Transportation Issues in the GTA - A new path to resolution

-         The GTA has recently been declared as the area with the longest commute to work in Canada and it is a   top concern for residents.

I am a GTA commuter.

I have lived in Thornhill this past 20 years and in North York the previous 25 years. Since 1978, I have been a regular TTC subway rider. While public transit has been “the better way” for me than commuting by car, I have also run to work, rode my motorcycle to work, taken the bus, and I occasionally drove my car to the office.

Today, people have many options for commuting.  These include : walking, running, cycling, scooter or motorcycle, car and car-pooling using public roads  as well as toll-fee highways (407etr), bus, street car, subway, commuter train.

What does this tell you?  That people use the option that best suits their needs and circumstances at any given point in time.

There is no one silver bullet that government can find that will satisfy all commuters.  Gridlock and long commutes have been top citizen issues for as long as I can remember. If government was able to provide the answers,  then these issues would have long ago become artifacts of history.

Its time for a new approach and it involves dismantling the government monopoly in transportation services and opening the flood gates to private sector ideas.

Step 1: Identify the deterrents and constraints to private sector investment, and remove them. This must include elimination of the many unnecessary transportation regulations that discourage and curtail the creative thinking and capital investments that are needed to address our complex and chronic transportation issues.  Some people may resist this. However, with every decision there are usually tradeoffs and we must make these decisions with a careful consideration of these tradeoffs and our top priorities.

Step 2: Notify the corporations who possess the know-how and resources to address our transportation issues, and proclaim boldly that Ontario is open for business.

Since the industrial revolution, almost all of our most significant technological achievements have come from entrepreneurs who have been motivated by profit to find and keep happy customers. Government has had its chance – now its time to let capitalism come to the rescue .

Why is Monopoly legal for government?

"Do as I say, not as I do" is an apt motto for governments everywhere. This is particularly true when exploring the topic of monopoly.  Wikipedia describes it as follows (italics)


In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise is the only supplier of a particular kind of product or service. Monopolies are thus characterised by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service, and a lack of viable substitute goods.


When not legally coerced to do otherwise, monopolies typically produce fewer goods and sell them at higher prices than under free market competition to maximize their profit at the expense of consumer satisfaction.  Sometimes governments legally decide that a given company is a monopoly that doesn't serve the best interests of the market and/or consumers. Governments may force these companies to splinter into smaller independent corporations as in the case of United States v. AT&T, or alter its behavior as in the case of United States v. Microsoft, to protect consumers.

Monopolies can be established by a government. A monopoly is said to be coercive when the monopoly actively prohibits competitors from entering the field by using unfair competitive practices which derive from its market or political influence. There is often heated debate over whether market restrictions are in the best long-term interest of present and future consumers.

In many jurisdictions, competition laws place specific restrictions on monopolies. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly in the market is not illegal in itself. However, certain categories of behavior that occur when a business is dominant, can be considered abusive and therefore be met with legal sanctions. A government-granted monopoly or legal monopoly, by contrast, is sanctioned by the state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic interest group. Patents, copyright, and trademarks are all examples of government granted and enforced monopolies. The government may also reserve the venture for itself, thus forming a government monopoly.

So, if monopolies are so undesirable in the private sector, why do we tolerate the numerous monopoly practices and enterprises controlled by government?


Government monopolies in Ontario take many shapes. To identify a few, we have: The Beer Store; Liquor Control Board of Ontario; Ontario Lottery Corporation; energy service providers such as Hydro One, Ontario Power Generation and Powerstream; law enforcement - specifically the Ontario Provincial Police; all publicly funded schools under the control of the Ontario Ministry of Education; all medical and health care service providers who receive payment from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP); nearly all construction of roads, highways and other forms of infrastructure under the control of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation; the issue of all Liscences and Certificates pertaining to births, deaths, driving vehicles, immigration, status, sporting activities, etc. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture.


Everyone claims that there is extensive waste in government operations - a natural bi-product of monopoly. While 'waste' can take many forms, the worst type of government waste is its misallocation of human capital. Allow me to explain. Some government jobs are 'productive' in that they provide services that are desirable, such as teaching and nursing. However, many are non-productive in the sense that they are not "wealth creating" or "life enriching". Instead, they  are "wealth distributing" by their very nature and, as such, they are not productive. The entire tax collection process of government, is a good example of where you will find these jobs. Governments also feature many "make work" jobs which provide no useful output to the taxpayer but exist to service the "power politics"goals of senior bureaucrats. Since citizens cannot consume the output of "workers" who produce no consumable output, then this represents misallocation of human capital. It would be better that these workers be employed in jobs that produce consumable goods and services for which people are willing to pay.

Public sector labour unions are also a form of monopoly, and all government operations are prime breeding grounds for powerful and intransigent labour unions. I have written more about this topic in another blog.

The Minimum Wage Law, supported enthusiastically by union members, is another manifestation of monopoly practice foist upon us by government leaders. It distorts prices in the labour market and protects unionized workers from competition by people who are willing to work at lower wages. It prevents many students from obtaining summer work and, consequently, deters them from acquiring work experience that will help them to land higher paying jobs in the future. Seniors, who miss the social interaction of work life, may also face an employment barrier due to the Minimum Wage Law should they wish to re-enter the workforce in low-pressure, entry-level service jobs.  It should be their choice if they wish to work at lower wages, not the government's.

The prevalence of monopoly practices in government, and their undesirable outcomes,  are topics for which volumes could be written.  This article has been written only to raise this topic as an issue about which we, the Taxpayer, should elevate to the political level for election purposes.

After being employed in the Information Technology, Staffing and Business Transformation consulting businesses for the past 34 years, and following the extensive reading that I have done in Economics, I have come to the following conclusions:

1. There is no valid reason why any government "make work" jobs need exist.
2. With modern technology, there is no reason why most tax collection jobs need exist and if the tax code were simplified, the collection of taxes could be relatively simple compared to what exists today.
3. The existence of modern, sophisticated and proven business models for outsourcing entire business processes is a strong argument why there is no reason to employ so many public sector workers when better, free market options could be put in place. 
4. We, the Taxpayer, do not owe any public sector work a job. All jobs must justify themselves to the satisfaction of the stakeholders, or cease to exist.

I have chosen to run as the Libertarian candidate for the upcoming Ontario election because I am convinced that we can all enjoy better lives without the public sector monopolies that currently restrict our choices and waste our resources on a massive scale. If elected, my mandate will be to roll back our Ontario Public Service bureaucracies to employ fewer than 20% of the entire Ontario work force. I have faith in Ontario's entrepreneurs to discover the correct business formulas to replace any government services that the market desires.