the first 1,300 and/or 1,378 licences were given basically to Canadian carriers and that a decision was made early in the term of the previous minister, early in the term of the new government, that the remainder of the 628 special permits -- let me call them that -- were given exclusively to American carriers. Is that correct?
Ms Jacobsen: No, it is not. I would need the support of the assistant deputy in terms of the actual facts, but it was on a first-come, first-served basis. It was irrespective of country, because we could not specify country.
Mr Mancini: Minister, if I could please make this request, to receive from yourself and ministry staff a sheet of paper which would outline for me and the committee all these figures that we have discussed, but specifically zeroing in on the carriers, who got what permits, when they received them, etc, because it has been told to me that there was a cabinet decision in regard to the last batch of trailers, that the special permits went exclusively to Americans. I want to know whether we as the Ontario government were under pressure or under law or under any pretext of law. Why did we have to give these to American carriers? I would like that answer included in the explanation as to when all of this took place.
Ms Jacobsen: We will give you the details in terms of timing, but at no time did the ministry specify the location in terms of where the origin was. We will give you the dates and times. It depended strictly on first come, first served throughout the whole process. We will give you that in terms of the facts.
Mr Mancini: I would like to know why American carriers had access to these special trailers. There must have been a policy decision somewhere that said everybody in North America has access to these special permits.
Ms Jacobsen: There is legislation that in fact precludes us from specifying that they can only be given to Canadians.
Mr Mancini: Is there anything in law which would have precluded a regulation, an attachment to the legislation, which would have deemed that these special permits be made available only to Ontario/Canadian drivers?
Ms Jacobsen: Yes. We will include that in the briefing note that gives exactly the legislation in terms of --
Mr Mancini: I want to see how hard the government is fighting the free trade agreement. That is going to be part of this.
Ms Jacobsen: Okay. We will show you in terms of the legislation and the requirements that we had to live with.
Mr Mancini: Finally, I know we do not have time now, but I must know the minister's position on the equalization of gasoline prices.
Hon Mr Pouliot: I think you will find on the equalization of gasoline prices that, for instance, before the last budget, northern Ontarians were paying $33 for licence plates to have access to roads, if you wish. They are not paying anything now. In your figures, you mentioned the difference was between $88 and $110, which would make it $22. We went one step further. In accordance with your own figures, we put --
Interjection.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Let me answer, please. We put $33 in the pockets of licence holders anywhere from Parry Sound to Hudson Bay. That is what we have done. It was quite a substantial saving. You are right, there is still some disparity between north and south. In fact, within the greater Toronto area I am told of disparities sometimes that will border on as much as five to six cents a litre in self-serve, full-serve and world prices from time to time, so it is quite different indeed.
Mr Mancini: I appreciate the minister's answer, but I am still waiting to hear his views specifically on the disparity in the equalization of gasoline prices throughout Ontario. I have not heard that answer.
The Chair: Neither have I.
Mr Mancini: The figures the minister quoted from me were the increases, not the existing. That is what I was trying to tell you, sir.
The Chair: Mr Daigeler, we are very short of time and I apologize.
Mr Daigeler: Just very quickly, I want to put the minister on the alert so the staff can perhaps get the information at the appropriate time. I ask the minister to give me an update on the status of the Highway 416 project in eastern Ontario and also an update on what is happening to Highway 17 towards Pembroke. If you can get that information, I will be asking that question later.
Mr Mancini: I have one question for the Chair. This has been done in the past so we are not asking for anything new and perhaps the committee and the minister would agree. We are fast going to run out of time, sir, and we are not going to have the opportunity to hear each and every one of your answers, unfortunately. In the past, ministers have prepared written answers to questions that have not been verbally asked, and forwarded them to the members of the committee even some weeks after the committee estimates procedure was completed. I ask for the same courtesy.
The Chair: That is done routinely and I have the undertaking of the minister and his deputy. There being no further business at this moment, the committee stands adjourned until 3:30 on Tuesday 22 October.
The committee adjourned at 1802.