[Page 453]
HALIFAX, TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2007
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY
4:25 P.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. Wayne Gaudet
MR. CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon. The Committee of the Whole House on Supply is now called to order.
The Acting Government House Leader.
HON. ANGUS MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, we will continue the Estimates of the Department of Education.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Hants East.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the minister for an opportunity to ask some questions regarding her department. I guess one of the first questions I'd like to have clarified is around the change in the birth date for allowing students to enter Primary, which I think has been extended to be age five by December 31st.
I'm curious as to the reason the government moved to this. What I've heard around research on students is that younger is not always better in terms of the program that they enter, so I'm wondering if the minister's determination is that they will stop the pre-Primary program by extending the date that children could enter Primary? In other words, they would be younger entering Primary. I just wonder if the minister could clarify for me the future of the pre-Primary program, because I thought that to be a pretty good fit for preparing children for entering Primary. I'm just wondering what the future holds for that program?
[Page 454]
HON. KAREN CASEY: Thank you for the question. I appreciate the opportunity to have questions from fellow educators. I just wanted to talk a little bit about pre-Primary. As you know, it was a two-year pilot. There is a whole body of research out there that supports early learning and the advantages to early learning, therefore it was piloted and it has been monitored very closely, as we've moved through the two years, and the report that has been prepared gives us a pretty clear indication that, yes, what the research has said is true.
The early childhood workers who are providing the instruction and leadership in those classes, they're telling us that students are adapting very well to the school environment, to some structure, although it's a play-directed program. The curriculum that is used was developed by our own staff with early childhood expertise.
So, the reports are, yes, if the curriculum is appropriate, four-year-olds are adapting well to that, and the results that come back from the questions to the Primary teachers who now are working with that first group are saying, yes, their state of readiness is much more advanced, and those are all good reasons to continue that program. For that reason, we have extended it to the third year in all of the 19 sites. At the same time, there were some challenges with that, and the fact that it was voluntary and that transportation was the responsibility of the parent, identified a weakness to the program, and that is that those children, those four-year-olds who maybe could benefit best from that program, were not in a home situation where maybe transportation could be provided. So that would be a downside to having it as voluntary, and transportation the responsibility of the parent.
[4:30 p.m.]
Along with the whole pre-Primary pilot came the interest which comes back quite frequently in education, and that is the date of entry. There is only one other province that doesn't have late year/early year entry, whether it is December or January 1st. We kind of stood out alone with one other province as being in September. So we looked at it if we changed that entry date to end of December, being five by the end of December, we would facilitate that transient population, the military families and so on, who are moving across Canada, and so students would not be disadvantaged if they moved into an area where there was a different date of entry.
So the question was, do we do both, or do we do either, or do we do none? What we came up with was a recommendation, and it's in the budget, to extend the pre-Primary for one more year because all of the evidence says that it is a good program, and students are better prepared for Primary after having gone through that. However, we also recognized the importance of changing the date of entry. So that's why we presented it the way it is, that we will continue the pre-Primary for one more year, and in September 2008 the entry date will be changed. So we could have four-year-olds in our schools for September, October, November and December and turning five at the end of December. So we will capture that
[Page 455]
four-year-old age group that does take well to that pre-Primary, preschool instruction, and have them in Primary those three months earlier.
With any age-of-entry date, it is the parents responsibility to make a decision whether they feel their children are ready to go to school. They have to be in school by age six but they don't have to be in school by age four. So we are just changing the entry date. Parents can keep their children home until they are five. Some parents keep their children home until they are six. It's not compulsory that they start then, but the opportunity and the option is there.
So that is kind of why we've extended the pre-Primary, recognizing it's good for those four year olds, changing the entry date to meet some of those other demands and some of those other concerns and, at this point, we will discontinue the pre-Primary after the third year and have the change of entry date.
However, if I could go on, recognizing that it is important to capture those four-year-olds, I have already been in discussion with my colleague from the Department of Community Services to say this is a good program, the evidence is there, the curriculum is there, is there any way we can work with the Department of Community Services to take that kind of a model through so that we can implement it through some other department to capture the four-year-olds.
MR. MACDONELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam Minister. I would appreciate it, I guess, if the minister could elaborate a little bit on her thoughts around what they would implement through another department. I guess I am trying to see the fit of having students who basically now would have a choice, if they were going to be five as of the end of December - I guess my question should be at what age can they enter a pre-Primary program?
MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member, the entry date is the same for pre-Primary as it is for public school right now. So if they wanted to enter the pre-Primary, they had to be four by October 1st. To enter public school, right now, they have to be five by October 1st.
MR. MACDONELL: So what we are saying, for the next year, does that mean that they could be four by December 31st to enter pre-Primary? They would be three until December 31st, so could they enter a pre-Primary program for this next year that it's being offered?
MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, the pre-Primary pilot, as it now exists, will be terminated before we have the change of entry date for Primary. So in answer to your question, no. However, if we continue to work with the Department of Community Services and look at some kind of model, details would have to be worked out as to where,
[Page 456]
when and how, but we just don't want to lose a good idea so, at this point, there are just preliminary discussions about how we might follow up with another department.
MR. MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm curious, I guess, what the minister would envision about the program, if there was something to be worked out with the Department of Community Services or some other department, what is it that the minister is thinking, and the people who are presently teachers of the pre-Primary program, would they still be teachers? Would they have to have teacher qualifications if they come under the Department of Community Services? What kind of thoughts do you have on what this model would look like?
MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, we know right now that we have early childhood educators who are working in our pre-Primary, they have specialized training, and that model seems to be working very well. If they were to move into the public school system, they would have to become members of the Teachers Union and they would have to have a teacher training program. If they were to continue in an early childhood environment that would be outside of public schools, that may not be as much of an issue. It would be an issue if it had gone into public schools beyond the pilot.
One of the things that we're looking at is communities where there are daycares, and some communities have daycares and they're accessible, but there are some communities that do not. Again, the issue of not all students who should be involved in a structured program can be. So there is a lot of detail here to work out. I wouldn't want to go too far as to what that will look like except to say that the research tells us it is good and we shouldn't lose it.
MR. MACDONELL: Thank you, Madam Minister. Yes, I agree, I think certainly all of us who are educators recognize that those early interventions pay dividends. In other words, the sooner you can intervene it will cost less in the system down the road. I'm certainly someone who, if the evidence would indicate that doing this sooner is a good thing for students, then I would encourage that.
I think probably my last question - unless your answer generates another one - would be, I recognize a lot of details would have to be worked out, I'm just curious, if a similar program was developed in conjunction with the Department of Community Services would the excess to the program increase? In other words, would it just be 19, would it be more schools? Actually, it wouldn't even be schools, I guess. The other question would be, where would it occur? I'm assuming there is no extra space in many schools to extend the age for entering Primary, so they are going to have an increase in the number of students anyway, so I'm just curious as to where you see this occurring, and I mean physically occurring? If you could address what your thoughts are on those.
MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, one of the things that we do not want to do is compete with the private daycare operators who are out there. We have
[Page 457]
some excellent ones, and they have early childhood educators who are working in those and providing those opportunities, so before there was any decision made as to the locations, the communities, as well as within the community, we would want to work very closely with those daycare operators because our goal is to make sure that there is a program available in a community and 4-year-olds can access that. So there would have to be a complete review of where those currently exist, what communities, and then within the community.
Again, and you've made a good point, that sometimes the schools, the facility is filled to capacity and cannot accommodate them. In other places we know we have rambling space for all kinds of 4-year-olds. So that kind of an assessment would have to be done too, but we do know that when a program for 4-year-olds is housed in a public school, it has happened with success. So the whole business of 19 pilots would not drive any further decisions about where. It would be based on the facilities that are available, the community need, and how we could best deliver a program and not to be in competition with the private operators.
MR. MACDONELL: Thank you, Madam Minister, and I want to thank the chairman. I wonder if I could ask, how much time have I left out of that half hour that we talked about?
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have approximately 15 minutes.
MR. MACDONELL: Good, great. I wonder if I can get one of the Pages to deliver this to the minister, please.
Madam Minister, I want to ask a question and it's based on the information in this e-mail that I have. I'm not going to read it, although I thought that that might be a simple way for me to try to convey the message, but I'm going to try to do it on my understanding of the problem.
I have a gentleman who was in the manufacturing/engineering/machinist technician program, and I guess the crux of the problem is his instruction was by machinists, actually people who would have educated machinists who would have gone on to maybe write their exam as machinists in the Red Seal certification. Anyway, this gentleman thinks that if he wrote the exam for Red Seal that he would pass it, but the department says he's not allowed to do that - actually they're saying that he's not allowed to do that because of the program that he took, and I think he tries to outline the similarities in the two programs, but also if he did do it, which seems like an odd statement to make in the sense that the department is saying that the difference in the costs, if it cost him $500-some to write the exam where someone who took the machinist program would write it for $100, if I have that understanding right.
So anyway I don't know if this would be right at the tip of your tongue, responding to this, but anyway without getting through all the particulars right at this point, I'm just wondering if the minister or her staff could enlighten us as to the problem, I guess, in why
[Page 458]
someone who was willing to pay for an exam and willing to write it, he's finding that the training he has, basically the job opportunities are not there and the pay level certainly isn't what he was expecting, and he thinks his level of training makes him competent enough to pass the exam for Red Seal, and he would just like to have an opportunity to do that. I know that's kind of a broad stroke, but if the minister could respond.
MS. CASEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the member opposite - I'm not as familiar with the situation as you are, having just seen the correspondence a couple of minutes ago, but what I will make a commitment to do is to review the particulars of this one and perhaps if I could get back to the member to talk about the detail and try to provide support and direction for this particular person so they will be clear on what they have to do, if that's okay with the member.
[4:45 p.m.]
MR. MACDONELL: I want to say thanks to the minister, and I want to apologize for giving you a lot of information in such a short period of time. If I had had it sooner, I would have delivered it sooner so that I maybe could have asked the minister the question and she would have had some time to give me a response.
My interest in this, I guess, comes from a couple of areas. One is this gentleman was a former student of mine when I was a teacher, and teachers are always interested in seeing their students move upward and onward and progress. So when he approached me on this I was quite interested, but also interested in the need for - I know that we have a shortage of skilled vocational people or skilled workers and actually I think the few that we had have been very quickly drawn westward, unless they're really well established in a particular occupation and are committed, I suppose, in a number of ways to family and mortgage and whatever here in the east that might keep them, but certainly trying to keep skilled workers in Nova Scotia is a challenge and this is an individual who, I think, would like to stay if at all possible.
So I would appreciate, when the minister has another day or so, to have somebody take a look at this, if they can give me a more detailed analysis actually and I can get back to this gentleman, but certainly I'm hoping to be more on the positive look that if his training is such that they would agree that he could pass, or he could write the exam and has enough background certainly to write it and hopefully in his case that he would pass it.
I guess I'm leading up to another question, and if the minister doesn't run into this very often she may not have turned her mind to it, but I'm curious as to why the department wouldn't look at this in terms of our skills shortage and ways of getting people who have worked in particular areas and have accumulated a fair bit of knowledge, that maybe there's a possibility that they would be able to write a test and get certified in that particular area, depending on, you know that they may not have had all the classroom, but I'm just
[Page 459]
wondering if that has come across the minister's desk before and if the department has looked at ways to certify people with more training perhaps than the academic, than the classroom side, and tried to come up with a balance of those two.
MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, to go back to the first situation, we will review that, but we have taken a number of steps to try to monitor the relationship between supply and demand, in particular in the skilled workers and trades area, working closely with business and industry for a couple of reasons - we need to know what the needs are so we can work with our community colleges or other areas to design programs to meet the need. So that's capturing people who don't have the training, providing opportunities, seats at the community college to give them skills in the trades where there will be jobs when they graduate. So that's an important link and our Skills and Learning division at the department, that has been a priority for them because we recognize that we're losing that workforce, we're losing it partly because of age and retirement, but also the draw to other provinces. So we're very cognizant of that.
Along with that is what we do to support the current workforce that we have, and you will recall that the amendments to the Apprenticeship and Trades Qualifications Act where we talked about the certificate of proficiency, and that was to make sure that those people who are out there working their trade, who have not gotten the Red Seal but do want an opportunity to show that they can do the job - for whatever reason, whether it is through language barriers or literacy barriers or whatever, haven't gone for that certification, so we've provided an opportunity there to help those people get the certification which will allow them of course to have a better rate of pay based on doing the same kind of work that they're currently doing. So that's another step we've taken.
With all of that, and with the situation that you bring to my attention, we assess individual concerns on an individual basis, and this one will be one of those, but if someone comes forward with something that is unique and they don't fall under any one particular set of guidelines, we have been, we have made a commitment to, and we are open to sitting down to look at the specifics of that individual case.
So we recognize that we have a critical part to play. The Department of Education, as I've said on other occasions, is probably one of the most active divisions within the department, more active than in the past because there is that demand out there. So we're working with the community colleges to provide programs, we're working with business and industry to tell us what skills they want their workers to have, we're working with the current workers to make sure they get a certificate, whether it is proficiency or Red Seal, and then if somebody doesn't fall within one of those categories, we do the individual assessment of their particular needs and how we can help navigate them to a training program or to a certification program.
[Page 460]
MR. MACDONELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wonder if the minister could clarify for me the notion with the certificate of proficiency. If my memory is correct, I believe that didn't require an exam. You could get that certificate of proficiency without writing an exam. Am I right on that?
MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, yes, the details around the certificate of proficiency was to try to judge people and assess them based on their hands-on performance. So it would not be a written test, it would be a hands-on demonstration of their skills.
MR. MACDONELL: I want to thank the minister. Well, certainly if the department would go down that road then definitely, for someone who is interested in writing a test, I think they would really consider that as well.
I want to move on in my last couple of minutes. The Elmsdale District School - I think the minister would be fairly familiar with that building, it is on MacMillan Drive - if my knowledge of the present situation is correct, MacMillan Drive is a municipal road. I think it has been petitioned for a program whereby the residents will pay the lion's share, 90 per cent, to have that paved, but the issue I want to draw to the minister's attention is around sidewalks. That's quite a hike from the No. 2 highway into the school there. I'm not exactly sure of that distance, but I know that residents have complained about the unsafe walking for children if they walk in that road to the school.
I want to make a case to the minister, and safety for students, I think, comes under the minister's jurisdiction, actually I believe it is in the Act, so I want to make a case for the province to step up - actually, I believe the Premier made this an issue during the election last June, I think the department has a responsibility to put sidewalks in there. So I'm making that request to the minister, and I would be interested in her response.
MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, his memory is great, we did work together on the Elmsdale project, and on more than one occasion I commended the member for bringing some of the concerns from the planning team to the House at that time. We did work well together on that project, and I'm very familiar with the school, with the site, with MacMillan Drive, with the deplorable conditions of MacMillan Drive, also the issue of safety.
Municipalities are responsible for the paving of the road - and I'm pleased to hear that that may happen - also responsible for sidewalks. However, the safety of students is our responsibility, and if it is deemed to be unsafe, and that would be an issue that the board would have to deal with, then there would be steps that the board would take to ensure safety of those students.
[Page 461]
I can't speak for the board, but I would expect that their action on that would be more like busing rather than sidewalks. But safety is my responsibility, and transportation is the responsibility of the boards, and I would be prepared to discuss that with the board or with the community, but that would be our position.
MR. MACDONELL: Well, I'll thank the minister for reiterating the position. I'm not sure I want to thank her for the position. What I want to say to the minister is, if you think about the elementary school in Lantz, actually, and if you look at the long entrance, which is not as long as MacMillan Drive, I would be willing to admit that, the school in Lantz is right on the No. 2 highway, it has a sidewalk that goes down to the No. 2 highway, and actually the No. 2 highway doesn't have a sidewalk that it goes to, but certainly from MacMillan Drive the No. 2 highway does have a sidewalk there, so certainly I think the province could at least work with the municipality and maybe cost-share on that sidewalk. I know they're not cheap, but I do worry about the possibility of students being hurt there. I certainly hope for a comment from the minister as I sit down. I will make that my last comment so that my colleagues in the Liberal caucus may get a chance.
MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, thank you for your questions. I will, as I have on other occasions, work with the board and work with the community in the best interest of students. I recognize what Maple Ridge has and I will remind the member that it was a P3 project, but also that we certainly recognize safety as a priority. So we'll be working on that. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Richmond.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Merçi, Monsieur le président, il me fait plaisir de poser quelques questions au ministre de l'Éducation. As I'm sure, one day before too long, Mr. Chairman, I'll be able to ask my questions in French and the minister will be able to properly have translation, and hopefully our good Minister of Acadian Affairs will be bringing that in very soon, hopefully by the Fall session, and make more interesting debate here in the House, I'm sure.
Madam Minister, let me start with a local issue right off the start. On this past Saturday of the Easter long weekend, I met with a group of parents, the parents advisory committee of the East Richmond elementary/junior high school. As you know, currently, in the community of St. Peters, there is the old elementary school and the old high school that are both being operated for the student population. Primary to Grade 4 are in the old elementary school, and Grade 5 to Grade 7 are in the old high school. Basically, both of those schools are within eyesight of each other, but the cost of maintaining two schools certainly is one that is of great expense to the Strait Regional School Board, and it was why some time ago, actually back in 2003 at least, a commitment was made by your Party during the election that there would be an expansion to the elementary school in order to accommodate all of the students under one roof.
[Page 462]
Last week, the superintendent of the Strait Regional School Board, Mr. Phonse Gillis, met with the parents advisory committee and advised them, based on the budget presented to this House, that the planned renovations, which were to take place this year, have been put on hold. I'm wondering if the minister could indicate to me and to the parents and the school advisory committee as to why those promised renovations are not taking place this fiscal year?
MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, I thought in your introductory comments you were suggesting I would have gone through an immersion program, and who knows, that may happen.
To be specific with your question about the renovations, and as I've said many times over the last couple of weeks, the commitments that our government made in 2003 with respect to 12 new school projects and 45 renovations and additions projects, that commitment has not changed. In addition to that, the scope of the work for those projects has not changed. The commitment will be met as funds and resources become available. With the resources that were available to this government it was impossible to move forward on all of the projects that had been scheduled. What we did was to look at those projects where tenders had been called and let, and those became priorities for us for 2007-08.
[5:00 pm.]
I did have a chance to visit the East Richmond school, had a great tour, the principal was very accommodating and recognized that there needed to be work done in those schools, and the commitment that had been made and the plan that the Strait Regional School Board had for that was a good plan. So my comment to the member opposite is it is not cancelled, it is delayed, and it is delayed because of funding that is available in this particular budget year.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I realize that the minister did have a tour and I'm not surprised to hear that she would have found the principal to be very accommodating. Unfortunately, he may have been too accommodating because of the fact that there has been this delay. I'm sure, in light of the fact that the principal at the school is a former PC candidate that that probably may have helped in his accommodation of the minister at the time.
At the end of the day, Madam Minister, the fact is that the community which has been waiting for some time now for these renovations is clearly upset, and not only are they upset, again, when one looks - we're talking budget here, we're talking finance - at the amount of money being spent each year by the Strait Regional School Board to maintain two schools, just the heating costs to maintain the old high school, and I don't remember what the age is but the figure given to me was anywhere from $200,000 to $300,000 a year is being spent to maintain that old high school with a student population that clearly could be put in with
[Page 463]
the elementary school once those renovations are complete. So, if for no other reason, cost- wise it just doesn't make sense for your department to delay this project any further, because it's money that could be spent in the classroom rather than being spent on administering a building that the student population doesn't justify, which is why it was suggested that those schools be amalgamated in the first place.
For example, I believe when the minister was there to visit she visited the elementary site but I'm not sure she had an opportunity to visit the old high school site, which is actually the older school and there are now concerns because a student recently was taken out of the school due to some health difficulties and now there is a round of air quality testing that is taking place in that school, which we are all concerned as to what those results might be. This may require this situation to be dealt with in a much more speedy fashion. I think the minister, hopefully, will be open to revisit the decision not to fund that expansion this year in light of those concerns that are raised.
At the old high school the former oil tank - like in so many schools - was buried and they figured it was leaking so they had to dig it out. When they dug it out they figured out that there was another oil tank so they had to go digging to find the other oil tank. At the end of the day they had to put in a new, above-ground oil tank, a brand new tank, set that all up for an old high school which, under the government's own plans, will be closed - had they met the commitment this year, it would have been closed in a year, a year and a half.
Needless to say, I would hope that the minister would appreciate that that is valued dollars that our education system needs and right now, unfortunately, it's being spent on infrastructure which is not going to be there for the long run, based on your department's own plans. So I guess my question is, being the minister has indicated that there's going to be a delay, is her department even in a position right now to give an indication to these communities as to what Plan B is as far as what is the next scheduled time you expect these renovations may actually take place?
MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, as the member opposite so accurately described, the recommendation that came from the Strait School Board to accommodate those students in one building was based on program needs, but it was also based on the economies. We would like to the put the needs of our students first, but we also recognize that the financial situation does come into play. Obviously, a very good recommendation from the Strait Board and one that we, as I have said, have made a commitment to follow up on.
Our position at the department at this time is we know that we have a number of communities that have a number of questions about what is happening to their project. Once we are finished with the budget, if that budget is approved, then our next step is to get out with school boards and into communities so they better understand what has happened with their project, what our projected timeline is for completing that project, and sitting down with boards and school advisory councils, communities, so that they have the accurate information
[Page 464]
and so they know that their project has not been scrapped, that it has not been changed, but it has been delayed. But that is certainly a commitment that we have made and we will begin that process once we are finished with the budget.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I just want to impress upon the minister, I know some of the renovations in some of the schools that I heard about it was a gymnasium, some were music rooms and that. In this case what is happening is that this delay is causing a great deal of anxiety in the community. As you know, a number of years ago, Richmond County had two high schools. At the time, because of declining enrolments, it was decided that the two high schools would be closed and there would be an amalgamated high school, Richmond Academy. So right now in Richmond we have one English language high school - that's it. We used to have two, we now have one.
Parents in the St. Peters area are now fearing that any delay on this project means that there is a bigger plan to start changing where these students are going to be attending school. Now whether this is true or untrue - I certainly hope it isn't - I can tell you that it has caused great anxiety amongst the community, and I would hope that the minister would keep that in mind. It's not just a matter of the community saying we want a new gym or we want a bigger music room or we want a bigger auditorium, this is about the survival of the school, it's about the survival of those junior high school students remaining in that community and, as a result, when we met on Saturday there were a number of different rumours that had already started in the community, but needless to say it was creating a great level of anxiety and that's why this is the type of project that just cannot be delayed any longer.
It's so the community can clearly know that the investment is going to be made to keep those students in that community under one roof, under administration and be able to continue as a thriving school community, and I hope the minister will keep that in mind as she moves forward, especially looking at the specific schools. I would hope that you would consider the St. Peters and the East Richmond Elementary School situation a unique situation because it's not just asking for a new gym or auditorium, as I have mentioned, this is about keeping the students in that community under one roof. Unless the government moves on that quickly, the level of anxiety is going to heighten and I fear that there are going to be negative repercussions all around for the community, and certainly for us as parliamentarians, in that the commitment was made and the community now is very upset that it appears that commitment is not going to be kept.
Just as an aside to that, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is important for the minister to understand as well, the Strait Regional School Board just can't cut any more. That was my message to the parents when I met with them, that we have made the cuts - we have closed the schools, we have amalgamated schools, we have made the tough decisions. The communities have accepted those tough decisions and I am sure the minister will probably recognize that there are many boards that haven't made those tough decisions and yet we have done that in the Strait board. It hasn't been easy on communities and I'm sure the
[Page 465]
Minister of Transportation and Public Works, being from that board, knows exactly the tough decisions that were made, and his county I don't believe has probably seen the population drop that we've seen in our areas.
It's essential that communities be given the clear message from government that they are going to make the investments to keep those students in those communities and make sure that this is not something that is going to be delayed such to a point that all of a sudden new plans are going to be drafted as to where these students may be housed in the coming years.
So I leave that issue with the minister and certainly will probably be raising it again with her in the next few days, and again to highlight the anxiety level that is there among the community. I think they have been very patient. They showed me the plans for the new school and everything, so all they are waiting for now is the green light from your department and they are ready to go, and the community has certainly bought into it.
Mr. Chairman, in speaking with a number of parents and some representatives from the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial, they were very anxious to know as to what the department's position is on the proposed construction of a new French language high school here in the metro area, more specifically, I believe, targeted for the Bedford-Sackville area. Currently the Acadian school at École Bois-Jolie in Dartmouth is experiencing great success which is becoming a bit of a concern because of the fact that students are being housed in portables, which is certainly not a favoured position to be in, and what is happening, unfortunately, is because of this many parents are turning to the English system to place their kids due to the fact that they do not want to see them in overcrowded classes at École Bois-Jolie.
Based on some of the statements made by your deputy minister not long ago about the failings of the government, provincially, to meet some of the bilingual targets set by the federal government, needless to say this is an opportunity for the government to make an investment to make sure that students who wish to study in the French language are given the opportunity to do so here in metro. I believe the amount of students who are registering is a sign of great success, but with that success comes some of the challenges in the need for more schools to accommodate the student population.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering, could the minister just indicate what the status of that project is and when she expects that that project may be given the green light to move forward?
MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, if I could remind the House that we recognize the importance of providing facilities to accommodate our French first language population, our Acadian population, and to that end we have worked closely with CSAP as they identified areas of population and where the needs for facilities existed. I met with the CSAP on
[Page 466]
January 26th of this year, discussed many concerns and many issues, and it was a great learning experience for me.
One of the things that was identified by that board at that time was the need to have a facility to accommodate their high school population, and recognizing that Beaubassin was doing a very good job and we were encouraging and attracting a lot of students to our elementary schools, that translates into a population moving into the junior/senior high school and they did not have a facility to do that. So the commitment that I made at that time was to work with CSAP to provide a facility, based on information that they were sharing with us, to accommodate that population and have had several pieces of correspondence and several meetings with parents and other community groups from both sides of the harbour as to where a new school should be built to accommodate that population, and have gone back to the board to say we're committed to accommodating your population, please give us some direction as to where you believe that building should be built.
Once that is finalized and once the French communities are happy with that, or at least are understanding of the decision of the board, then we would begin immediately to look at site selection and design and move forward with construction. So we are on top of that; we recognize it. My statistics from 2005-06 is that we have just over 4,000 students in CSAP schools and we want that to grow. We don't want parents to feel that their students can't continue in their first language through to the end of Grade 12, so we're committed to that. We want to make sure that happens and at this point, as I said, we're looking at finalizing with CSAP the general location of that school and then work towards finding a site. At this point it looks like there would be a high school on both sides of the harbour, but once we get the clearance from them we will start the site selection.
MR. SAMSON: I guess in that, Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the minister could indicate - because when she's saying she's looking for the French Acadian community to indicate where they would like the school to be, but she has also been in talks with CSAP, what does it come down to? I guess if we're waiting for parents to all agree, then we're going to be here for quite some time and I don't think any of us are going to live long enough to see the school.
I guess the question is, my understanding is the CSAP has indicated they wish the new school to be built in the Bedford-Sackville area, and I believe that has already been communicated to the minister as the directive from the elected board, based on that, I'm curious, if that is the case, if she can confirm that, why is there a need for further discussion if the elected members of the Acadian board have already indicated to your department where they believe that that new high school should be constructed?
[Page 467]
[5:15 p.m.]
MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite. Yes, indeed, the CSAP did indicate to our department that their preference, based on the statistics that they had, was that the need for that new facility was on the Halifax side of the harbour. A number of parents from the Carrefour community were concerned about what that might do to their ability to deliver a high school program in their school and would that take away that critical mass that they need in order to deliver options for students. My response back to the parents was to go back to their board, make sure their board fully understood what their concerns were about that impact. Parents in that community were suggesting that perhaps they had not had an opportunity to be heard by CSAP and so I'm prepared to let that happen at the board level. That may or may not change the board's position, but at least those parents will have had an opportunity to be heard, and they need to be heard by the board.
Information that the board gave to us was that they had done that work, but this just provides an opportunity for those parents to feel that they have been heard and that the impact that it has on Carrefour is one of the things that the board had considered. It has not changed what the board came to our department with as a request for a high school on this side of the harbour, but I want to make sure that that consultation and the opportunity to be heard has been provided to all parents before we move forward.
MR. SAMSON: I guess one can never accuse the minister of not wanting more consultation. I can tell you, Madam Minister, if that's the approach with this school, you may be finding yourself in a similar situation with all other proposed new schools in this province, because site selection and getting parents to agree on schools is something that's next to impossible, and I don't envy the task that is faced by school boards in trying to make such decisions. I guess looking at it quickly, this may be a good approach, but I fear this may come back to haunt you in the future when other schools are going to be proposed. But that being the case, what time frame have you set then to allow this consultation to take place and then to accept a general location, from the Acadian School Board, on this issue?
MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, the first opportunity I had to communicate with the parents was at the end of January, right after the board meeting with CSAP. So there have been a number of pieces of correspondence and dialogue back and forth between the board and my office, between the parents and my office, and if there's not quick resolution to that I'm prepared to say that I need a letter from the board to confirm and reaffirm their location, and I would want that by the end of this school year so we can begin the site selection process.
MR. SAMSON: Madam Minister, is it then safe to assume that we should anticipate seeing in the next budget, for 2008-09, that there's going to be a commitment in that budget for the construction of a new French language Acadian high school here in the metro area?
[Page 468]
MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, the planning of a new school takes on many different stages and the first one is identifying a site. What I would be looking for is that site selection to be taking place during the 2007-08 year and then we would be going into design. We would expect that there would be some dollars in the next budget to support the design process, but there would be a definite date as to when that school should be opened, announced at the time of the design work.
MR. SAMSON: Does the minister have any proposed time frame as to when that design work would be started and when she would expect that to be completed?
MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, we do move in stages, and once the site has been selected we would be able to move into the design work. We would expect the design work to take a period of probably four to six months. It does involve bringing the community together to sit down with the architects and with the school board staff and look at how we can best design a building to fit on whatever site is chosen - so that's why choosing the site is important, because it will dictate to some degree the design of the building - and once the design tender has been called and awarded, we're looking at between a 12- to 14-month construction period. So I guess if you do the math and you start that now, you're looking at a school in the year 2009.
MR. SAMSON: Madam Minister, I hope you'll appreciate in this circumstance - I mentioned East Richmond and the importance of that project and the need to get that done - I'm sure you'll appreciate that every year that goes by, parents are basically having to make the difficult decision of taking their children from the Acadian French program and putting them into the English program due to the lack of resources available for them to continue their studies into high school. So, for us, as an Acadian community, this goes down to assimilation, it goes down to the challenges that face parents and students in being able to maintain their studies in the French language. So I do hope that the minister will be sensitive to that matter. I know all schools are important in this province, but when it comes down to language rights and the abilities of a minority to preserve their language, I would hope that the government would give particular attention to that matter, and that all efforts to see the construction of that new school and those resources being made available would be done.
Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, I know I have a limited amount of time, but the question that was put to me during my meeting with the parents on Saturday was, who determines what schools are going to be funded in the budget? So my question to the minister is, the list of schools that we saw included in the budget document, are those decided by your department or do those go to the Treasury and Policy Board or through any other government departments before being decided?
MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, the decisions as to when a new school is needed and when new renovations are needed are based on information that comes from the boards and goes to a School Capital Construction Committee, and that School
[Page 469]
Capital Construction Committee will identify and recommend to me, or to the minister, what the priorities are for schools under new construction or renovations, additions. Those decisions are a part of that School Capital Construction Committee report, which I would then take on to Cabinet for approval.
MR. SAMSON: Could the minister indicate whether Cabinet, in this year's budget, has varied at all the lists that you initially provided as a recommendation from your department before it arrived to Cabinet?
MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, the list that was used this year to determine where we would move in our capital construction is the 2003 list that was approved in 2003, there have been no changes to that. As I said earlier, the list of 12 new schools and 45 additions, renovations, were approved in 2003, and it was that list that went to Cabinet with a status of where we were with those projects and which ones should be worked on in order to complete that. So that was the process that was used.
MR. SAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I notice I have a few more minutes. I noted that in the Strait area the Mayor of Port Hawkesbury indicated great concern with the delay in the proposed renovations to the SAERC school as well. I'm wondering if the minister could indicate what the status of the renovations to that school are, being that they have been delayed apparently for a year as well, what is the plan proposal for that school's renovations as well?
MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, SAERC is another one of those schools that was on that list back in 2003 and, again, it was one of those schools that renovations would be over a number of years, different phases to the project. It is my understanding that some equipment has been purchased for installation, and the installation has not taken place. There were no dollars in this particular year's budget to do that.
What I would say to SAERC and to East Richmond and to any other school is that once the budget is approved and we're ready to move forward, we will begin to work with the school boards and communities to try to resolve and address some of their outstanding - and, I guess to use your words, I would be sensitive to some of those issues that have to be resolved.
MR. SAMSON: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Madam Minister. Let me just add this one last item of sensitivity to your list of concerns. When we did meet with the parent advisory group in St. Peters on Saturday, the principal of the school, whom you've met, actually informed the group that he has purchased a number of equipment, desks and other materials for the expansion of the elementary school - that is going to be arriving shortly - and now faces the challenge of wondering where he is going to put all that stuff, knowing that the proposed expansion has been delayed. So, if for no other reason, I am sure that the minister would not want to see the Strait Regional School Board having to rent out
[Page 470]
some sort of storage space for the new equipment for the East Richmond elementary school and would hope that the minister, for all the reasons I've outlined in my few minutes, would certainly look to moving this project forward as soon as possible, both for the community and for all the other practical concerns that I've raised as well.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister and her staff for their time today.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The Chair will recognize the honourable minister to close debate on her estimates, if she so wishes to make final comments.
MS. CASEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, to you and to the members of the House, I appreciate the opportunity to have had, I think about probably 10 hours to respond to the estimates, and appreciate the questions that have been raised. They are important to the members and they are important to me, and they are important to the communities that we serve. I would hope that the responses have answered some of the questions for all of those people and that the few that perhaps did not get a complete answer, we've made a commitment to get back and follow that up with additional information.
Again, I would repeat, it is a budget that we believe is good for education, good for students, and good for communities. We recognize that there is always a to-do list and you would like to do more, however with the resources that we have we believe that we have been able to continue to provide quality programming in all of our schools and that it would be with no program cuts and with no layoffs.
So moved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall resolution E4 stand?
Resolution E4 stands.
E5 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $250,805,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Assistance to Universities, Department of Education, pursuant to the Estimate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E5 carry?
Resolution E5 is carried.
The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.
MR. PATRICK DUNN: Mr. Chairman, would you please call the estimates for the Department of Transportation and Public Works.
[Page 471]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The Estimates for the Department of Transportation and Public Works.
E33 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $319,755,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Transportation and Public Works, pursuant to the Estimate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Transportation and Public Works.
HON. ANGUS MACISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to open the estimates debate for the Department of Transportation and Public Works. I am pleased to report on work and estimates for a number of other portfolios, namely Treasury and Policy Board, the Sydney Steel Corporation Act, including the Sydney Tar Ponds, and Gaelic Initiatives.
Before I begin my comments today, I would like to introduce the staff who are accompanying me today in the House - Doug Stewart, who is the Chief Engineer of Highway Programs, and Jane Fraser, Director of Finance for the Department of Transportation and Public Works.
I also have some staff in the gallery who will provide additional information, if needed. They are David Darrow, Deputy Minister of Transportation and Public Works; Greg Lusk, Executive Director of Public Works; Dan Davis, Director of Communications; Lewis MacKinnon, Acting CEO of Gaelic Initiatives; John Traves, President of Sydney Tar Ponds; Margaret MacDonald, Treasury and Policy Board. I'm pleased that these folks have the opportunity to spend some time with us.
[5:30 p.m.]
Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to express my appreciation to everyone in the department who has spent so much time in the preparation of the estimates. There's a lot of work that has gone on in the Johnson Building and elsewhere within the department, as well as the work that has been carried out by folks at the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency and Sydney Steel, Gaelic Affairs, and Treasury and Policy Board. The Department of Transportation and Public Works is an assembly of more than 2,000 hard-working and talented people serving this province from end to end.
Without a doubt, the members of this committee know the good work that they do and the commitment they show no matter how difficult the task. I would want at this point, Mr. Chairman, to express my appreciation to members of the House who, on a regular basis, come up to me and commend the staff of the Department of Transportation and Public Works for the work that they do. I want that to be on the record because you meet with them,
[Page 472]
they are the people on the front lines, and for you to come back with those positive comments is something that I want to put on the record.
They do an outstanding job in so many areas, including road construction, road maintenance, road safety, public safety, communications, accommodations, building maintenance, and construction - just to name a few. It is clearly a department with a wide variety of roles and it plays those roles well on behalf and for all Nova Scotians.
The department has a mandate to serve a diverse base of clients consisting of the general public, other provincial Crown government departments, and agencies of the Crown. The mission of Transportation and Public Works is delivering quality public infrastructure for Nova Scotia. We construct, maintain and manage provincial highways, buildings, and public infrastructure to provide the hardware of our society, to provide built capital that supports sustainable economic growth and social well-being, to lay the root to future prosperity for future generations, and it is the department's responsibility to develop and implement policies relating to air, marine, rail and road transport systems.
We look forward to a number of exciting opportunities this year in Transportation and Public Works. We are the lead department for the Atlantic Gateway and we will take significant steps forward this year to seize the opportunity to establish the Atlantic Gateway for Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia's potential as an international gateway includes exponential growth in container traffic, significant growth opportunities in international air passenger and cargo traffic handling, and in the cruise ship industry.
The department's priorities with regard to the Atlantic Gateway in 2007-08 are to continue to work with key stakeholders to advance Nova Scotia's position as a North American gateway for goods and passengers; to pursue with the federal government a dedicated federal funding program for gateway- related projects and initiatives; to continue to work in partnership with the other Atlantic Provinces, Transport Canada, and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to develop a broadly based Atlantic Gateway strategy to take advantage of this opportunity to benefit each of the four provinces and, of course, Canada; to work with local ports to help build awareness of Nova Scotia as a gateway for goods and passengers by participating in trade missions and marketing events; and to work with the airports that provide an important opening to Nova Scotia for both passenger and cargo markets.
We have budgeted $1 million to develop and implement an aggressive gateway communications and marketing strategy; to carry out in-depth research into gateway opportunities including container traffic, air cargo, cruise ship home porting, and short sea shipping; and to develop the capacity to track key gateway traffic activity in Nova Scotia. The department will create greater awareness of Nova Scotia's international transportation gateway assets both at home and abroad. It will work to maximize the province's full potential as a strategic international transportation gateway. Nova Scotia's development as
[Page 473]
a strategic international marine and air gateway will benefit the province, the Atlantic Region, and the country as a whole.
Members of the Committee of the Whole House on Supply should now be well aware of the department's estimated road and bridge multi-billion dollar infrastructure deficit. While the province's capital funding is more than three times the amount in 1999, it is still not enough to manage the growing deficit. That's why the Department of Transportation and Public Works is excited by the new infrastructure-related funding programs announced in the recent federal budget. Nova Scotia's entitlement under the programs is expected to total several hundred million dollars over the course of the next seven years. The programs include the Building Canada Program, the Gateways and Border Crossings Funds, the Equal Per Jurisdiction Funding Program, and the P3 Projects Fund.
Mr. Chairman, Nova Scotia and other provinces and territories have lobbied the Government of Canada for long-term, stable and predictable infrastructure funding for many years. Up until the recent federal budget, these appeals have fallen on deaf ears. These new funding programs will go a long way toward enabling Nova Scotia to achieve its full potential as an international transportation gateway, and facilitating much-needed improvements to the province's highway infrastructure. The department is looking forward to learning more about program parameters and being able to put in place the agreements and protocols necessary to allow cost-shared projects to proceed as quickly as possible.
Mr. Chairman, this year, the Nova Scotia Government will spend $2.2 million more on roads than it collects in gas revenues and Registry of Motor Vehicles revenues to maintain and improve Nova Scotia's highways, roads and bridges. Overall, the Department of Transportation and Public Works capital budget for 2007-08 is about $179 million. This includes close to $145 million for highways and another $34 million for capital construction on buildings.
Mr. Chairman, the department's capital budget is the second largest in the province's history. We will see more twinned highways and better secondary highways across Nova Scotia. Indeed, we are well on the way to meeting our commitment to pave 2,000 kilometres over four years. The money available this year will allow us to continue with the twinning of five and a half kilometres of Highway No. 101 between Falmouth and Hantsport. We will also continue to work on the twinning of a four-kilometre stretch of Highway No. 104 between New Glasgow and Sutherlands River.
The department will be upgrading and repaving sections on a number of important tourist routes, including eight kilometres on Route 333, the Peggy's Cove Road, and another 10.5 kilometres on the Cabot Trail. The amount of money, maintenance work, carried out on rural roads is increasing in 2007-08 due to a $2.5 million increase over last year's budget. This year's investment is $20 million. The road improvement money will go to asphalt patching, ditching and gravelling, shoulder repairs, guardrails, and brush cutting. This year's
[Page 474]
investment meets the commitment made in 2003-04 to increase the RIM to $20 million by the year 2008. These projects are largely tendered, leading to greater cost efficiencies for taxpayers and first-rate work for residents.
We are also receiving an additional $625,000 in funding for the four Rs - rehabilitation, restoration, reconstruction and resurfacing. This will bring the total non-tangible capital assets investment in this four-year program to $2.5 million. The funding is used to carry out a variety of similar projects including intersection improvements and signals, repaving of roads less than two kilometres in length, and small bridge replacement and repairs. This is the fifth year of a program to replace our aging steel-truss bridges. Expenditures for 2007-08 are estimated to be $5 million, largely to replace six bridges. The program will be extended for another three years beginning in 2008-09.
One of the most important roles of the Department of Transportation and Public Works is to provide a provincial highway system that is safe for all road users. Our budget for 2007-08 designates $916,000 to our road safety program, and $350,000 of that is going to social marketing initiatives. My department will focus on road safety-related projects to influence smarter choices by Nova Scotians, be they drivers, pedestrians or cyclists. We will examine the attitudes and behaviours toward road safety, and set out to educate road users and convince them to make good decisions every time.
The department will continue to develop and launch campaigns targeting risk-taking young drivers. The objective is to make the issue of speeding and impaired driving important enough to young drivers so they will take action. We're working with the Registry of Motor Vehicles, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health Promotion and Protection to bring the Alcohol Ignition Interlock Program on line this year. The department will work with its road safety partners to promote safe road use in these and other programs.
We will also take action to ensure that our crosswalks are safe. I've directed my department to work with the Halifax Regional Municipality to create a joint working group to improve crosswalk safety. The working group will bring forward the best approaches on this serious issue to the municipality and the province. We will seek input from other municipal units as well.
Our Public Works Division is responsible for providing services, including building design and construction, building services and operations, and accommodations for government departments, agencies, boards and commissions. It is also responsible for the co-operative delivery and management of government-wide information technology and telecommunications services, including the management of province-wide mobile radio programs for public safety and public works agencies at all levels of government, as well as government postal services.
[Page 475]
This vital government service is responsible for the care and operation of 2,200 structures across Nova Scotia, including 25 provincial buildings and courthouses. It manages 16 industrial parks and 10 water utilities. Public Works also builds, upgrades and maintains schools, and special projects such as continuing care homes, justice centres, other provincial facilities and service buildings for government departments and agencies. In this fiscal year, about $34 million is allocated for renovations to government buildings and new construction projects. Work this year includes the continuation of the Lunenburg Provincial Building, Government House, Lunenburg Justice Centre, and Yarmouth Justice Centre.
Public Works is responsible for the delivery of new schools and major school renovation projects that are included in the Department of Education's capital program. We will continue working with our colleagues in Education to design and construct high-quality projects that will address the current infrastructure needs, and provide the setting for the delivery of high-quality education for future generations.
In 2007-08, Public Works aims to reach a consensus with the Halifax Regional Municipality regarding the redevelopment of various public lands in metro Halifax. We will undertake negotiations with HRM for the swap of strategic properties required by each for key developments.
Our Engineering, Design and Construction division will continue to meet the guidelines of the government's Energy Strategy for buildings by performing work to existing buildings to decrease energy consumption and to continue to work toward the goal of achieving 25 per cent better than the Model National Energy Code for all new building construction. It will also continue to manage the design and construction of new schools and school renovation projects for the Department of Education. It will work to obtain Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification on at least 50 per cent of new buildings, and Public Works will also work to continue to raise its leasing standards to ensure the buildings we lease are environmentally friendly.
[5:45 p.m.]
We're continuing our work to create a barrier-free access to government and public buildings. The province is committed to ensuring persons with disabilities benefit equally from services offered to the general public within government-owned and -leased properties. Transportation and Public Works requires all new buildings and new leases to be barrier-free, and incorporates barrier-free design into renovations of existing buildings whenever possible.
Public Works provides common services to government users - everything from postal services to accommodations services to government-wide provision of information technology and telecommunications service. The staff in this division manage accommodations for all departments, boards, agencies, and commissions. They sell surplus land and manage inventory.
[Page 476]
Public Works operates the largest data centre and information network in Nova Scotia. Staff work to protect our computers from outside attacks and manage some thousands upon thousands of e-mails that flow in and out of government each day. Department staff handle government-wide contracts for telecommunications, negotiate tendered agreements for local and long distance telephone service and data and cellphone service.
Public Works delivers cutting-edge emergency and field radio services to 14,000 government and emergency first responders. Through the Public Safety and Field Communications Office, staff work to enhance public safety and responses to emergencies. They are responsible for the Trunked Mobile Radio System. This first-class radio communications system links all emergency services in the province - police to EMO staff to volunteer firefighters and many others.
Environmental remediation is an important part of the Public Works portfolio. It involves routine work for site management such as demolitions, disposals and cleanups. Our Environmental Services division is in charge of such large projects as returning Boat Harbour to a tidal estuary and the ongoing monitoring at Five Island Lake.
As minister responsible for the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency, I was very pleased to announce in January that both the federal and provincial governments approved the cleanup of the tar ponds and coke ovens sites. The province has $120 million committed to the important project and the work has already begun. Two new agencies have taken over the role of Sysco and Sydney Environmental Resources Limited - Nova Scotia Lands and Harbourside Commercial Park are now in operation.
Harbourside Commercial Park is managing the land that has been remediated on the former Sysco steel mill site, as well as the related buildings and leases. It will become a self-sufficient corporation, making a positive impact on economic development in the local area. Harbourside currently has 13 tenants on-site. Nova Scotia Lands Inc. is managing the completion of the environmental remediation of the Sysco property, and as parts of the site are remediated they will be transferred to the commercial park.
Once the remediation of the Sysco site is complete, Nova Scotia Lands will use the expertise it has developed to continue remediation activities on former Sysco properties and other potential lands as funding becomes available.
I'd like to speak for a few moments about initiatives at Treasury and Policy Board. Better regulation continues to be a major priority. The province continues to be committed to creating simpler, more effective regulation that will cut time and expenses for business. The better regulation initiative is working to improve the way laws are designed, communicated and enforced in Nova Scotia, ultimately improving the competitiveness of our business.
[Page 477]
We will continue on the 2006 pledge to reduce the paperwork burden associated with regulatory requirements by 20 per cent by 2010. In addition to this commitment, by 2010 all departments will meet a standard of no more than 10 business days to process licences, permits, and approvals. Exceptions to this 10-day commitment on wait times will only be permitted where an alternate service standard has been approved by Executive Council and posted for public information.
As an interim step, by 2008 the wait times associated with 50 per cent of all provincial licences, permits, and approvals will be 10 days or less and service guarantees will be introduced for several types of licences, permits, or approvals.
The governance and accountability initiative to strengthen policies and procedures among third party entities also continues to be a priority. TPB has now developed corporate orientation materials for members of government boards. These materials were introduced at a rollout event in February, which included approximately 80 board chairs and CEOs. To date, Treasury and Policy Board staff have conducted six information presentations with individual boards to familiarize them with these orientation materials, and five more presentations are scheduled in the coming weeks.
I also want to take a moment to note that Treasury and Policy Board has initiated a new approach to the government business plan to provide a more directional, higher-level discussion of the government's vision for a new Nova Scotia. The 2007-08 business plan provides highlights of the government's current business, along with our longer-term priorities toward our vision. This type of discussion better reflects the government's move from simply getting an annual plan to creating a lasting path for the future of Nova Scotia.
As minister responsible for Gaelic Affairs, I am pleased to tell you that the Office of Gaelic Affairs will pursue the following initiatives in its first year of inception: the promotion of Gaelic language and culture throughout the month of May, which has been designated by the Gaelic community of the province as Gaelic Awareness Month; the establishment of a Web site and ready access for the office, providing valuable information and links to members of the community and public; funding support for community-based initiatives that focus on Gaelic language and culture development; Gaelic studies curriculum for Grades 3 to 9, led by the Department of Education with co-operation from the Office of Gaelic Affairs; English-Gaelic boundary signs to be erected this summer in a number of the traditionally Gaelic-speaking areas of the province; and, last but not least, a new office of Gaelic Affairs is soon to open in Antigonish.
I am pleased to report that the 2007-08 budget earmarked $450,000 for activities that will help develop Gaelic heritage across the province.
With those opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the questions and discussions that will occur over the next number of hours.
[Page 478]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
The honourable member for Pictou West.
MR. CHARLES PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I feel something like the movie, I think it was called Girl Interrupted - well I feel like member interrupted because I know in just about five minutes we're going to go to the late debate, but at least I will get started here with a few opening comments or some questions.
Unlike the minister, I don't have a prepared text but I certainly do have some questions I will be asking of the minister. First of all, I just want to say that I have been quite pleased with the co-operation I've received from the minister's department, both at the provincial level and the local riding level in Pictou County. I have had the opportunity to work with Area Manager Troy Webb, and I've had good co-operation from him over the years, and also with Operations Supervisors like Dave English and Bernie MacDonald, Locke Woolley and John McAllister. I guess those would be the four in my particular riding. Generally, it has been good, the co-operation, I certainly appreciate it at all levels within the department.
So I guess enough for the kudos, and I will start now with some questions. I will start off, Mr. Chairman, with asking the minister about the infrastructure deficit that he referenced. As you know, it is probably over $4 billion right now in Nova Scotia. It was $3.5 billion in 2001 when the 10-year study was done. Unfortunately, it's getting larger rather than smaller; it's getting worse rather than better.
In light of your government's promise last year, Mr. Minister, with the program of 2,000 kilometres of new paving, I guess it was called the largest repaving project in 40 years in this province, and it looks to me like our infrastructure deficit is not only increasing, but I looked at the budget estimates, I think it's on Page 1.11 where it talks about the capital budget for this fiscal year, and I notice it has actually gone down as compared to last year. So I guess my first question is, in light of the infrastructure deficit, in light of the promise to have the largest repaving project in 40 years - I see the capital budget has gone from about $225 million, roughly, for roads and bridges, down this year to $155 million, it's about a $70 million drop, the way I interpret it - I just would like to know, in light of those facts, why is it that we are spending less on roads in spite of the promises or in spite of the infrastructure deficit and in spite of many unacceptable roads out there? I'm going to ask that first question to the minister.
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, I will try to be concise so we can answer the question before 6:00 o'clock. Actually, the estimate forecast from last year to this is $176 million, this year $145 million. If you look at the numbers from that perspective, that is where we are going. Certainly, the challenge of the infrastructure deficit is very, very significant. However, as I indicated in my opening remarks, we have seen, in this year's
[Page 479]
federal budget, an allocation of money from the Government of Canada that will allow us to make some very significant strides with respect to addressing the infrastructure deficit in this province. We are currently in the process of redefining that deficit and will be coming forward with new figures, but, for the first time, the Government of Canada has come forward with a significant amount of money that will allow us to vigorously attack that deficit over the period of the next seven years.
MR. PARKER: Maybe if I could refer the minister then to Page 1.11. While it's true you say the estimate is $176 million, but in actual fact, last year, almost $225 million was spent on roads and bridges in this province, and this year it's $70 million less. It's down to $155 million, approximately. Why such a large discrepancy? If last year we spent $225 million, this year we are only spending $155 million, why the difference?
MR. MACISAAC: There are two numbers that help explain that. Number one is, we have a $23.5 million recovery from the Government of Canada.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We have arrived at the moment of interruption. The Committee of the Whole House on Supply with recess until 6:30 p.m. and then the minister will continue. Thank you.
[6:00 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[6:30 p.m. The committee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Transportation and Public Works.
MR. MACISAAC: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before the moment of interruption arrived, I was responding to a question asking for an explanation of the variance between the numbers of the capital budget last year compared to this year. I did provide an explanation that there was an amount of $23 million in recoveries from the Government of Canada which came to us afterwards. Our money doesn't flow as the projects are spent but it comes to us afterwards and, as a result of that additional $23 million, we were able to add that to the capital budget. Also, the Dartmouth Crossing numbers were approximately $18 million - no, as much as $23 million of that project, and the private sector contributed to a major portion of the Dartmouth Crossing project as well. So if you add those two numbers together, it comes pretty close to filling out the difference.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou West.
MR. CHARLES PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess the private contribution that's made by companies in this province is not certainly in your government's budget, I wouldn't think, but in actual fact, as I pointed out previous to the late debate, we're
[Page 480]
actually planning or budgeting for $70 million less in road and bridge construction, capital construction for this fiscal year as compared to what we actually spent last year. Last year we actually spent $225 million, approximately; this year we're budgeting or planning for approximately $155 million. So that's what the budget estimates show, and that, I take it, is fact.
I want to ask the minister, in relation to the overall budget for the province, I think it's somewhere around $7 billion for all departments, for the Department of Transportation and Public Works, the Department of Health, the Department of Education, and so on. What per cent of that budget of the total province's budget is actually for the Department of Transportation and Public Works?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, some quick arithmetic would tell me it's in the vicinity of 5 per cent.
MR. PARKER: Well, in actual fact, Mr. Minister, it's about 4.7 per cent. (Interruption) Well, that's quick arithmetic, I guess you would call it. In past years, the budget was a much larger per cent of the overall budget. I think it was 6 per cent, it was 7 per cent, it was 8 per cent at one time in our history, but it seems to be getting - as a per cent of the overall budget, it is actually dropping, it's down to 4.7 per cent now. As we talked about the infrastructure deficit is actually increasing, it would be great if that budget amount was going up to match the deficit that we have but, in actual fact, it seems to be going in the wrong direction, it's less and less of the total overall budget. That's just a point. I'm not asking for an explanation, I'm just pointing that out.
I want to come back to the commitment that was made last June. The Premier announced, I guess as part of Nova Scotia's Route to Prosperity plan, that we would have the largest single paving program in 40 years, about 2,000 kilometres. Can the minister tell us how many kilometres were actually done last year, what amount of kilometres were finished for new paving?
MR. MACISAAC: Approximately 575 kilometres were paved last year.
MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, so coming into this calendar year, where we've budgeted less for capital projects, are we going to see a corresponding amount for this year, or will it be up - is paving cheaper to do this year than last year, or what's the amount of kilometres that's predicted for 2007-08?
MR. MACISAAC: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We obviously, with the numbers not being as great as they were last year, don't anticipate reaching a number as high as 575. We do, in our long-term projections, anticipate reaching the 2,000 kilometre commitment.
[Page 481]
MR. PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess you can't put a figure on it for this calender year whether it's going to be less than the 575, but you're not sure whether it's going to be 500 or 400, or just what. Part of the reason I'm asking, certainly, as you know, the Nova Scotia Road Builders Association, the organization that looks after road construction in our province, has been lobbying for years for an idea of what's going to be going on for the year, and they're always looking for early tenders and hoping that road construction will be laid out for the calendar year so that they can have a plan, they'll know what they realistically rely upon.
Of course, as you know, the member companies of that organization, as with all companies, need the plan for the year and see what they can forecast, and some of their employees, if they feel there's not going to be enough work, some of them are leaving their province. Some of them are going out to Alberta and elsewhere. It's difficult for some of these companies to plan not knowing - is there's going to be 575 kilometres this year, is there going to be 400 kilometres - how much work they can realistically expect. It would be helpful to them, it would be helpful to all of us if there was a plan or a prediction for the year on how many kilometres of paving, approximately, that could be planned upon. In that light, is it possible to look at early tender calls, so they can make their plans for the year?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, our first tender calls for work this year went out in October of last year. A number went out through the course of the winter and, in recent weeks, we have sent quite a number of tenders out for public advertisement. As a result of that, contractors in the province, because these tenders are distributed fairly evenly throughout the province, are able to start responding and have an indication of what work they're able to think about in the shorter term. In the longer term we have, as much as we can - not being presumptuous about the decisions of the Legislature - indicated to contractors that we anticipated a year that would be at least as healthy as the year before last with respect to work. That will come as no surprise to them when they look at it.
So in answer to your question, yes, we do call early tenders, and contractors are having an opportunity to respond to quite a bit of work that is going out. We are in the course of preparing estimates for future work, and we have to time the calling of these tenders so that the work can, in fact, be spread out through the course of the year and that all contractors in the province have an opportunity to respond to the tender calls as they go forward. So if we were to put everything out at once, then you would not get the competitive bidding that we need in order to keep our prices down and keep our prices competitive. So as a result we do, on a planned basis, a distribution of the tender calls throughout the course of the construction season timed in such a way that the final jobs that are advertised can, in fact, be completed before the end of the construction season, given a reasonably normal season from a weather perspective.
MR. PARKER: You mentioned in the first part of your comments this time about the amount of work that can be expected might be roughly equivalent to what was the year
[Page 482]
before last. Can you enlighten us as to what amount of pavement that was the year before last?
MR. MACISAAC: The year before last, it was an amount of 470 kilometres. That was in a time when the prices of liquid asphalt were quite high. So until you actually put the tenders out and you get the results back, it becomes very difficult to estimate precisely the number of kilometres that would be involved. So you don't really know the answer to that question in precise terms until all of the tenders are in and the work is underway. It is a guide, but it is nothing very precise, because you can't predict what's going to happen from year to year with respect to the tender calls.
MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, last year, 575 kilometres were paved in Nova Scotia, and the year before that it was 470 kilometres. I understand you can't give us an exact figure but I guess we're just looking for perhaps what it is you hope, based on the present budget, that you might be able to do in new paving this fiscal year.
MR. MACISAAC: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could just put the challenge of trying to predict in perspective for the honourable member. In 2005, the unit cost, for example, the cost per kilometre of pavement in the province was $219,000; in 2006, the cost was $304,000 per kilometre. So that's quite a variance in terms of price. What the price will be this year, we won't know precisely until such time as the tenders start to come in. I'm not going to speak publicly at this stage about what we're seeing coming in, because I want to protect the competitiveness of the bid process.
MR. PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can appreciate the confidentiality of the bidding process, but I guess I was just trying to get a ballpark figure but, hopefully, as much as is possible or more, because as we know, there are many, many roads out there that are - I guess the best word I can describe them as, on the secondary roads, is unacceptable. Many of them are very, very poor, and there are 23,000 kilometres of roads in this province - and I'm not sure what percentage of those need work under the infrastructure deficit, but there are thousands of kilometres that need work. Every reasonable effort should be made to try to tackle that infrastructure deficit, for sure.
Early tender calls, I know there have been some early tender calls this year. Certainly in the minister's own riding there have been some called, as well as in other parts of the province. I want to turn my attention now to my own riding of Pictou West and just bring to the minister's attention some of the poor quality roads that are there, and hoping that our fair share of road paving and road repair will occur in this fiscal year.
I can use the word of the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations in backing up some of my claims to some of the roads that I'm going to refer to, as he also travels over a number of these roads that I'll refer to, starting with the River John Road, which runs off the Sunrise Trail all the way out through Hodson and Hedgeville and right to
[Page 483]
the Leetik's restaurant/service station in the Village of River John. The Old Post Road is another very, very poor road, it runs off the River John Road toward the West Branch Road. The West Branch Road itself is partly finished, but there are about three kilometres that are not, that are really in very, very poor shape. The Cape John Road, where heavy construction occurred over the last few years, and repairing the wharf at the end of the road is in pretty poor condition. The Mountain Road, near River John, not as heavily travelled as some of these that I have just mentioned but also in poor shape.
I've heard from tourism operators who tell me that it's hurting their business. I'm thinking particularly of the roads that lead to Stonehame Chalets in Scotsburn, roads like the O. MacLean Road and the Durham Road. If you've ever had the opportunity to stay at the Pictou Lodge, that fine facility just outside of the Town of Pictou, on the shore, those folks have also mentioned to me that their business is being hurt by the condition of the Three Brooks Road. I've had fire department operators tell me that their response time is hindered by the slowness of their drive to get to a house fire or an emergency, in particular, the Caribou Fire Department on the Division Road, and the Central Caribou Road, the Bay View Road, and again that Three Brooks Road, as I mentioned, that's all in their territory.
[6:45 p.m.]
Other roads that are also in poor condition, the Scotch Hill Road, where the former member for Pictou West, Donnie MacInnis, would live. Perhaps you've heard him mention that road in the past at any point that you might have been talking to him. The Green Hill Road near the scenic look-off, the Millbrook Road, just the main drive through Lyons Brook coming out of Pictou, Highway No. 376, and also Highway No. 256, from Lyons Brook through to Scotsburn and beyond. I could go on. There are many, many roads that are in poor, unacceptable condition. Many of them are potholed, have broken pavement and falling-away shoulders, and just on it goes.
AN HON. MEMBER: Name the one you don't want considered.
MR. PARKER: I'll mention a couple of others. The Westville Road between New Glasgow and Westville, a very busy highway and it certainly needs quite a lot of work; the old Truro highway, past the drive-in theatre near Exit 21; the Abercrombie Road, past Neenah Paper; the road in front of Michelin Tire, it's called the Granton-Abercrombie Road. There are just a large number of roads that are truly unacceptable in my particular riding. So I'm bringing them again to the attention of the minister; I had a chance earlier this afternoon to mention some of them as well.
I would invite you, Mr. Minister, if you have the opportunity, to come to Pictou West and take a drive over some of these roads and you'll see first-hand exactly what I'm talking about. It's not just me, it's tourism operators, it's fire department emergency response people, it's groups such as the Nova Scotia Road Builders Association, and the chamber of
[Page 484]
commerce - many, many people are saying that many of our roads need serious work. So I'm bringing some of the roads in Pictou West to your attention hoping that at least some of them will be looked at this year.
So I guess that's my question. I want to ask, what capital projects are actually planned in the riding of Pictou West for 2007-08?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, I can tell the honourable member that I did have an opportunity on a couple of occasions to travel on some of the roads in Pictou West, and I wouldn't disagree with the honourable member that there are some challenges there, as there are in other parts of the province that I travel, with respect to the roads.
The honourable member made reference to the West Branch Road, and he would know that there is a commitment for us to complete the work on that road this year, and it is our intention to do that. A few of the other roads that he mentioned will be getting more than a look, but until the program is really finalized, I'm not going to be specific about them, but I can assure the honourable member that there is some other work that will be done in that part of the province.
The other thing I would draw to the attention of the honourable member and other members is that while some of these roads are indeed a challenge, the fact is that this year we have achieved a level of $20 million in the RIM program - the Road Improvement Money program. Many of these roads, their condition, while it is short term, granted, is being improved so that people can use these roads and their condition is improved. There's shouldering gravel placed on them, the ditching is done, which helps preserve the road, bush cutting is done, spreader patch paving is done on these roads, guardrails are put in. So we are able to improve the quality of transportation on these roads through the provision of the RIM money. It's not a substitute for the long-term rehabilitation that has to take place, but it is something that allows us to provide people with a better quality riding surface in the shorter term, and it is extending the life of these roads considerably.
MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I guess I did hear the minister say there's a commitment to complete the West Branch Road. I guess not the portion that was tendered last year, but the actual 3 kilometres or 2.9 kilometres, whatever was left from not being done last year. Is that true? Is it the whole West Branch Road to be completed? (Interruption) Okay. That's good news, good to hear. I thought that's what I had heard previously, but I just wanted to confirm that.
I guess there are, as I said, many, many, many roads in the riding that need work. I, again, would just urge the minister to do what he can to bring some remedy to some of these poor-quality roads. Many of them are well travelled, like the Westville Road between New Glasgow and Westville, the Sunrise Trail through River John, and through Scotsburn and so on. Those are heavily travelled. They are in great need, but there are many, I guess, that are
[Page 485]
perhaps a little less travelled but probably in just as great a need. I mentioned the River John Road as one in particular, and the Old Post Road, those are ones that come to mind - less traffic than on a main route, but nonetheless in very, very poor condition. I guess I would just ask that we be treated fairly and get our fair share of capital projects that would be equitable to all ridings, no matter whose riding it might contain. Equity, or fairness, should be seen to be done, it really needs to be done.
So I will leave it at that, but I will point out again, as I did last year during the estimates, that Pictou County contains 10 per cent of the province's roads, and it would seem fair and equitable - I think the minister pointed this out to me last year - that they should, over time, receive 10 per cent of the capital budget. I'm not going to ask that as a question. I'm going to leave that comment with you, that I hope they would be divvied out on an equitable basis.
The RIM project, you mentioned - perhaps I will come around to the question then - I know the RIM project, there's $20 million in the budget for asphalt patching and gravelling and ditching and guardrails and so on. It's roughly allocated, I'm told, on a per kilometre basis around the province. Can I ask, would capital paving projects also be allocated on a per kilometre basis in the province?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, the decision-making process with respect to RIM as opposed to TCA, the TCA process is a much more vigorous process in terms of the road testing and the evaluation that goes into the rating of the roads and those that should have the money spent on them. The RIM money - the decision making is very much confined to the local staff of the Department of Transportation and Public Works. I encourage those folks to consult with the MLAs in the areas in terms of where the members feel there is a need for RIM money to be spent. I take from what the honourable member said at the outset that he feels there is reasonably good communication between himself and the local staff, so that is taking place. I know the honourable member speaks highly of Troy Webb.
There is far more room for local input with respect to the RIM decision-making process, and the other is a much bigger process. So when you ask the question about whether it's done on a per kilometre basis, if you did an evaluation over time you would find that's very much the case. But you also have to bear in mind that if we took it on a per constituency basis there might seem to be a distortion, because 100-Series Highways obviously get the greater amount of attention, then trunk roads, connector roads, and then of course county roads, unfortunately, come after that.
So it very much depends in an area where, you know, how many kilometres is there of 100-Series Highways in an area, how many kilometres are there of trunk highways in an area, how many kilometres are there of connector route roads in an area in terms of how the money is apportioned with respect to TCA money, but over time I think the honourable member would find that it's reasonably close to the per kilometre thing. You won't find that
[Page 486]
in a per annum basis, but over a period of time, if you did an analysis, you would find that was so.
MR. PARKER: Well, in light of that, Mr. Chairman, I wonder, Mr. Minister, is it possible to get a breakdown of the expenditures per riding on secondary roads? I know that the Trans-Canada 100-Series, perhaps it's mixed in with it, but is there a separation of secondary roads compared to 100-Series Highways and is it possible to get a financial breakdown on the expenditures perhaps over a three-year or five-year period to see if it's equitable over time, as the minister indicates, per riding - now, not for urban ridings, obviously, but I mean for rural ridings throughout the province? I know you don't have it right at your fingertips, but is it possible to get a breakdown, say, over the last five years per riding for capital construction on secondary roads?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, just to add further to what I was saying before, looking at it in a one-year period, if we were to consider the riding of Preston for instance, if we were to apportion the money based on the kilometres of roads that are in Preston, then Preston would get about $200,000 worth of work, but because Highway No. 107 and Highway No. 7 go through Preston it just so happens that in this year they're probably going to be in the vicinity of $2 million being spent on Highway No. 107 in that riding. So that would be a huge distortion if you were to look at it in that way. The honourable member asked, we'll have a look to see what's possible with respect to sharing of information that may be of use to the honourable member.
MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, that's exactly right. The 100-Series Highways can distort the figures, so that's why I was asking is it possible to get, with the 100-Series Highways taken out, you know, just for secondary roads only. While also I realize that some ridings certainly have more roads than others, and perhaps Preston has far less kilometres than Pictou West for example, but still it would be useful to have a breakdown on the secondary road spending per riding over the last five-year period, if that's possible. So I'll leave that with you and your staff.
[7:00 p.m.]
I want to switch gears here a little bit I guess and turn to the 100-Series Highways. I know the minister outlined in his opening statements some work that's going to be done on Highway No. 104 and I think it was Highway No. 101, and perhaps Highway No. 103 as well, but Highway Nos. 104 and 101 for sure. I know the Highway No. 104 section is in the Sutherlands River-Pine Tree area of Pictou County, and I heard the minister refer to the hope that there's considerably more federal funding coming over the next number of years. Over the past years, we certainly haven't gotten a lot of federal funding in comparison to our sister province, New Brunswick, that received hundreds of millions of dollars worth of federal dollars to build their Trans-Canada Highway or to double the strip there in northern New Brunswick, and in fact we've had a real dearth of dollars here in this province in comparison.
[Page 487]
I guess my first particular question is around the Highway No. 104 project. I understand it's approximately a $32 million project and we're paying, if I remember correctly, around $17 million and the feds are paying about $15 million. It was my understanding these projects were to be cost shared 50-50. I guess my question is, why are we paying more than the federal government if it's supposed to be a 50-50 agreement?
MR. MACISAAC: The cost-sharing arrangement relates to the cost of actual construction of the roads themselves. It does not take into account additional costs related to the purchase of property of those roads, that's something the province must pick up on its own so that the cost of buying the property and getting it done, the engineering costs associated with the road, the design of the road, that's all work that is conducted by the province in preparation for environmental assessments. All of those things the province picks up the tab for, so when you look at the total tab with respect to the road, the federal government does cost share 50-50 on the actual construction cost, but the design work, the purchase of property, and environmental assessment is all work that we must pay for out of the province.
The reference earlier to the federal infrastructure money that came to this province, I would remind the honourable member that much of the federal infrastructure money, in addition to going to roads it also went to the harbour cleanup here in Halifax and went to the cleanup of the Sydney tar ponds. Those are items that had to be dealt with in this province, part of the infrastructure challenge of the province, and that's where much of the money went. New Brunswick didn't have those challenges and was able to take all of that money and put it on roads.
MR. PARKER: Coming back to the 50-50 cost sharing, obviously part of the construction to build a road is to buy the land to put it on. It seems to me the federal government should pay their share of that as well, rather than us having to pay the whole thing. In the end we're paying 55 per cent and the feds are only paying 45 per cent of the total cost to build a road, including land purchase - and there seems something a little unfair about that.
Coming back to Highway No. 101, I believe it was a couple of years ago that delays in construction or whatever, it ended up that the province paid certainly the lion's share of that particular project - or still is, I should say. I think it was supposed to be around $30.5 million each and by the time it started and got going, I think the province ended up paying an additional $20 million or something over and above what the feds were paying. I don't know if that was because of delay in time in getting it started or what, but it seems we're not really getting a 50-50 deal out of the federal government. It's more of a 40-60 or something in their favour - there is a little bit of a creep there on Highway No. 104, if it's land purchases or whatever. It seems to me that if it's going to be 50-50, then it should be that right down the line until the project is completed. So perhaps the team that negotiates with Ottawa needs to lay that out very firmly and make sure we do get a fair 50-50 deal.
[Page 488]
Can I ask then about that process of who it is that negotiates with the federal government to see if we can get a fair deal or not - does it end up being 50-50 or, as I pointed out, is it actually ending up not in our favour? Is it yourself, Mr. Minister, or is it department staff, or is there somebody hired to lobby the feds to get our fair share? I would just like to know about the process - how is it we negotiate to make sure we get our fair share?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, the federal government sets the parameters which are the same right across the country with respect to what it is they will cost share on. So they define what they will cost share on and that definition is the same for Ontario as it is for New Brunswick, as it is for Saskatchewan, as it is for Nova Scotia. So they have said they will cost share in the cost of construction of the roads. I can tell you that as early as today my chief engineer had a discussion with a senior federal bureaucrat making the exact same arguments that you have made and received the same answers that I have just given to you. That's how they set the parameters. The negotiations that would take place would be negotiations with respect to what roads would receive funding and the schedule and the flow of that funding over time, but the parameters with respect to what it is they will cost share are set by the Government of Canada.
MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, that's good to know. Hopefully we have as strong a negotiating team there at the table as possible to make sure we do get our fair share of federal dollars coming to Nova Scotia. As I pointed out earlier, we have not always gotten as much as other provinces.
I want to ask, in that negotiation, is there ever any discussion about secondary roads? The federal government collects $145 million approximately from this province every year in gasoline tax and, as we know, a very small portion of that comes back to Nova Scotia. I understand there have been some discussions about other provinces trying to get federal dollars to help with their secondary roads. We certainly have a large infrastructure deficit, as we have talked about, in our secondary roads in particular. Are there any plans or any negotiations with the feds to see if they would look at funding some of our needs on secondary roads and are any other provinces actually moving forward with that?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, the Government of Canada, in the same way that they set the parameters with respect to the cost-sharing numbers, also dictate what roads they are prepared to spend money on, and to date they've indicated they will spend money on roads that are considered to be part of the National Highway System or a feeder part of the National Highway System - we're hoping we can get that included which would include Highway No. 103. So the ability to get federal funding for county roads, and that sort of thing, to date has not been anticipated, and we have not received any indication from the Government of Canada that they are prepared to spend money in those ways. At any rate, that's the situation as it is now.
[Page 489]
I will point out to the honourable member that we are in the process of having discussions with the Government of Canada concerning those programs that have been outlined in the most recent federal budget, and we are attempting to get a handle on just what is going to be in those programs. To date, we don't have a clear picture but a few turns of the telescope have occurred, so what was rather blurry two weeks ago is starting to produce some images that are still far from being clear, but are nevertheless clearer than they were a little while ago.
We wouldn't anticipate being in a position to know in any real detail what we can anticipate from the Government of Canada until early June - it will take them that long to receive approval of their programs from the federal Cabinet. So far they have identified program names, they have attached a number to those program names, and now they are working through the details themselves as to how all of that is going to work.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Fairview on an introduction.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Mr. Chairman, as a former Cub Scout myself, it gives me great pleasure to draw the attention of the House to some special visitors in the west gallery. They are members from the 3rd Rockingham Cub Scout Pack along with their leaders: Rod Tilley who holds the position of Akela, Mark Thornton, and Stephen Power. I particularly wanted to draw the attention of the House to the fact that one of the members is Jonathan Ferguson who is the son of our Assistant Clerk and Legislative Counsel, Neil Ferguson. So please welcome the members of the Rockingham Cub Scouts. (Applause)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Welcome.
MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I, too, welcome our cubs and scouts here tonight. I guess as a former Cub and Scout and Scout leader, I certainly know that it's a valuable program and it's just great to have you here this evening.
I just have one final question for the minister in relation to the federal agreements. I know from time to time the ministers across the country meet to discuss strategy and see how they're going to approach the federal government and negotiate with them. Again, in light of our huge infrastructure deficit on our secondary roads in particular, has it ever been discussed or talked about that maybe you could approach the federal government to see if they might consider funding on any of our secondary roads and has it ever been done - has any other province ever received funding in that regard that you're aware of?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, I also want to join in welcoming our visitors to the gallery tonight. It's interesting that three of us who have been on our feet have all been former Cubs and Cub leaders. I'm included in that category myself and certainly welcome them to the Legislature tonight. I don't know if the fact that three of us can get up and lay claim to that is any prediction as to what any of these young folks might be doing in the
[Page 490]
future or not, but we certainly do welcome them here tonight and hope that it's a learning experience for them.
I can point out to them that what I'm doing now, the phrase we use is I am "defending the estimates" of the Department of Transportation and Public Works. We come forward to the Legislature, as a department, and we request from the Legislature their approval to spend a certain amount of money on roads in the province, as well as public works. As part of that approval process, members of the Legislature are entitled to ask me questions about the estimates and the numbers that are (Interruption) Oh, they're gone, well, for anybody else who is listening I will continue with the explanation. It's part of the process of getting approval.
At any rate, the honourable member asked me a question, I hope I can remember what it is. He asked if there was ever a time in the past when the federal government did provide assistance to county roads, and I am informed that in the period of the early 1990s, when the federal government decided to discontinue the freight subsidies to this part of the world, that part of the compensation, at that time, was that we would receive some money for county roads, but like many federal programs, it was not something that stuck or lasted. It was salve to put on the wound for losing the freight subsidy, and we accepted the salve and put it on the wound, and the program expired. So we don't have any real history of federal money being spent on secondary roads in the province.
[7:15 p.m.]
MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I guess like Boy Scouts, we all have tonight to be here to be prepared.
Anyway, I'm going to just close that section on the 100-Series Highways and just encourage the minister in his meetings with other ministers across the country and in sitting down with the feds, to look at asking or negotiating or lobbying or whatever it takes to try to get some help for our secondary roads. There's no question, as you'll agree with me, that we need all the help we can get. While our 100-Series Highways are a challenge, it's really our secondary roads, the roads that we live on, the roads that we drive on every day that are the biggest challenge in this province.
I want to come around now to a letter that I received concerning construction on Highway No. 101. This was written to you, Mr. Minister, I believe, in February. I know you replied sometime in March. It's concerning the construction in Hants County near St. Croix in western Hants County. There's a letter from Mr. Turner concerning his concern over a rare species that's in the pond found in a location right beside the present Trans-Canada Highway, and he's referring to the Northern Redbelly Dace. Mr. Chairman, you may be familiar with this as well, since it's in your riding. I guess the scientific name for that is the Chrosomus eos. According to the Nova Scotia Museum of Natural History, it's a rare species that has
[Page 491]
been left over from the times of the ice ages in Nova Scotia, and because this pond has no entrance or exit, it's probably a species that could even be unique only through genetic mutation over 10,000 years that it may be a totally unique species in itself.
Anyway, the concern is that the Department of Transportation and Public Works is going to build this stretch of road and not go around it, this rare species. I'd just like to know, what is the department's position on that, and if it is truly an endangered species or one of a kind? It certainly wouldn't seem right that it should be filled in for a highway. So I'd just like to get the minister's information on what is happening there with that particular stretch of road.
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, I can tell the honourable member that I do, in fact, recall the correspondence with respect to the Redbelly Dace, and we have, as a result of that letter, done an assessment. It does not show up on environmental assessments in that area. I understand that we've not been able to find any evidence of it there. We're continuing to evaluate the situation and (Interruption) Okay, I'm sorry. The fish has been found to be there, but it's not on the list either provincially or federally, it is not on the environmentally endangered species list - we haven't found any evidence of it in either of those lists. We are continuing to evaluate that situation and no final decisions have been taken at this stage.
I would like to go back and just remind the committee of some of the challenges that we had. Mr. Chairman. I am perhaps going back over some of the remarks that I made in my opening statement, but I think it's important to point out to the House that while we all understand the need to spend additional dollars on our county roads, the real challenge that we have had in recent years is getting sufficient funds from the Government of Canada to support the National Highway System that exists in Nova Scotia.
It's only as a result of the most recent federal budget that we're seeing evidence of money being available for the support of the National Highway System. Indeed, I attended meetings of my Atlantic counterparts in Antigonish the previous summer, in 2006. We were then in Charlottetown with the federal minister, the Honourable Lawrence Cannon. I can tell you that what was very encouraging about those meetings is that much of what was discussed at those meetings found its way - not in the precise terms we describe, but close enough - into the federal budget, so we feel there is real progress there. So I do appreciate what the honourable member is saying.
There is nothing I would like more, believe me, coming from Antigonish, than to have federal money spent on county roads in Antigonish - and I could spend a lot of it. But, by the same token, one of the things that we really need is the twinning of Highway No. 104, for instance, at Antigonish itself. That's part of the National Highway System and anybody who travels through there and deals with the congestion - I didn't fully appreciate the congestion that was there until one day I had to make the trip. I flew to Sydney and wound up driving back to Halifax and had to drive through Antigonish when we were a little bit
[Page 492]
short on time and it was only on that occasion that I fully appreciated the amount of congestion that's at Antigonish. If you ask any of the Cape Breton members here, they complain to me about that all of the time.
So that's part of the challenge we have with respect to the National Highway System. We have a lot of work to do before that National Highway System is up to a level where we can say there, the job is done and now we can start looking at other parts of the highway system. So I'm not in any way attempting to put cold water on the honourable member's suggestion. I would cheer him on with respect to the suggestion, but I do want to put in perspective some of the challenges that we have had with respect to getting the attention of the Government of Canada. We feel that we have achieved that objective in getting their attention and the most recent federal budget has put forward a considerable amount of money that will assist us in reaching the objectives we have with respect to the National Highway System in Nova Scotia.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The time has expired for the honourable member for Pictou West.
The honourable member for Clare.
MR. WAYNE GAUDET: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin with my questions, I want to first thank the minister and the staff in his department for their co-operation and help, for responding to my letters and some of my calls. They have always been very professional, they have always been very helpful, and I wanted to acknowledge that at the offset. I also want to acknowledge and thank our local people from the department, my operational supervisor in Saulnierville, Paul Dugas, and our area manager in Yarmouth, Greg Newell. I can tell you, Mr. Minister, these two gentlemen, who I am in contact with practically every week, have always been very professional, have always been very helpful with concerns I've raised with both of them, and I just want to have that on the record, because I think at times we often neglect to say a thank you to the people behind the minister and the deputy. I just want to throw that out.
Mr. Chairman, when I look at the department's overall budget of about $319 million - $319 million and the department is responsible for operating and maintaining over 23,000 kilometres of roads, over 4,000 bridges, they operate seven provincial ferries, and they're trying to complete our 100-Series Highways. I recall not long ago speaking with the Nova Scotia Road Builders Association and their representatives were telling us that our Nova Scotia roads are about 50 per cent older than the Canadian average; some of the bridges in our province are at least 100 years or older than the Canadian average. Then we hear that our Department of Transportation and Public Works would probably need somewhere around - and it is a guess - whether it's $3.5 billion or $4 billion or $4.5 billion, just to try to bring our roads and bridges to acceptable standards, I just stop and look at the infrastructure deficit in our province.
[Page 493]
This minister and his deputy and everybody in that department have one big, huge challenge in front of them. Where do you start with a budget of $319 million, Mr. Chairman? We know that the entire budget is not spent on our roads, on bridges - the minister would certainly need a big chunk of that $319 million to operate his department, and we know there is the Public Works section out of this budget at the same time.
When I look at the challenge that the minister faces every day, every day I'm just amazed at how the minister, along with his deputy and staff, tries to respond to the needs, and I know it has been talked about so many times in this House since I've been here, there's no doubt that roads are on the minds of everyone, especially at this time of the year. I'm sure every MLA in this House, especially in rural Nova Scotia, hears a lot about roads.
I wanted to start off by asking the minister, does the department have a plan - a short-term plan, a long-term plan - to address our road infrastructure deficit in this province? So maybe I'll begin with this one.
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question is yes. We did, I believe in about 2000, 2001, in that vicinity, put together an assessment of what the infrastructure deficit of 2001, I'm told, is in Nova Scotia and that at that time pointed out there was a $3.4 billion challenge with respect to infrastructure.
We are currently in the process of updating that assessment, and that assessment of course assists us in establishing the priorities. It assists us, for instance, in the most recent federal budget where money is made available for the National Highways System, this will assist us in what it is that we need to do.
[7:30 p.m.]
I would point out to the honourable member that if you take all of the money that we are spending, from a cash perspective, on the roads in the province, when you combine capital and operating, it figures over $400 million - about $403 million on an annual basis - and that's for buildings and highways both, I should say.
The honourable member - just to point out to you - we do establish a plan and we will be updating that plan based on the most recent assessment that we get. If the honourable member is so inclined, I would be happy to bring him in and we can go over what our long-term projections are with respect to the 100-Series Highways. We tried to get all members in, did we not? We made a couple of efforts to get all members in to show them that and, for one reason or another, different varying conflicts or whatever, it didn't happen. The offer is still there and we'll still try to get people in, and that will be part of the presentation so that you can get a good idea of where it is that we would be if we had certain funding levels. As time goes on, we may have a better idea of how the federal programs will impact us.
[Page 494]
When we talk about the roads and the bridges of Nova Scotia being 100 years difference than the average in Canada, 100 years ago, if you were in the Province of Alberta or you were in the Province of Saskatchewan, the odds are that you would be crossing most rivers on horseback because there weren't any bridges built at that time; in fact, there weren't any roads built. So to a large extent the same would be true of British Columbia, of much of Manitoba, and much of northern Ontario and northern Quebec would be in a similar situation. So if you look at it in that context, we shouldn't be surprised that there is this discrepancy.
Now I'm not pointing that out to try to minimize the challenge, but it does help to put it in context in the fact that yes, our infrastructure is much older than the infrastructure in the rest of the country, because we are a much older part of the country in relative terms. We just look at Saskatchewan and Alberta which, in 2005, celebrated their centenary as provinces in the Confederation. Having said that, the honourable member is quite correct to point out that we do have infrastructure challenges in the province, and I can say that as a result of the most recent federal budget we are much more optimistic about addressing those challenges because we do see some significant dollars.
Not for a moment do I suggest that there is sufficient for us to be able, in a period of seven years, to eliminate the infrastructure deficit, but there is sufficient for us to be able to make some very real progress with respect to that deficit.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the minister's invitation to look at the plan for the 100-Series Highways throughout our province, especially the one that I travel every week along Highway No. 101. I certainly welcome the opportunity to sit down with staff and look at what the department is proposing.
Mr. Chairman, as I've indicated earlier, it is good, the fact that the department has plans, but we all know we can certainly continue to have all types of plans that we want but at the end of the day, it's just how much is available to government, especially to this department, to repair our roads and bridges and the infrastructure that badly needs this funding.
I want to move to funding. In the Budget Address, on Page 13, the Minister of Finance indicated that a total of $145 million is earmarked for highway construction in 2007-2008. I would like to know if the minister could explain where this $145 million will be spent and, at the same time, does the department have a list of these projects where they're planning on spending $145 million?
MR. MACISAAC: I can give the honourable member an approximate breakdown of the $145 million: about $17 million will go to sub-grade work and asphalt - that would be additional asphalt through twinning of roads, that sort of thing; $88 million will be spent on repaving within our system; just about $21 million on bridges; $5 million on steel truss
[Page 495]
bridges; almost $9 million on machinery; and we have $4 million budgeted for land purchase. That's for the total of the $145 million.
MR. GAUDET: Looking at this $145 million, is there any federal funding in that amount or is that strictly all provincial funding?
MR. MACISAAC: The $145 million that the honourable member referenced is all provincial spending. Now this year we do anticipate an additional $7.7 million on asphalt and sub-grade - that's on the twinning approaches, which would be federal money - and on bridges, $3.6 million - that would be for new structures and things of that nature - for a total of $11.4 million. There's about $2.9 million in asphalt, some of that is in municipal recoveries on subdivision roads where we share 50-50 with the municipal units, so there's a little bit of that. When you add that $11.4 million, then we're talking about $156 million approximately of capital.
MR. GAUDET: Again, I want to thank the minister for this information. On Page 13 of the Budget Speech, in the second paragraph, it talks about in addition to new construction $186 million is dedicated to road maintenance this year. My question is, does the department plan to spend $186 million on road maintenance - am I reading this correctly?
MR. MACISAAC: I can provide a breakdown if it's helpful to the honourable member. Under that figure of $186 million we would be spending: Highway Programs - Administration, the cost of that is about $1.465 million; Field Operations, that is the garages and the field offices and everything that's out there in the system, which is $17.3 million; Highways and Bridges, the maintenance of those, $74.6 million; Snow and Ice Control is $44.1 million; Employee Benefits, $13.2 million; Ferry Enterprise is $6 million; Fleet Management, $720,000; Vehicle Compliance, $2.7 million; Highway Engineering, that's mostly for design, I would expect, is $5.6 million.
So the subtotal of Highway Operations is $165.9 million; and then Maintenance Improvements - that's the RIM program - is $20 million. That brings the total spending on Highway Programs to $186 million. The Highways and Bridges, the $74.6 million, I can point out, that's non-TCA capital. So that would be under $500,000 expenditure items. (Interruption)
I will give you an update. In the Field Operations here, the $74.6 million includes RIM in that figure, and the $20 million is maintenance, that's non-TCA capital - I'm sorry, I had those numbers in the wrong category.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, looking at the maintenance budget for this coming year, for 2007-08, could the minister indicate to the committee how many field offices or how many local offices we have across the province? The second part to the question, I understood that the maintenance budgets had actually been decreased for this coming year,
[Page 496]
so could the minister either confirm or tell us whether or not the different field offices maintenance budgets this year will either remain the same, will be decreased, or will receive an increase? Thank you.
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, we have 13 offices throughout the province, and the dollar amount allotted to those offices for maintenance is increased over last year.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman. I want to move toward federal funding. I'm looking at the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund agreement for Highway No. 101 and Highway No. 104 that was signed off on October 7, 2005. In this agreement, we're looking at a $61 million agreement over five years. Each level of government is putting $30.5 million. Furthermore, the feds will be spending $6 million toward Highway No. 104, and $24.6 million on Highway No. 101 over the next five years, from 2005 to 2009. When I look at the agreement for this year, for 2007-08, the federal will be spending a total of roughly $10.6 million on highways this year on Highway No. 101 and Highway No. 104.
My first question is, how much federal funding is the province receiving for roads this year, in 2007-08? I'm just curious, is there additional funding apart from what is laid out in this highway agreement, or if it's the total that's available from the federal government this year on our highways?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, under CSIF-1, which is the program under which money will flow this year, that amount of $8.8 million from the federal government will flow. Now, that does not include CSIF-2, which will trigger the flow of money beginning in the next capital year, the next fiscal year, there will be money flow in that. That money is money that will be spent on Highway No. 101 and Highway No.104 this year.
[7:45 p.m.]
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, my next question to the minister is, under the Canada-Nova Scotia Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund we're talking about $111 million that's administered by ACOA, I'm curious whether or not there's any funding under this agreement for highways or for bridges. Could the minister confirm if there's any funding available under this rural infrastructure fund of $111 million, whether or not there's any funding available for roads or bridges?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member might want to mark that question for my colleague who comes after me, the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. They, in fact, administer a program in conjunction with ACOA, and any money that would find its way on roads would be through municipally-controlled roads from that program.
[Page 497]
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, the minister, in his opening comments, talked about funding made available in this federal budget to help with infrastructure. The minister did indicate the details are not yet available as far as the details of these programs. I'm just looking for additional information in terms of what Nova Scotia can expect. I know that the minister indicated there were various programs that were identified, I'm just trying to get a better understanding in terms of what Nova Scotia might apply for, at the same time might benefit out of the recent federal budget.
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, in terms of the part of the federal infrastructure that may and, we hope, will impact the budget of the Department of Transportation and Public Works, we would anticipate that we would get a very significant share of about $500 million over the period of the next seven years from the Building Canada Fund, from the equal $25-million-per-province fund, and from the border crossings and gateway funding, as well as the strategic infrastructure partnership funding.
As I was saying earlier in an answer to a previous question, there still needs to be a lot of clarity brought to how those programs are going to operate and how the money will flow through those programs. The Government of Canada did in fact identify the programs, they identified a sum of money that's associated with the programs, but what they have yet to complete is their own analysis of how those programs would operate in terms of detail. We anticipate that some clarity with respect to that will be coming forward over the period of the next two to three months, and hopefully we will have a better understanding of the impact that it will have on Nova Scotia.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, looking at the current highway agreement for Highway No. 101 and Highway No. 104, I'm just curious, is the province looking at approaching the federal government this year to negotiate any new highway agreements? I'm thinking for secondary roads or, again, for our 100-Series Highways. I guess my question is, simply, is the province looking at negotiating any new highway agreements with the federal government this year?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, I can tell the honourable member that it just so happens the first project that we would anticipate seeking funding for from the Government of Canada would be the new highway at Antigonish, which is a 14-kilometre section in Highway No. 104 there. The anticipated cost of that is in excess of $90 million. It's 14 kilometres, a very expensive piece of road to build. While it has been a number-one priority of the province for some time, finding a pool of money large enough to get it going has not been possible to date. We do anticipate under the Building Canada Fund an opportunity to be able to negotiate funding for that.
In addition, the causeway at Windsor is something that we would see getting some attention under a new agreement with the Government of Canada, as well as the bypass at Port Hawkesbury. So we certainly do have a number of projects that would form the basis
[Page 498]
of a priority relative to an agreement with the Government of Canada under the Building Canada Fund. And of course there are then other projects on Highway No. 101, Highway No. 103 that come to the fore as you start making progress on these other number-one priorities, and elsewhere on Highway No. 104. So looking at a seven-year agreement, we could probably be in a position to tackle the three major projects that I have just identified, as well as making some progress on some others.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk a little bit about the motive fuel tax. When I look at the Nova Scotia Budget Assumptions and Schedules, on Page E19, I look under Provincial Sources, the Motive Fuel Taxes, it's estimated this year it will raise $252 million. I'm trying to find out, how much does the federal government collect in excise tax - I don't know exactly what the correct term is, if it's the motive fuel tax - so my first question is, how much is the federal government collecting on gas tax in Nova Scotia?
MR. MACISAAC: The estimate is in 2007-08 that the total federal fuel excise tax that will be collected by the Government of Canada would be $136.756 million - I'm sorry, it's $135.7 million.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, I look at the numbers that I have for 2005 and it was roughly about $135 million that the federal government collected under the federal excise tax, and Nova Scotia received about $3.7 million. I'm just wondering, as far as the government or the minister, has the government, has the minister, been speaking with the Government of Canada to try to find out whether or not - Nova Scotia can certainly benefit probably more than $3.7 million, as we did in 2005, so I guess my question to the minister is, is the provincial government talking with the federal government, trying to increase the amount that the federal government provides the Province of Nova Scotia?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, this summer we, as Atlantic ministers, met in Antigonish and one of the points that we agreed upon, as a group of ministers, is the need to make the case to the Government of Canada with respect to the flow of federal excise tax dollars collected, that it should be coming back to the provinces.
We met with the federal minister, the national Ministers of Transportation met in Charlottetown in September and at that meeting we had an opportunity to make that case to the federal minister. If you analyze the numbers that the Government of Canada put forward with respect to the infrastructure dollars that would flow to the provinces, if we compare Nova Scotia's share of those dollars for infrastructure, most of which will find its way to highways, and compare it to the federal excise tax collected, you will find that there's a very close correlation between the two numbers - they are almost equal.
We feel that we have been very successful in making our case with the Government of Canada. As I said earlier, it's really the first time that we felt we had made real progress with the Government of Canada with respect to addressing our infrastructure deficit. They
[Page 499]
have, I would suggest, taken into account the amount of money that's collected in federal excise tax in their decision-making process.
MR. GAUDET: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, before I forget, I indicated earlier that the motive fuel tax is reported on Page E19 and the minister just indicated that the estimated federal excise tax we'll probably collect in this current year is around $136 million - is that reported anywhere in the budget estimates?
MR. MACISAAC: It's a federal number, it is a number that we have always kept track of because traditionally - and I'm sure that members of the Liberal Party made similar arguments, when they were on this side of the House, to the Government of Canada (Interruptions) I must say I don't blame the honourable member for Glace Bay for being as assertive as he is about disassociating himself with that history. There are times when you're in a truck and somebody opens the door and you drive the truck through it. It's part of our nature in the business that we do.
Getting back to it, I'm sure that the other three members who were here before would have made a similar case to the Government of Canada, that they should be returning those excise tax dollars to Nova Scotia so that we could use those dollars on roads. So it's a number that we've kept track of because that was a very important argument with respect to the cases that we have always made to the Government of Canada. We will continue to keep track of it, but I'm not certain that it gets published in our budget documents. I can say to the honourable member for Clare that I will point out to you where it is, in the event that we find it, but we're certainly willing to share with you our source of obtaining that information.
[8:00 p.m.]
I am pleased to say that as a result of the most recent federal budget, that the dollars they collect in excise tax is roughly equal to the dollars that will flow to Nova Scotia for infrastructure, most of which will find its way to our roads in this province.
MR. GAUDET: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I want to focus now on the highway agreement for Highway No. 101 and Highway No. 104 that was signed October 7, 2005. Back in late February of this year, our current minister announced - or maybe he re-announced - some twinning work on Highway No. 104 and Highway No. 25. I'm just curious, is this additional funding, additional work to be carried out on these two highways, or is it the same funding that's listed under this agreement?
MR. MACISAAC: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I do want to point out that it's the first time that I have made that announcement - now I'm not going to promise that it'll be the last time I'll make it, but it was the first time that I made that announcement.
[Page 500]
Certainly in answer to a question previously, I said there was about $8.8 million flowing from CSIF I to projects in Nova Scotia, and the number for CSIF II is $15 million that will find its way to the project that will take us from Linacy to the other side of Sutherlands River, to the eastern side of Sutherlands River. The remainder of that money that was announced will be spent on Highway No. 125 - and I'm sure the honourable member for Cape Breton South knows exactly where that money will be spent.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, under the agreement this year, $650,000 will be spent on Highway No. 104 or Highway No. 125. We see in the following year, 2008- 2009, the bulk of the money will be spent in those two years. My question to the minister: Exactly what work will be carried out this year for the $650,000 that is indicated here in the timetable?
MR. MACISAAC: I'm not certain I followed the honourable member's question because under CSIF I we're spending $8.8 million this year. Last year we completed a structure and we completed a great deal of clearing on that Highway No. 104 section, and this year - we spent $6.8 million last year in 2006-2007 and this year we're spending $8.8 million out of CSIF I, in that area. So perhaps if I got a bit more clarity, I'll try and explain more.
MR. GAUDET: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, for the minister, I'm on Page 20 of the agreement, under 2007-2008. We see that the Government of Canada will be spending $650,000. The Government of Nova Scotia is not spending any provincial money on Highway No. 104 or Highway No. 125. For this year - unless there's another timetable with new numbers elsewhere that I don't have - I'm looking at the agreement dated October 7, 2005, so we have $650,000 identified to be spent on this project. Maybe the minister could indicate whether there's another time table somewhere else, but with the timetable that I have it's listed as $650,000.
MR. MACISAAC: I apologize to the honourable member. I didn't realize the document that he was quoting from - he was quoting from the document that formulates the agreement that is signed in the initial phase.
You sit down, you negotiate the agreement, you sign the documents, and it identifies the flow of money. There is an understanding however that as circumstances change through the course of projects that some of the anticipated cash flow would be changed as a result of changing conditions or circumstances related to the projects. For instance, if you look at the history of CSIF I you will find that in the first year of that agreement there were largely federal dollars that were spent, a much higher percentage, and if you look at the end years of that agreement you will find that it's a higher percentage of provincial dollars that were spent simply because of the approvals that were obtained as we worked our way through the agreement. So yes, the numbers that he quotes are numbers that were in the initial agreement, but those numbers are subject to continuous negotiation as the agreement plays itself out.
[Page 501]
MR. GAUDET: I want to talk about the three interchanges that are listed in the agreement. There's the Joggin Bridge interchange in Digby County, just outside of Digby, there's the interchange at Hectanooga Road in the Municipality of Clare, and there's the Brooklyn Road Intersection in Yarmouth County. I want to start off looking at the Joggin Bridge interchange.
According to the schedule from the agreement, this year $2 million will be spent on this interchange at Joggin Bridge - maybe the minister could indicate if $2million is the correct amount? At the same time I'm curious to find out what work is scheduled to take place this year - have the tenders been called and, if not, when are they planned to go out? I guess my final question is, is the department still planning to spend $2 million this year on that interchange at Joggin Bridge in Digby County?
MR. MACISAAC: I can tell the honourable member that this year we planned to spend $2.9 million in Joggins, and that $2.9 million includes the amount of the interchange ramps, $2.3 million, and for the realignment of Trunk 1 the amount of $600,000 will be spent on that. That's at Joggins and that will open this year - I'm sorry, in 2008 it will open, not this year. I was looking at another one - the Brooklyn Road, this year there's an amount of $2.1 million will be spent on that and it will open in 2007 - that's the one I was looking at for this year. Hectanooga will be completed in 2009, and there's $100,000 being spent on that this year.
MR. GAUDET: Have the tenders been called?
MR. MACISAAC: The last of part of that question was, have the tenders been called. No, the answer is not yet, but they will be in the near future.
In answer to a previous question, we talked about the flow of money with those agreements, I just want to point out that the total amount of money will still be $30 million with respect to that agreement.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, moving to the Hectanooga Road interchange, under the schedule - and the minister just confirmed that the province is looking at spending $100,000 on this interchange in the Municipality of Clare, I'm just curious, what work is scheduled to take place this year? Again, has a tender gone out? If not, when does the minister anticipate the tender will be going out?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, the amount of money, the $100,000, is for clearing. The tender has not yet been let, but we would anticipate that happening in the reasonably near future.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, I know that in the last two years the department has bought some pieces of land in that immediate area where the Hectanooga Road interchange
[Page 502]
is going to be built, but when I look at the agreement, there is no funding listed in the agreement for buying, for purchasing properties. So I guess my question is, first of all, how come the funding, it's not listed? The second part, how much money has been spent so far in purchasing properties for the Hectanooga Road interchange?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, the reason that the purchase of property does not show up in the agreement is because it is not part of the cost-sharing that takes place. The purchase of property and the design work and the environmental assessment work is all work that the province must undertake on its own. The only cost-sharing that occurs is in the actual construction of the roads, or the interchange, whatever the case may be, itself. There is no cost sharing with respect to property. I would have to get the details of how much money has been spent for the purchase of the property. We don't have that with us, but we will be glad to share it with the honourable member.
MR. GAUDET: I would appreciate that at the convenience of the minister. I want to just look at the Brooklyn Road intersection. The minister indicated, of course circumstances change, schedules are fast-tracked, and especially in this intersection, according to the schedule, under the agreement, the work was supposed to be carried out in year five, in 2009-10. Actually, just a few weeks ago, I noticed work had started on this project. I know there has been some fatal accidents at this intersection. The work that was proposed was moved up to this year in 2007 instead of being done in 2009, and I fully, fully agree, I don't think you will have anyone in our southwestern part of the province who disagrees with the government by moving forward with this work to go ahead. So I'm curious, looking at this work that has started, could the minister indicate whether or not the work will be completed this year, the overpass will be done, and traffic will be moving?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, because the job at that interchange was not as great as other work it was possible for us to be able to move it up, and we do anticipate completing the work this year so that folks will be able to use that interchange fully as they move into 2008 and beyond.
[8:15 p.m.]
MR. GAUDET: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the minister for his information. I know I only have a few minutes left but I want to start talking about bridges. The minister, may recall - I'm sure he does - last September, when a three-lane overpass collapsed in Laval, Quebec, killing five people and injuring six people. The headline of the paper that day was: Collapse a "wake-up" call for province; . . ."
Mr. Chairman, with this terrible accident happening in Quebec it again raises concerns about how safe our overpasses, our bridges, are here in our province. We know some of our bridges are over 100 years old; we know some of our bridges don't meet current weight and traffic volume standards; we know that many of our bridges need extensive
[Page 503]
repairs; and we know that some of them have been destroyed and damaged by floods in recent years, and we've seen bridges collapsing.
Mr. Chairman, about three years ago in the Municipality of Clare, the Meteghan River Bridge collapsed in the river; as a matter of fact it was August 13, 2003. Luckily, nobody was seriously injured. This bridge is located on Trunk 1, and it carries more traffic than any other road in Clare. Again, it was a miracle that nobody got hurt that day. Again, looking back at this bridge collapsing in the river, you have to wonder if it could have been prevented. I know some people at home have asked that question, and I understand that the department has staff inspecting bridges on a regular basis.
When I look at - and this is only a sample of a bridge inspection quarterly report that was tabled here earlier, Mr. Chairman, it was dated July 22, 2002, and they are pretty well standard, it shows in the report, for example, in this quarter, it was April, May, June 2002, in the western region, it identifies what structures, bridges, were identified. It also identifies what condition these structures are in. Furthermore, it actually rates the structures - whether they're in good structure, fair or poor. Also, we see if a structure is rated to be a risk to the travelling public, and closed to traffic.
Mr. Chairman, again looking back at the Meteghan River Bridge collapsing in the river, I fail to understand why it happened. I know some concerned citizens from Clare did contact the field office, the local district office in Saulnierville, to raise concerns about this bridge before it collapsed in August 2003. I understand highway engineers assess bridges in our province on a regular basis, and I'm sure, again depending on their rating structures, bridges are inspected more often than others and probably more frequently. So my first question to the minister is how often are bridges in Nova Scotia inspected, and are these bridge inspections available to the public?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, I can share with the honourable member that every bridge in the province gets what's referenced as a walk-around inspection, a visual inspection, annually, and every bridge gets a much more thorough investigation about every four years as part of the inspection program, and if people have an interest in a particular bridge we can certainly share that information with them. This year the amount of capital that we're spending on our bridge program is $20 million, and we're spending $3.5 million more than last year on our maintenance program for bridges. So it certainly is receiving a great deal of attention from the department and we recognize the need for it.
Unfortunately, regardless of what condition a bridge is in, if an accident occurs under the right set of circumstances even a bridge that passed the most thorough inspection could wind up being damaged very severely as a result of an accident, or indeed rendered unusable as a result of an accident, and unfortunately we're not able to predict those, but we do our very best to ensure that the bridges are able to withstand normal usage and mishaps that may occur in a bridge.
[Page 504]
We even had one this year, and the honourable member for Pictou West would know, we had a bridge this year that actually burned. N ow I don't think it burned as a result of squealing tires going over the surface, but I don't know that any real information has come forward - some have suggested it might have been gasoline coming out of a tank that might have something to do with it, anyway we don't know all of the details, but various things take bridges out, unfortunately, and we're doing our best to ensure that we minimize the number of events of that nature that occur.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated that the bridge inspections are available to the public. Maybe he could indicate to the committee, in terms of what the process involves - do they write directly to the minister requesting the most recent bridge inspection of any given bridge? I hope the minister will provide us with information on that.
I know my time is coming to a close shortly, Mr. Chairman. In Clare, Mr. Minister, I have received several inquiries from concerned citizens about the safety of bridges in their community. There are two in question: the Salmon River Bridge in Salmon River, and the St. Benoni Bridge in St. Benoni. I know that the department has done some work on the Salmon River Bridge last summer, but still there are residents in the Salmon River area who have questioned the safety of the Salmon River Bridge. So my question to the minister is, would it be possible to request the most recent bridge assessment reports for those two bridges that I just indicated to you?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member is in contact with the division engineer in Yarmouth, and they do have that - Greg Newell, he has that information and I'm sure he'd be very happy to share it with the honourable member.
MR. GAUDET: Thank you. Could you indicate how much time is left?
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have ten seconds.
MR. GAUDET: Ten seconds. Okay. Maybe what I'll do, I'll take my seat and I'll return on a future day. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou West.
MR. CHARLES PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to have a second opportunity here to ask a few questions of the minister and his department, and I'm going to share my time, this time around, with my colleague for Hants East. Anyway, I do have a few other questions, and I think the last point I was on before other members had a few questions was I was inquiring about the rare species in Hants County and I didn't quite get the answer completed or we got onto some other topics. I guess, first of all, is that particular pond where this rare species is located, the Northern Redbelly Dace, is it in the line of the
[Page 505]
planned Trans Canada Highway expansion and, if so, what is the department doing to protect this rare species?
MR. MACISAAC: As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, we did investigate and did not find any - it did not show up in the environmental assessment is what I should say. Yes, the particular body of water is in the path, but the species has not shown up as an endangered species on either the provincial or the federal list of endangered species.
MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I will leave it at that, but I would hope that if it is a rare species or a genetically distinct embryo that it would be looked at by the department and all necessary measures taken to protect it if it turns out to be an endangered species.
I want to ask, in relation to the same Highway No. 101 - the Windsor causeway is part of the expansion to double the road through that area and, as we know, it has been an issue whether salmon are able to get up river through that causeway, and of course if it's doubled or twinned there how is that going to impact on the fish species there and how is the environmental impact study that was being done to look at that whole issue coming along - really, what are the plans to twin Highway No. 101 through that section of road?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, I can tell the honourable member that for the Windsor causeway section of that highway, the proposal call for environmental assessment just went out last week. So we will be doing a complete environmental assessment and of course that would include a complete assessment of the impact that any construction would have on species of fish that would need to traverse the bodies of water affected by such a construction.
MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, it's good to know that there is a study to look at it, and hopefully all aspects of the fish species will be looked at and protect their environment.
I want to move on to a different topic. My colleague, the member for Clare, had mentioned a few moments ago about bridges, and certainly bridges are a very important component of our infrastructure in this province and it's one that rural MLAs hear about a lot - and I'm sure the minister hears even more in a combination from all areas of the province. It's certainly obvious that we have an infrastructure deficit in the province. The 2001 study showed it, I believe, at around $560 million was the amount of money required to fix up all the bridges at that time, and today it's probably even more. There have been many bridges over the years that have fallen or collapsed due to age or heavy trucks or whatever the case might be - I think the minister said a few minutes ago that various things take bridges out and that is certainly true.
There are a few bridges I want to bring to your attention and I guess the first one, maybe not unexpected, is the West River East Side Road overpass on the Trans Canada
[Page 506]
Highway at Salt Springs. I have asked you about that before and I'm asking you again, when is that particular overpass going to be repaired?
MR. MACISAAC: The tender will go out this year, Mr. Chairman.
MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, in 2008 then, we are going to see that bridge repaired on the overpass. That's good news and the people of Limerock and Lovat in the area of the overpass will be pleased to hear that. I just wanted to confirm that was actually going to happen.
I want to bring to your attention a few other bridges that are causing some problems in this province. There are several in Guysborough County - I'll refer to another county that has been in the news lately - one was in Moser River that, obviously, there were some problems there. The pictures were available from the Leader of the Opposition last week.
[8:30 p.m.]
There is another one in Halfway Cove that was certainly a tragedy in this province, where two people died. There are a number of others in Guysborough County that are a serious problem and, in fact, there's a petition on the go in that county where I think over 1,000 names now of people who have signed it, who are very concerned and very worried about the wooden bridges and bridges in general in that particular county. There are a lot of roads, a lot of watercourses and, therefore, a lot of bridges in that piece of real estate.
So we obviously do have a problem, especially with wooden rails being jarred loose, or rotting out, or structures just not holding up. I guess I've asked you this before in Question Period, but I would just like to hear again what it is that the department is doing to inspect our wooden bridges that have railings that cars or vehicles could impact and go through and cause serious damage like we've seen in the past - so what inspection system is in place, particularly for our wooden rail bridges?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the bridges that the honourable member was referencing, the wooden railing bridges, this year we are doing some extra training with respect to the inspection of those bridges. So when they are inspected, and we do inspect them every year, they will get a more thorough look than is usually the case because we are in the process of training people to do the inspection and repairs to those bridges, and we have taken $1.5 million out of the increased funding for RIM and dedicated it to the repair of those bridges throughout the province.
I can tell the honourable member, with respect to the bridge at Halfway Cove, we hope to have that bridge well underway in terms of its repair next week, if not this week. So it will be done. It was adequately protected up until now, but the fact is we want to get it repaired so that people will look at that bridge with far more confidence than they have as
[Page 507]
they go by it now, seeing the site of the very sad accident that occurred there. Also you've made reference to the Moser River Bridge, and I can tell you that the structure of that bridge itself is sound. It has received a thorough inspection. The topping on that bridge, it could be dressed up a little better in terms of how it looks and I would anticipate that the topping of that bridge will be addressed in this construction season.
MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I guess while we're on the topic of bridges, I just have one other bridge, from my riding, that I want to bring to the minister's attention. It's across Middle River in Union Centre. It's a bridge that's now restricted in weight, I think down to 25 tons. I assume it's just the Middle River Bridge at Union Centre would be the name of it, but it's a wooden rail bridge. It's high above the water and it's quite a drop if a vehicle were to go through it. I've had probably more calls on that bridge as a concern than any other over the last number of years and there are some railings that are missing from time to time although the department has come out and put them back up. I have seen a hole that you could look down and see the river, you know, it has eroded over time. Then it has been filled in from time to time. I've talked to our area manager about it and I'm told again that the bridge is inspected and it's safe, but there are a number of people who have a different opinion on that and just are worried about the condition of that particular bridge. So I just pass that along for your department's attention.
In my time that remains here, a couple of other points I want to bring along or ask about, and I guess another issue that we as MLAs in rural Nova Scotia get quite a number of calls on is the condition of the roads - yes, many times they're poor, but often from people who have had damage to their vehicle and they had broken a rim or the tire's gone flat or some front-end damage is occurring, so naturally they come and say well that pothole was not there before, I didn't see it, it was too dark and it cost me $388, or whatever, to fix my vehicle and by golly the department should pay for it because they were the ones who neglected the roads.
We called Mr. Bruce Langille or his assistant, Marilyn Elliott, and asked for consideration for this individual who had a damaged vehicle. Oftentimes they're turned down, they say no it wasn't the fault of the department, there's a sign down the road a mile away that should have been noticed, or whatever reason is given that they're not actually getting any consideration towards their concern. I'd like to know what percentage of claims are actually successful, and is there a better system to look at vehicle damage in this province?
MR. MACISAAC: We had 1,079 claims in the previous year, 416 of those have been paid. The amount paid out was $483,000.
MR. PARKER: Again, I didn't hear the percentage, but roughly what per cent are actually successful?
[Page 508]
MR. MACISAAC: Quick math would tell me that's getting close to 40 per cent.
MR. PARKER: It's good to hear it's that high. I don't think it's that successful with the people that I deal with. I hear many of them say, no, they weren't given any consideration or they just weren't eligible. Occasionally we've had correspondence with Mr. Langille, or telephone conversations with him or his assistant, and on the odd occasion we've been successful, but I wish my batting average was 400 - it's not that good. I guess my question again is what is the procedure then when somebody has a complaint, what's required from the complainant and what does the department do with the information that comes forward?
MR. MACISAAC: I could tell the honourable member that if everybody in his area who had a claim, spoke to him about the claim then he would be batting 400 per cent because that's the amount that we pay. But he's very much like myself, I only hear from people when they have been denied in the first instance and they feel that they have been unsuccessful. In those circumstances, because there is a reasonably - well I would describe it as a good procedure in place with respect to evaluating claims, and the decisions are taken based on that criteria that he shouldn't anticipate that his batting average should be anywhere near 400 per cent in those circumstances.
It's a question of determining whether the department has a liability with respect to failing to provide appropriate notification relative to the deficiency in the road that is capable of causing an accident. That is how the claims are assessed and the determination made as to whether there will be a payout on those claims. And - well some things are best not said and I won't say it.
MR. PARKER: Certainly the cost of driving a vehicle is expensive and certainly the cost to repair a vehicle from damage from our roads is costing drivers a lot of money. As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the roads we live on, the roads we drive on every day, those are the ones that really are costing us money in vehicle damage and vehicle repair. Most of it is not claimed to get something back from the department, most people go to the garage to get it fixed and grumble and growl all the way to pay their bill. Certainly the cost of running a vehicle in this province is one of our major costs in a household.
I want to refer now to the study that was done by GPI Atlantic. Last Fall they released a very comprehensive document outlining that transportation is the largest cost Nova Scotians are facing at this point in time - larger than health care or any other issue. They're saying that the direct cost to run a vehicle is a little over $3,000 in a year and the indirect cost to health care and insurance and so on is more than that, $4,500. So it's somewhere around $7,500 to $7,600 per Nova Scotian - now that includes everybody whether they have a vehicle or not, so it's a total of $6.4 billion a year, cost direct and indirect for transportation in this province. That's a lot of money - that's almost as much as our provincial budget in its entirety.
[Page 509]
They're suggesting that maybe we should be looking at alternate forms of transportation, rather than every person have a car, or every family have two or three vehicles. We need to look at more public transportation, we need to look at bicycles and walking and other alternate forms of getting from point A to point B, and I've got a couple of questions here I want to ask you in relation to alternate transportation.
First of all, the fast ferry that has been advocated by HRM, and has been on the design table for a lot of years, to run from Bedford into downtown Halifax. I recently read where the municipality is going to put up a couple of hundred thousand dollars for the design of those units and it certainly would cut down on traffic congestion coming into the downtown. From the province's point of view I'd like to know, what is your position on the fast ferry, and financially are you going to be participating in this project?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, I can tell the honourable member that to date all of the work that has been done around that project has been work initiated and completed by HRM. It is their initiative and we have not been involved in any discussions with them with respect to it. We of course are prepared to work with HRM in various projects, but that's not one that has been the subject of discussion between the two levels of government at this stage.
The honourable member in referencing the costs - indeed, there is quite a change in how we do things. As most members know, I was a member of this House in another time and at that time the hours of the Legislature were set according to the schedule of the rail-liner that ran between Halifax and Sydney. That's because members travelling all the way from Sydney up to Truro - even some of the Truro members were seen on the rail-liner in those times - folks would get on and make their way to Halifax and spend the week here and go back. (Interruption) The dayliner was gone before Mr. Mulroney came to office. The point is that whoever took them away took them away because nobody was using them and that's the sad part of it. I think all of us, collectively, need to accept that we have to look at public transportation in whatever form is deemed to be appropriate as an alternate to all of us travelling around in single vehicles.
[8:45 p.m.]
But I could also say that while that was the mode of travel when we were here before, now it is not uncommon for a member to be expected to attend to his duties in the Legislature and to appear at events in his riding on the same day, and as a result of that you find yourself leaving here, getting on the road and travelling to Antigonish or travelling to Pictou or travelling to Queens, whatever the case may be, and coming back here. Again, that's part of a changed expectation that is out there with respect to people who do this job. People who do other jobs are expected to be far more mobile today than they had been previously. So yes, there is a significant cost associated with transportation, but if you were to examine that cost relative to road builders in the summer, you would probably find that they do a lot more
[Page 510]
travelling now from site to site than they did previously, or if you looked at people in other businesses they are far more mobile today than they had been previously.
The challenges are considerable in terms of what's expected of us, in terms of how we perform, whether it's public life or in business. The move to going from private individual transportation to more public transportation is something that is really going to have to be addressed as part of a changing culture within our society. We're going to be forced there one way or the other - it's a question of how we go about addressing that change in the culture. Certainly providing the opportunity is part of it, but if we provide the opportunity and there is no response to the use of public transport then we have not really addressed the problem because all we've done is added to the capital cost of public transit without adding to increased usage. It's really got to go hand in hand between the two in terms of how we bring about a change in the culture.
MR. PARKER: I'm not sure if I got the answer I was looking for, but I got a nice dialogue of information along the way. I agree with the minister certainly that as MLAs we are expected to be in lots of places on the same day, and I think as the job goes along the demand is probably even greater for more responsibilities in different parts of the province - so I certainly agree with you on that.
I did want to ask about public transit in particular though. You know we've lost some public transit in some areas of our province. We lost the bus service along the Eastern Shore that was providing a good service all along Highway 7, and we've lost service along the South Shore, and there have been cutbacks in some other areas. On the other hand there have been some positive things happening with Kings County Transit. They've expanded down Highway 1 a considerable distance, and in Pictou County there's a group there at the present time called Pictou County Unites, and they have been meeting regularly trying to either emulate the model that's in Kings County or looking at some type of expansion, or bringing back the transit system that was once so common in Pictou County - it served the five towns and some of the rural areas adjacent. Many people would like to see that come to life again.
I guess I wanted to ask, Mr. Minister, if there is a solid proposal coming forward from Pictou County, is it something the department might consider financially, or to promote, or to help with? I know it has to be built on a sound business case, but it would be a great benefit to many in the community college, the working public and just the general population in Pictou County, and I just wanted to ask if there might be some support for that project.
MR. MACISAAC: I would suggest to the honourable member that's a question that might be more appropriate for the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations since it involves an activity with the municipal units that are there and it's not part of the mandate of the Department of Transportation and Public Works.
[Page 511]
MR. PARKER: Well, again, I guess I have a question that might perhaps fall in the purview of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, but it is a question that has come to me. There's a group, you're familiar with LEO - the League of Equal Opportunities - and they've promoted public transit and buses for a long time. One of their issues is around the fuel tax exemption for those types of vehicles for public transit and right now they're paying the full tax on fuel, unlike farmers and fishermen and woodlot owners and some others who get an exemption on buying fuel, and they would certainly like to see that apply to their services as well.
Again, maybe that's not in your department, but it is transportation-related so I'm asking, is it something that you may consider, to allow an exemption on fuel for LEO vehicles?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, again, it's probably a question that would come under the purview of the Minister of Finance, except to say that the occupations which he referenced that do receive an exemption from the gasoline tax are occupations that don't use the public highway system of the province - fishermen, in fueling their boats, don't use the public highway system of the province to run their boats; and the farm operations burn their fuel on the fields or in the woods and that fuel, for the most part, is not consumed on the public highways of the province. That's the philosophical reason for providing the exemption in those circumstances.
MR. PARKER: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I know I've got only a few minutes left and there are a couple of other points I want to touch on. The Cobequid Pass, or the Highway No. 104 Western Alignment, I've been through there a few times, paid my toll, as have more and more Nova Scotians and visitors, and I understand it is certainly doing better than had been anticipated when it was opened in 1997, in fact, so much so that it is hoped that the date for no longer having tolls would come sooner rather than later. I wonder, could you give us an update on when that date might be, that tolls would no longer exist in Colchester-Cumberland Counties?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, to date, essentially what we have done is decided not to increase the toll at the previously prescribed rate of increase, so that the advances that we've made, with respect to the financing, have allowed us to delay increases in tolls on that road.
Now there has been some paydown on one class of the debt associated with that road but not significant to allow us to look at changing the date at this stage. So we're not increasing at the rate we had anticipated, but still looking at approximately the same date as to when it would be completed.
MR. PARKER: Mr. Minister, what is that date? When do we anticipate that there will no longer be tolls?
[Page 512]
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, I will have to undertake to get the specific date and we'll have that for you when we chat again, next time.
MR. PARKER: We have a few minutes left, Mr. Chairman, and I guess I want to switch back to the estimates and ask about the amount of money that is actually in your budget for amortization, or for debt repayment. As we know, a good portion of our provincial budget goes to pay debt from previous years, in previous decades, but I know that highways and bridges and ferries and so on also are amortized over a number of years. So while we're paying a huge amount of debt in the total budget, we're also paying for past debt in these various categories. What percent of your total budget is actually paying for amortization?
MR. MACISAAC: The amortization amount this year is $95 million. Yes, that's the amount this year.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The honourable member for Pictou West has one minute left.
MR. PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is $95 million in total for amortization. So is that part of your $319 million budget - is almost one-third of it going towards debt from previous years?
MR. MACISAAC: It is important to distinguish the numbers that we're talking about here. The actual cash that we will spend as a department next year will be $403 million. That's the amount of money that we will sign cheques for in this year for work on the roads.
In terms of the budget this year, $95 million will be amortized cost. Now of course part of the $95 million is the TCA amount incorporated in that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Order, please. The time allotted for debate in the Committee of the Whole House on Supply has now expired.
The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.
MR. PATRICK DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the committee do now rise and report progress and beg leave to sit again on a future day.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is carried.
[ The committee adjourned at 8:57 p.m.]
