Jeyan: One of the comments we get a lot when I bring these issues up is we should get. Politicians should actually drive these roads in the winter time so they can actually see what we go through. That was John Vanthof MPP for Timiskaming-Cochrane, explaining why he and two other NDP MPPs headed off on a road trip in March. They both took highways 11 and 17, and there's a reason for that. If you live in the north or have travelled around the region, you know those highways are vital and notorious. They connect the region and its economy to the rest of Canada, but driving them can be dangerous and even deadly. They're often forced to close by weather accidents or both. So what would it take to make those highways safe and reliable? We look at what northern leaders are calling for and how government can get it done. Then Sault Ste. Marie is looking to help anchor a different kind of trade corridor. We get an update on the city's multi-million dollar plans for a deep water port. Welcome to The Rundown. When there are closures on highways 11 and 17, whole communities are cut off and supply chains are disrupted for years. Northern leaders have been demanding action from Thunder Bay. Charles Cirtwill is the founding president and CEO of the Northern Policy Institute and from North Bay. Maggie Horsfield is the first vice president of the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities and Deputy Mayor of North Bay. Great to have you both on the line. Thank you so much for joining us. Let's start. Maggie. Help us understand, for Ontarians who aren't familiar with the North, why are highways 11 and 17 so important?

Maggie Horsfield: Thanks for the question. And it's really because these highways are the lifeline for northern Ontario. They stretch from the Manitoba border all the way across the province, and they really connect the country. So when these highways close down or when there's something happening that disrupts them, it impacts hundreds of communities and can cut them off from the rest of the province.

Jeyan: Charles, how many kilometres are we talking about when we talk about these two highways?

Charles Cirtwill: So we're talking about 3100 km in total. So anybody who's backpacked around Europe or that kind of thing, you've almost covered that amount of distance. I will note one thing though, Maggie said it's a lifeline for northern Ontario. It's actually a lifeline for the entire country. I think that Maggie made the point at the end there that if these highways get broken in half, the country is literally broken in half. There's one road, two lanes. That's it.

Jeyan: Charles, how common are closures on these highways?

Charles Cirtwill: Far too frequent. So just yesterday, I got an email from an organization called Northern Road Watch. And in the last three months there's been 1053 closures in this roadway. So that's 500 in May... 370 in April and or no... 500 in March and 200 in May. So it's settling down as it gets warmer, I guess.

Jeyan: I was going to say, Maggie, I think just to help viewers, maybe in southwestern Ontario, the idea of a highway shutting down for 24 hours or more than that seems ridiculous. Is there a special preparation that someone has to do in the North just because they need to access highway, knowing that potentially they may not get to their destination, they may have to, well, not reroute, but really just go back home. But are there any special preparations that someone in the north has to do accessing these highways?

Maggie Horsfield: It's a good question, and it's one of those things where you can prepare yourself, but also sometimes you don't have that option to turn around. So when you're planning to travel north, we always try and encourage people to have an emergency kit on them. I was in Kapuskasing and Hearst a couple of months ago in the winter time, and I made sure to pack all the essentials in case I got stuck on the highway for several hours. So I had a candle, I had a lighter, I had some trail mix, some water blanket, extra clothes because you just don't know if you're going to be sitting there, you know, with cell service or not. So your phone's always going to be charged too and just have to really think about, you know, are you going to have access to some of those things that are going to help keep you going for several hours or days?

Jeyan: Well, Charles, as you mentioned, a lot of these closures are because of the accidents. How dangerous are these highways?

Charles Cirtwill: So these highways kill is the simplest summary of that. And it's getting worse. So five years ago we were twice as deadly here in northern Ontario as the rest of the province. So, you know, somewhere around four deaths per 100,000 people, that's now almost nine. And we're three times the provincial rate. So improvements in the South have made things better here in the North. Things are getting worse, and that's not an ideal situation.

Jeyan: What is it about the actual structures of the highway? Is it how much space is on the side? Obviously, lanes is a restriction. Maggie, help paint the picture a little bit as to how these highways look and are when you're driving them.

Maggie Horsfield: These highways are primarily two-lane highways. There's passing lanes every 5 to 10 km if you're lucky. And so when there is an accident, it's not like the other direction can keep travelling. It shuts it down in both directions. There's also lots of rock in northern Ontario that abut both sides of most highways. So when someone goes off a shoulder, it's not like it's into a field. It can be quite deadly in that regard as well.

Jeyan: Charles, if you're looking at the highway in terms of infrastructure fixes, what are the obvious things that you would like to see changed?

Charles Cirtwill: So I think it's pretty clear that we can't have a 1950s highway in 2026. So we have to take a look at moving much more aggressively than we are to multiple lanes. The cheapest and safest model is one that's being used internationally in Northern Europe and in Australia and New Zealand. It's called two-plus-one. So basically we have three lanes with a hard barrier in the centre and every 3 to 4 km the lane switches. So the centre lane will become a passing lane on the left. And then three kilometres later will be a passing lane on the right. When you take a look at what happened in Sweden, in Finland, when they used it, they were able to reduce the number of accidents by somewhere between 50 to 90%. Fatalities dropped and it's affordable now.

Jeyan: Is there a pilot project for a two-plus-one highway currently being considered and being built in the north?

Charles Cirtwill: So yes, the reason I'm laughing, I apologize. It's northern kind of dark humour I guess. There's a crew out of Timiskaming Shores called Going the Extra Mile for safety. They've been working on this for almost 15 years, I guess. And finally, after a lot of work, they did get the province to commit to a pilot that started at 14 km. There's now two sites in about 30 km, and four years from now, we'll have a two-plus-one pilot to test the concept that's already working for the last 20 years in other countries with the exact same geography, exact same topography, exact same weather patterns as we do. But hey, we'll have Ontario data six years from now.

Jeyan: I was going to say, Maggie, you were laughing as well, I imagine, frustrating knowing that some of these things are working elsewhere and could potentially solve problems here.

Maggie Horsfield: Definitely. And I know that there's a lot that goes into the planning of it. And, you know, now that we have all of this information, the province is working on it. But it's one of those things where we need it yesterday, and we need it to happen a lot quicker.

Jeyan: Maggie, what does highway twinning mean and what does that actually involve?

Maggie Horsfield: So highway twinning is when you have the four lanes. And a lot of times that's where it's actually divided in the middle. So you have the opportunity to have traffic going in both directions with that divide to accommodate the traffic flow from vehicles in both directions, which would really lend itself better in northern Ontario in a lot of sections, especially when you look at between Cochrane and Hearst, that's a really flat section that has a lot of traffic flowing through it, and having that twinning would allow for a lot safer travel for folks.

Jeyan: All right. We'll come back to that in terms of where the answers lie in dealing with those issues. If it is a two-plus-one or is it twinning? But I want to ask about Ontario's Auditor General recently reported on the issues with testing, training, oversight of commercial drivers. How much are transport trucks contributing to the problems here on those highways?

Charles Cirtwill: So we're still digging into those numbers. But the fact is that we know that transports are involved in somewhere between 24 and 40% of the collisions. We know, for example, just in the last three months, out of the fatal collisions that occurred, the majority of them did involve transports. The challenge with the licensing thing, and don't get me wrong, there's no question we need to enhance our licensing, get our enforcement up, etcetera. But from a return on investment kind of exercise, the question is, even with the best possible trained and the highest level of investigation and enforcement, accidents still happen. People get tired, people lose control of the vehicle when weather events still occur. And the simple fact is that the design of the highways is the problem. If we don't fix the design of the highways, it doesn't matter how skilled the drivers are, we're still going to have these accidents.

Jeyan: Maggie, would more truck enforcement help or is it what Charles is saying here?

Maggie Horsfield: No, I do agree with what Charles is saying, but I have to say I have been seeing a lot more enforcement, especially on the highways in the north, and that does make a difference in making sure that it is safe for folks to use. But I do think that it's not a simple one-way to fix it type of solution. It has to be comprehensive. It has to go from the infrastructure itself to the drivers, to having more rest stops, to just thinking about the holistic experience of someone who's travelling those long distances and how to make sure it stays safe.

Jeyan: We asked Ontario's Ministry of Transportation about what it's doing about highway safety in the region. I want to read a little bit of what they sent us. They said, we are investing over 600 million to build and repair northern roads, bridges and highways, including the highway 11 17 corridor since 2020. More than 50 construction contracts worth over 450 million have been awarded along highways 11 and 17 in the north. Charles, how much of a difference will all of this make? You alluded to the timelines that the North has to endure with some of this, but does there seem to be some progress when we talk about some of the money and we see the signs along the highway as well. But does this move the needle?

Charles Cirtwill: So let's talk about those dollar figures. You know, the 3100 km of 11 and 17, out of that 128 km, so 4% is twinned after the province spent all that money, 378 km, so about 12% has three lanes passing lanes. So there's no question that we've seen improvements, enforcement improved as Maggie's highlighted. We've seen a lot of work around what we call rock cuts. So a lot of cases where we had two lanes going through very high rocks, and that was resulting in a lot of fatal accidents. So they've focused on that. They prioritize that and they've widened it out. No question that that's a good thing. But that's a very expensive bill. And so that's one of the reasons why the institute pushes so hard for the two-plus-one model. Because in many stretches of 11 17, twinning simply is not possible. There's no way we're going to be able to afford twinning the highway along north of Superior through those rock cuts. Yeah, we could do it in the Cochrane area. But then the question is do we really need it there? Can we do a two-plus-one? And the traffic levels kind of beg the question. There's a cheaper, faster way to get this done.

Jeyan: Maggie.

Maggie Horsfield: No, I agree with that too. I really appreciate all the conversations that FONOM (Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities) and other advocacy groups have had with the province, and we're working really closely with them to also make this a national project of significance. It is the Trans-Canada highway, as Charles said earlier, this connects Canada east to west. Without it, you have that hole right in the middle. And so making sure that investment is there. But down the line, when we think about the future investments that we need, we need more dollars, but we also need the federal government to come to the table too.

Jeyan: Charles as Maggie. As you know, highways are primarily a provincial responsibility. But northern leaders see a role for federal government. What's the business case for getting Ottawa involved here?

Charles Cirtwill: So number one, let's back that truck up for a second. The Trans-Canada highway, the federal government has had a role since about 1954, when they designated the Trans-Canada highway as a national infrastructure stream. So, yes, the province has principal responsibilities for design, build and maintenance. But the federal government has always participated in funding these costs. So the idea that the federal government should be at the table, having that conversation is absolutely makes perfect sense. There's no reason for that not to occur. And I will highlight what Maggie just said. I think it's very exciting for northerners that we're at the point now where we've got the province of Ontario sending a letter to the federal government saying, we need this upgrade to be on the list of projects of national significance. So it's going to the Major Projects Office, we hope, to an addendum to the provincial existing list. If that occurs. That's a huge step forward for northerners, and I think that goes entirely to the work that FONOM and NOMA, their northwestern counterparts, have done in terms of the last year of really working very hard to get this information in the hands of the people who can use it. And to be fair, the province has stepped up to the plate on this highway. The simple fact is that it's too little, it's taking too long, and they need a federal partner to make it happen quicker.

Jeyan: Charles, what would a dual use designation do for these highways?

Charles Cirtwill: So dual use designation is an interesting approach. It's one that Canada uses throughout the Arctic in the northern territories. And essentially what it is, is it's civilian infrastructure that's built to a higher standard so that in cases of national emergency, whether that's a massive forest fire, a need for evacuation or national defence that the military and civilian authorities can use it for emergency circumstances. And so there is an opportunity here as we look at the new NATO target that Canada has set itself saying that we're going to reach 2% of GDP, 1.5% of that is investment in infrastructure. So there is a significant opportunity to say these highways are insufficient to respond to national emergencies, civilian emergencies. I don't think there's any question in that. And it could easily be a category where some of the funding for this comes out of that special one-time pot.

Jeyan: Maggie, I'm curious with conversations about the Ring of Fire, which again, have happened for years and years. Is there an opportunity, when we look at the economy of these communities in the North, that as we focus on roads up there, that we also have a conversation about the roads just to the west?

Maggie Horsfield: Definitely. And it's really important that if we want to unleash the economy in northern Ontario, we need the highway infrastructure to match that. And so for our communities, the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities, we represent 110 municipalities that a lot of them are in the mining communities or in the forestry communities. And for them, having that stable infrastructure also means that their businesses and their industries can flourish as well. And so to unleash the Ring of Fire, we also need to make sure that the highway infrastructure across northern Ontario matches that same level of investment.

Jeyan: Now, Maggie, Charles was talking about the two-plus-one. I can assume that that's probably the model that Charles is sticking behind. I want to get your thoughts. Is it the ideal infrastructure solution for these highways?

Maggie Horsfield: I think it's a really great option. And the work that NPI has done on the research that's gone into it as well, it really makes sense based on the geography of northern Ontario. And when you look at wanting to make sure that as we go through small communities within the highway 11 17 corridor, we're not bypassing them because that can also have an impact on their economy. So if we have the opportunity to use the two-plus-one model, that will make it a lot safer, more financially sound as well, but also will allow us to continue to have those connections with community without bypassing them.

Jeyan: Charles, I'm scared to ask this question, but what would a reasonable timeline look like for something like this, where you get the two-plus-one for large stretches? Obviously, there are going to be places where that doesn't make sense perhaps.

Charles Cirtwill: There is absolutely going to be places that we're going to have to twin. There's no question about that.

Jeyan: But what does a reasonable timeline look like?

Charles Cirtwill: Let me give you an example. So the British Columbia government decided that the highway from Kamloops to the Alberta border was an absolute priority for them. They decided that they were going to twin it. They gave themselves a three-year construction window to build 440 km. So that's about a quarter of the distance across from the Manitoba border to North Bay. So if they can go through those mountains with equipment strapped to the side of the mountainside and digging, I figure we can kind of, if it takes three years to get 500 km, we can do this in a reasonable time window of 15 to 20 years. We don't need a 40, 50, 60 year window. And the list of infrastructure investments that the province had is a good place to start. Let's every time we touch a highway, if it's going to move to a two-plus-one at some point in the next decade, let's do it now. Why upgrade it and fix it to a standard two-lane highway if we're going to be there anyway, let's upgrade that portion and make that piece safer. And then the next piece and the next piece after that.

Jeyan: Maggie, what do you say to those politicians who may see this as just a northern issue?

Maggie Horsfield: It's really not. Like we were talking about earlier, it connects the country and the economy. And so when you have goods being shipped across the country, if it gets held up because of a highway closure, it's not going to get to you on time. It can impact your business. If you're waiting for a part to be able to do something, or for other folks that might be looking for an Amazon delivery, you might not get it when you want it because the highway is closed. And so that economy movement that we see is because the flow of the traffic on highways 11 and 17.

Jeyan: Charles, we've seen a lot of conversations about nation building. And as we talk about with this province and this government unleashing the economy, how are we seeing more political will to get this done and done right?

Charles Cirtwill: Well, I think the fact that the first time that I can recall there was a meeting of the municipalities, the province and the feds in Ottawa on the 2nd or 3rd of June. I've been in Thunder Bay now 14 years. First time I've ever heard of that kind of tripartite meeting. So clearly there's some interest somewhere to make this happen.

Jeyan: Charles. Maggie, thank you so much. I really appreciate your time on this. Thank you so much.

Maggie Horsfield: Thanks for having me.

Jeyan: Sault Ste Marie has been talking about building a deep water port for decades, but could now finally be the time. Matthew Shoemaker is the mayor of Sault Ste. Marie, and he joins us in our studios. How are you doing, mayor?

Matthew Shoemaker: Thanks for having me. I'm doing well yourself.

Jeyan: I'm doing great. Let's talk about this deep water port. There has been talk about this in Sault Ste. Marie. We go back to the 50s. We can talk about the 70s as well. Why is the time now?

Matthew Shoemaker: Well, what's changed is a number of things. First off, that land, we can reach an agreement with Algoma Steel has always been used as slag storage for the blast furnace. And now the blast furnace is no longer operating at the steel plant, they've converted to electricity-based steelmaking, and so they don't have the need to continue to add slag to that storage area. So it will be surplus to the needs of the steel plant. And there is opportunity for them, and we say for us to develop an asset that will help attract other businesses, commercial, industrial, to that site.

Jeyan: When we talk about what exactly is going through this port, what are we going to see?

Matthew Shoemaker: So it's already an existing port. Algoma Steel runs it as an export dock for themselves. And then there's secondary users as well. But there is more demand on the port than there is capacity currently. So what we would do is expand the capacity by adding another slip, and then it would help existing industries to beef up their ability to bring their product in or ship their product out. And that's our Tenaris tube maker that makes pipe for oil exploration. It is the aggregate industry that already is using it to use slag in concrete by-products or to extract iron from slag, for example, is one of the uses. And then there is growth sectors that we think could be using it more intensely. And that's the forestry sector, the mining sector. Obviously there's lots of growth and gold exploration up north of us in Wawa and Dubreuilville, and there is the opportunity for all of those areas in the north of North Algoma region to use this port as an import or export point for them.

Jeyan: How do we know the demand is there? Have there been early conversations?

Matthew Shoemaker: More than that, in fact, there is a demand that already exists on Algoma Dock more than there is capacity for. So that demand is pent up. And then there is commitments from other organizations—the mining industry, forestry industry, agricultural industry and aggregate industry that have all said we need it for this capacity. And so we don't just believe our projections are accurate. We know that there is at least four times growth of the existing tonnage that goes through that port today.

Jeyan: All right. The project is expected to cost between 200 and $250 million. I don't want to look into the city's pocketbooks here, but that's close to what your operating budget is for the year. How are you planning to cover the cost?

Matthew Shoemaker: So this is where I think it is creativity.

Jeyan: I imagine.

Matthew Shoemaker: Some creativity for sure. But also this is why the timing is perfect for this project. Today, the federal and provincial governments have talked about nothing but nation building infrastructure. For the last two years. We've been planning this port. I mean, you mentioned it back to the 1950s, but for the last four years, we have been in earnest planning this port because we knew that as Algoma transitioned from coal-based steelmaking to electricity-based steelmaking, that would mean a reduction in the number of jobs at Algoma Steel. And so we planned the port as one of the offsetting factors. Now, we thought we had until 2029 for that transition to happen. That's what Algoma had said for a number of years. But the tariffs meant that the American market, the bottom fell out of it for steel products, and therefore they had to accelerate their transition to electricity-based steelmaking. And we have in turn accelerated our planning of the port. This dovetailed perfectly with the federal and provincial governments, saying they wanted to invest in this type of infrastructure, and the federal government's put together a trade diversification fund that would, in our opinion, that this project fits perfectly within to. And so that's what we're applying to for the bulk of the money. But the city is going to be putting money into it as well.

Jeyan: All right. What else needs to be in place to get shovels into the ground right now?

Matthew Shoemaker: Well, two things. The land and funding, I think are the two critical aspects. So negotiations continue with Algoma Steel. There is a funding application deadline date of June 26th, I believe it is for the Federal Trade Diversification Corridor Fund, and we are ensuring that we are working diligently and around the clock to try and get this application in with the land secured. And so we could be considered and hopefully be successful. The feds have said that they're expected funding timelines are there announcements on funding would be end of September or October.

Jeyan: There is. The folks here in southern Ontario sometimes like to say, you know, the North, and we like to blanket some of the communities here, but I want to look a little bit west of where you are. Marathon south of marathon. The township of Red Rock are also working on their own ports. I'm curious, there's going to be a little bit of competition, I imagine. What sets your port apart?

Matthew Shoemaker: What sets ours apart is we haven't developed it with the eye to the funding that has now become available. This has been conceived of, planned for and attempted to be carried out since the 50s. There was a strong effort to do it in the 50s. There was a very close to successful effort to do it in the 70s. That was at the, you know, final stages until there was federal election in 1979. And then the former operator of the steel plant in 2015, before they went into creditor protection, had a port expansion plan in place. And the city has been working on this not just to capitalize on the federal government funding programs that have become available, but because it makes economic sense to have a port there, because there is demand for port there. And so we are using it to try and offset the job losses at Algoma, and we are using it to attract other industries and commercial activities into the Soo. And the fact that there's federal government funding now available simply makes it more realistic. Not doesn't make it a viable project. Because of that.

Jeyan: You talked about the growth sector and where there is potential for opportunity there. Would you not be in competition with Marathon and Red Rock for those same areas?

Matthew Shoemaker: We know that there is demand to increase capacity in the Soo with existing industries. Tenaris specifically, Arauco, which is a flakeboard maker, and others in the area, including the gold mines in Wawa and Dubreuilville. And so we know that with or without those other ports, and they may have viable business cases on their own. But with or without those additional ports, there is the need for a port in Sault Ste. Marie. It's at the heart and at the intersection of Lake Huron and Lake Superior. And so it would be until you get to Thunder Bay, at least in the interim, the last public access port on the Great Lakes, unless those other ones go ahead as well.

Jeyan: Fair enough. If all goes as planned, when would the port be up and running? What's your hopes here?

Matthew Shoemaker: We can start constructing it as soon as there's funding announced. It is not turning a greenfield into a port. It is turning a slag storage area, which is a brownfield into an expanded port. Because, as I said, there's already an Algoma steel port on site. And so within two years it would be fully operational, both slips with the added capacity. So we think that the timing is good for actually getting projects shovel ready that are shovel ready to market. And it also helps us offset those job losses as quickly as possible from the Algoma employment reduction.

Jeyan: All right. I'll mark that down. Two years. Here we are. All right, Matt Mayor, really appreciate it. Thank you so much for taking the time and appreciate you dropping into our studios.

Matthew Shoemaker: Thanks for having me.

Jeyan: I'm Jeyan. Thanks for watching The Rundown. What's the longest drive you've ever taken in Ontario? I want to know. Email us at TheRundown@TVO.org or leave us a comment on our YouTube page. Until then, I will see you tomorrow.