[Page 631]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon. Subcommittee on Supply, debate on estimates for the fiscal year 2002-03. This is day 10, Tuesday, April 23, 2002. The time in debate so far is 35 hours, 35 minutes. The time of calling the meeting to order is 1:42 p.m. I've asked Minister Ronald Russell to reconvene the debate on Resolution E29 and Resolution E33 with respect to the Department of Transportation and Public Works, and the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency and the Environmental Resources Limited.
We had 15 minutes, at the close of yesterday, remaining in the NDP caucus time. I understand we now have the honourable member for Halifax Fairview, Graham Steele to continue questioning for the NDP for the next 15 minutes. Your start time is 1:43 p.m. Go ahead, sir.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Mr. Minister, just like last year, I gave you advance notice of this question so that you would be prepared for it. I know that you know the background, but by way of background for others, there is one street in my constituency that is very close to the Bicentennial Highway, and that is School Avenue. The proximity of School Avenue to the Bicentennial Highway continues to cause a number of problems for the local residents. I would like to compliment Paul O'Brien from your department for working very well and conscientiously in trying to understand the residents' issues. In fact, he came out to attend a meeting of School Avenue residents and addressed the audience. They were very appreciative that he did that.
Mr. Minister, my question is, in this budget has any money been allocated to deal with the issues raised by School Avenue residents? If so, what work is expected to be done with that money?
631
[Page 632]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Transportation and Public Works.
HON. RONALD RUSSELL: Well, the very short answer is yes, there is money in this year's budget. You can return to the Red Chamber now if you want. I can embellish that a little bit, and I don't mean sort of rubbing up the skin of the apple, I mean to give you a little more information. We looked at the problem last year, and I understand we do have a solution but I'm not sure what the solution is. (Interruption) It's as I suspected, we haven't come to the final answer yet, but it will be done this year. The money is in the budget for it to be done this year.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Minister, can you give me an idea of how much money has been set aside to deal with the School Avenue issue?
MR. RUSSELL: That's a good question that you asked from the point of view that it reveals a problem that we have. If we go to tender and we've already said how much we have in the budget for a particular job, that always does certain things with regard to the tender, because people know how much money you have, so that's how much money the tender is going to come out for. Let me tell you, it's in excess of $50,000.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Minister, when and in what way does your department anticipate informing the residents of School Avenue of the plan to deal with some of their issues?
MR. RUSSELL: I don't know whether or not we have a plan to do that, to be quite honest, but it's not a bad idea now that you bring it forward. I'm sure that we can arrange to perhaps circulate a sheet of paper with the broad specs of what we intend to do.
MR. STEELE: That would be wonderful, Mr. Minister. I would very much encourage you to do that. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I would now like to turn my time back over to my colleague, the member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
Mr. Corbett, your time is now 1:46 p.m.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Minister, we only have a few minutes left. Has your department had, I wouldn't say an agreement, but are you in discussions now with the Cape Breton Regional Municipality over some cost-sharing on J-class roads?
MR. RUSSELL: I don't know if we're in discussions with the Cape Breton Regional Municipality. We have, in this year's budget, $1 million which we are injecting into cost-sharing under the Aid to Municipalities program that will fulfil some of the needs of the
[Page 633]
municipalities to pay for J-class roads. I know, not for your benefit but for the benefit of those here who may not know what we're talking about, we had two programs, we used to have Aid to Towns and Aid to Municipalities. I know, Mr. Chairman, that you're well aware of those because you among many other members have approached me with regard to J-class roads.
We are no longer funding the Aid to Towns, but we are putting $1 million into Aid to Municipalities this year. Last year we put the program into abeyance, there was no money available at all. This year with the added capital money that we're getting through the 2 cents per litre tax, we're putting $1 million in there, which when combined on a cost-sharing basis of 50/50 will provide $2 million worth of work.
We will be or we are at the present time sending out a letter to all municipal units advising them of the reinstatement of that program, and the limitations of the funding that's available. We would hope that within the next, I suppose, three or four weeks we will get the responses from the municipalities and we will be providing funding.
MR. CORBETT: Mr. Minister, I hope those letters go out before the budgeting process is done. Just changing gears, again you and I have talked about this before, your department created the Tar Ponds Agency. I'm just wondering if in the little time we have allotted, maybe we will come back to it some other time, could you give me an update or an overview of where the agency has come from since its inception and where it's at today? Some people in the community believe that has been structured to compete with JAG. Could you either confirm or waylay those fears?
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, that's a very good question that's being raised. I don't know the limitations on my time. If I take 15 or 20 minutes to bring the honourable members of the committee up to speed, am I stealing time from the Opposition?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have not set any parameters on the time or length of the answer the minister might want to give.
MR. RUSSELL: Yesterday when I spoke, I didn't get through my opening remarks. Part of the opening remarks spoke about the agency. Mr. Fowler has deputy minister status. He is not with us today, however he will be here shortly, I'm sure. Anyway, I would be very pleased to bring the member up to speed.
There's no more important task that faces Cape Breton Island than to clean up the Sydney tar ponds, and I think everybody would agree with that, and the former Sydney Steel coke ovens site. A century of steel and coke production left a terrible legacy of industrial pollution. The Cape Breton Regional Municipality will never reach its full potential as long as that blight remains. It hurts the city's image, impedes economic development and drains residents' energy and patience.
[Page 634]
Mr. Chairman, in my association with Cape Breton and the various ministries that I've had, this has been an ongoing sore spot for years and years, and I can understand the frustration that people must feel within the Sydney area with the seemingly low rate of progress that seems to be taking place. It's very easy to say, well, the fault is JAG; it's very easy to say the fault is the government; it's very easy to say that it's the Cape Breton Regional Municipality, et cetera. Everybody has lots of places to place the blame.
The problem is that at the onset, back in 1997, I think it was, when JAG was set up, the idea was that we would go slow in cleaning up the tar ponds, the idea was that we would not rush into doing something that was not going to work and spending a lot of money. Well, of course, as a matter of fact we did spend a fair chunk of money putting in place an incinerator that, in point of fact, we never got into operation.
However, I think, today, we're on the road to actually achieving a cleanup of the tar ponds. I would just like to speak about how we intend to do that. Today, thanks to the unique partnership between the community and three levels of government, Sydney has become the site of the largest and most ambitious environmental remediation project in Canada. The project is moving forward and many exciting developments will unfold in the coming year. Until recently provincial responsibility for this project was scattered among several government departments. There was no single focus, and no clear line of authority or accountability.
Last year this government created the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency with a small, tightly-focused team of professionals who dedicate their time and talent to the project. The cleanup is following a phased process set out by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. The planning stages are painstaking, time-consuming and absolutely necessary to ensure that the job is done effectively and efficiently. They can be frustrating to the public because a great deal of work is involved but little visible progress seems to be taking place.
The carefully laid groundwork of the last several years will bear fruit this year with the rapid-fire series of developments leading to a community recommendation on the design of the cleanup by March 2003. A $10.7 million project to recontour and cap an old municipal landfill at the eastern edge of the coke ovens site has greatly reduced contaminated leachate leaking into the coke ovens brook. Those of you who are familiar with the area would know that the coke ovens site sits in fragments like this area and up on the right-hand side, back here on an elevated site is the old Sydney landfill. All the leachate from there drains down and eventually winds up in Muggah Creek.
This work at the old municipal landfill, I think, has given Cape Bretoners real, tangible evidence of how community problems can be turned into community assets. The province and Ottawa have contributed $6.4 million to a project to divert raw sewage from the tar ponds and collect it for treatment. In a carefully regulated process earlier this month, contractors dismantled the by-products building, a long-standing eyesore on the coke ovens
[Page 635]
site. When the two smokestacks that tower over the site are dismantled this spring, the last of the above-ground structures on that site will be gone.
Environmental assessment of the tar ponds and coke ovens site is nearly complete. By year-end we will have a detailed report on the technologies available for cleaning up the site and a short list of recommended options. As you are probably aware, a number of companies who had proposals for cleanup of the site were given samples from the tar ponds, and they went to work on those samples and came back with certain proposals. That's underway at the present time.
Because community support for this project is essential, a vigorous community consultation process will produce a recommendation to the three levels of government by the end of this fiscal year. The Sydney Tar Ponds Agency is the contracting agent for cleanup work in the Muggah Creek watershed cleanup. The creation of the agency has brought a single focus to that work, enhancing efficiency and accountability. The agency acts as a liaison between me, as minister, and the Sydney Environmental Resources Limited, a Crown Corporation that provides site security for the former Sysco and coke ovens sites, and provides decommissioning services for Sysco.
Mr. Chairman, that's the end of the notes that I have directly on the tar ponds. (Interruptions) That's the part you missed yesterday, indeed you did. I am personally confident that we are moving in the right direction with the Sydney tar ponds, and I can assure you that the department and the agency are devoted to one objective only, this agency has just a single focus and that is the cleanup of the tar ponds. We expect that the federal government will be appointing somebody to the agency, a point person. They were the same as we were, there were several different departments looking at the project and arguing and fighting among themselves. If we can get the same kind of focus from the federal government as what is in place from the province, I think we will be a long way down the road towards speedy cleanup of the process.
Also, we are continuing discussions with the Cape Breton Regional Municipality. Sometimes those discussions have been difficult, there's no doubt about that, but we would hope that we will be getting and we will continue to get the co-operation that we need from the Cape Breton Regional Municipality. I would encourage Cape Breton members who would want to know further about what we're doing and how we're doing that they contact Bob Fowler, and I'm sure he can provide the information that you require.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cape Breton West. Your time is now 1:59 p.m.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Minister, I would like to focus on, perhaps starting off, a few housekeeping items in my constituency. First of all, is there any new pavement or repavement scheduled in my general constituency?
[Page 636]
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, there is.
MR. MACKINNON: This year?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, there is.
MR. MACKINNON: Are you able to identify - I know the Marion Bridge highway . . .
MR. RUSSELL: We're looking at several projects, and we're obviously not going to do them all. I think, if I may, Mr. Chairman, rather than answering with a specific road or a specific number of roads, I should just advise you, yes, there will be work done. There are a number of projects that have come forward that have priority, but then again, there are priorities all across the province. However, there will be work done in your riding. We should be able to provide you with the actual specific roads in the very near future.
MR. MACKINNON: I realize, over the past several years, you've asked every member of the House to identify what their priority would be, likewise with myself. There are a number of very pressing ones, I believe your Director of Operations here would certainly be familiar with Highway 327, the Marion Bridge highway. That's obviously one that the department had as a very high priority. As well, the highway leading between Port Morien and Birch Grove. Quite frankly, the residents are now at the point where they're saying if you can't repave it, tear the asphalt up and put a good sealer on it, because it's that bad. You can't drive 200 feet without having to go from one side of the road to the other.
MR. RUSSELL: I have roads like that, too.
MR. MACKINNON: Yes, and I can appreciate that. I can appreciate all the demands you have. I can bring in a wish list here that would consume your entire budget, but I think most of your staff in the department know I'm quite realistic. I try to list the worst-case scenarios first. I could go on and on, the Main-a-Dieu highway. I've been receiving considerable pressures.
Do you have any sense of, or are you able to identify what priorities you're considering this year? I know you can't do them all, and you probably don't want to say which one. I can assure you that this member is not going to be critical in a negative sense. We're of the adage that, look, every little bit that's done is that much less you worry about. I know you're fighting a losing battle in some senses.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, we have been fighting a losing battle, but hopefully we are starting to stem the tide somewhat and do a little bit of catch-up anyway. This year, as you know, we have about $34 million more for capital than we had last year. Some of that money will go into the 100-Series Highway; some of the money will go into equipment; and some
[Page 637]
will be going to the municipality, $1 million. The remainder will be going into routes and highways in rural areas.
We have downsized our management people within the Department of Transportation and Public Works in downtown Halifax over the past few years. As a result of that, we can't ramp up $34 million worth of additional construction in a week or two, it's going to take time because we have to come up with the specs and the tender documents for each particular project. Because we have less staff than we've had in the past, it's going to take a little bit longer.
MR. MACKINNON: I can appreciate that. I think that was one of the problems with the bridge in Floral Heights Subdivision, because it got so late in the year. That, I understand, will be done this year.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: Is the Marion Bridge highway going to be repaved this year? Are you able to at least . . .
MR. RUSSELL: It's one of the projects we're looking at, but I can't definitely say it will.
MR. MACKINNON: I can appreciate that. Like other members, I think I've spoken with staff in your department and indicated, I know there are certain sections - actually the whole thing should be redone, it's 30-some years since anything has really been touched, it's patchwork, patchwork, but there are sections - that have been patched over the years that are really not too bad but when you look over the road between Birch Grove and Port Morien, it's just absolutely atrocious. Someone can't drive 200 feet without ripping their muffler or doing serious damage because of the large chunks of asphalt that are sticking up. I think your staff will confirm that.
The Trout Brook Road is another area. Is there any repair work contemplated for the Trout Brook Road this year? I know your department, if it was not last year, I believe it was two years ago, did a small amount, just a quarter mile section. Again, very bad.
MR. RUSSELL: What's the name of this road again?
MR. MACKINNON: Trout Brook Road. I believe a former colleague of yours lives on that road. Mr. MacLeod. I'm not sure if you're familiar with that. There are a couple of small sections there that, again, the residents are quite concerned about. They're not looking for a panacea. I will raise that flag with you.
MR. RUSSELL: We've made a note.
[Page 638]
MR. MACKINNON: And obviously the road between Birch Grove and Port Morien, that's bad. Residents are resigning themselves to the fact that if you can't pave it, you're better off just tearing what chunks of asphalt are there up so that it will be safe to drive it. It's being used quite frequently, school buses, that sort of thing. I raise that.
There was another issue and I will provide you with the document. It's another local issue with regard to a tender for the installation of a generator down at the Strathlorne Nursery.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, anything that's tabled, even by members, the committee has asked for a copy for Hansard's purposes also.
MR. MACKINNON: That's no problem. It wasn't really tabled, but I provided it directly to the minister. If need be, that's no problem. The revised scope section of that tender, item 4.4, indicated . . .
MR. RUSSELL: It's not a very good copy.
MR. MACKINNON: No, they're not. I know it's something you wouldn't be familiar with right off, it's a particular tender that was called for. The lowest bidder that came in won the tender, and then, for whatever reason, it was recalled and re-tendered. As item 4.4 points out, considerable cost was a consideration in not wanting to recall tenders. It states right in there that the owner should not recall bids after the bid results have been announced, rather the owner should negotiate with the lowest bidder. I'm flagging this with you, Mr. Minister, because in this particular case that was not done. There were three bidders, I understand, and the one that was not even close to being low ended up getting the tender after the recall. I know there are a number of factors associated with that, but I wanted to flag it with you. I won't pursue it now, but it's one that I think may be creating some ripples in your department, if I could just leave that on notice.
MR. RUSSELL: I appreciate that that matter was brought to my attention. I will certainly take a look at it, and take the matter under advisement. We will get back to the member and to your committee as soon as possible. I presume that won't be too long. Normally, of course, the lowest bidder, if they meet the specifications, is accepted. If, however, the lowest bid appears to the procurement department to be too high, well then we have an option of either, as you suggest, negotiating with the lowest bidder or else just putting the project back to tender again.
MR. MACKINNON: I think you will find that wasn't the case, there may be some other issues at play there. It's not to try to snooker you here at the committee level, but it's an issue that I think should really be addressed. Yesterday, Mr. Minister, you mentioned no jobs were lost because of contracting out. There were a lot of jobs, for example, on the capital side, let's say, with the engineering division for bridges. I believe you have fewer
[Page 639]
engineers working in that division today than you did two years ago, because of retirements and so on. How many positions have been eliminated or not filled because of retirement and attrition?
MR. RUSSELL: Are you talking about in the unionized workforce, or are you . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Yes. Perhaps both.
MR. RUSSELL: Actually, you will note that within the department, in this budget, we have an increase in complement. We have increased the total numbers, I believe, by 23 full-time equivalents. I know that it's difficult to compare casual positions - real, live casual positions - with FTEs, because some real, live casual positions may only be an eighth or a sixth or a fifth of a full-time equivalent. If you are looking at the number of full-time equivalents that we have within the department at the present time, in the unionized workforce, we have more than we had last year. Last year, I think it was down slightly but not by a great many. I'm told that it has decreased over the last two years, but this year there was actually an increase.
Our biggest decreases in manpower, in the main, has been on our management side, on the engineering side, the architectural side and those particular persons. There may be some of the casuals who are not getting as much work as they used to, perhaps, in the past, and that has been brought about, to some extent, because of the fact that they have been getting less hours. Martin just brought to my attention that because of the increase in the capital expenditures, this year we will need additional weighers and checkers and surveyors, et cetera, as well as engineering and technical people. We will, in effect, be adding 47 people to our staff.
MR. MACKINNON: Full time?
[2:15 p.m.]
MR. RUSSELL: Forty-seven full-time equivalents. Some of these could well be full-time employees, others could be casuals.
MR. MACKINNON: The overall complement, is it up or down?
MR. RUSSELL: The overall complement of the department after all adjustments will be 2,044, and that's compared to last year at 2,006. So we're up by 38. It's very difficult, and I'm sure the honourable member recognizes that, he was looking after a government department himself at one time, so he knows there are a lot of casual people. It's very difficult to compare staffing when you have casuals injected into the equation.
[Page 640]
MR. MACKINNON: I notice that the cost of your compensation on your payroll has gone down. Why would it go down, let's say by about $500,000, if you're increasing your complement?
MR. RUSSELL: Actually our total payroll is about $91 million; it's gone up by about $5 million.
MR. MACKINNON: But your compensation is going down, the cost of your compensation.
MR. RUSSELL: What do you mean, do you . . .
MR. MACKINNON: You have to pay compensation, on your $100 per cost of assessment. Your overall cost to the department has gone down. Is that because of a reduction in accidents or is it because you have more people on contract or . . .
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, now I recognize where we're going. Workers compensation and our dues have decreased because of Bill C90, which required us to pay lump sum payments in compensation to a number of widows. That process was completed last year, and this year is a new ball game.
MR. MACKINNON: How much is contemplated on being paid out to the widows?
MR. RUSSELL: How much is being contemplated, paid out to widows?
MR. MACKINNON: Yes. Obviously budgeted.
MR. RUSSELL: I think that would be . . .
MR. MACKINNON: In the Financial Measures Act, I believe there's a provision.
MR. RUSSELL: We don't have those numbers, but we can get them.
MR. MACKINNON: Okay. That's fair enough. Just before I turn it over to my colleague, the Transportation Critic, Highway No. 4, there was some work done there last year, and I must compliment the department and the contractor . . .
MR. RUSSELL: Route 4?
MR. MACKINNON: It certainly, I believe, may very well save some lives. I think that was the point I was making last year about the shoulder of that road. I think nearly 200 feet of it actually collapsed. It is a 100-Series Highway. Are there any plans to do any additional work this year on that highway?
[Page 641]
MR. RUSSELL: As you know, Highway No. 104 is part of the national highway system.
MR. MACKINNON: Yes.
MR. RUSSELL: As such, we have been improving the highway but, however, haven't been doing a great deal with regard to realignment of the highway. In other words, we've been more or less following the old route, taking out some of the really bad bends, but still following the same track. To bring Highway No. 104 up to national highway system standards, it's probably going to necessitate, in the long term, a completely new route. In other words, we will have to leave the old Highway No. 4 and build a parallel route. That will happen in time. It probably won't happen while I'm still in the chair, I don't think. But I would say that some years down the road that's what will happen.
With regard to the present Highway No. 104, we are going to continue with the upgrade on that highway because we recognize that it is a very important highway, although it does share its traffic with Highway No. 105. To that end, there will be work done on Highway No. 104 this year. That will be an ongoing process, I would suggest, year after year, to bring that highway up to speed, but it will never be the be-all and end-all of a part of the national highway system until we break free from the old route and put in place a new road bed.
MR. MACKINNON: I appreciate that, because there is growing concern. There are a lot of problems that you have to deal with on the Seal Island Bridge. Most people recognize now that it's approximately 18 miles shorter going Highway No. 104 than it is Highway No. 105. If tourism is our big-ticket item in that part of the province, I think that's a very wise investment. The rate of return on it from a government perspective . . .
MR. RUSSELL: As the member says, Mr. Chairman, it's a shorter route and it's quite a scenic route. The only problem with it, and I know from experience because I drive it very frequently, is that it has lots of curves in it.
MR. MACKINNON: It served well in its time.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, but however the actual routing of it is not up to standard.
MR. MACKINNON: If you put two tractor trailers side by side - I believe this is the point, I sound like a broken record here, I know - and from the west coast mirror on one side to the west coast mirror of the truck on the other side you will find, I think, that those two trucks side by side would be six inches wider than the width of the asphalt.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes.
[Page 642]
MR. MACKINNON: It is a serious safety situation.
MR. RUSSELL: As I say, we will be doing work this year on Highway No. 104. That will be a continuing process year after year.
MR. MACKINNON: Obviously, another item, the final point I would like to make before I turn to my colleague, is with regard to the Louisbourg highway, Highway No. 22. It's a parkway; it's as much a federal responsibility as it is provincial, I would think, because of the Fortress of Louisbourg. Is there any plan either this year or in the near future to try to upgrade that highway, repave it or what have you?
MR. RUSSELL: When you say upgrade, are you speaking of repaving or realignment?
MR. MACKINNON: Repaving, essentially. There are some sections where the asphalt has to be torn up and reset, others just straight repaving. I believe it was 1969 or 1970 when that highway was essentially paved. They paved it but there was supposed to be an additional coat of asphalt going on top of that, but because of financial constraints it never seemed to get done. For a highway of that nature, I don't know if you referred to it under the national highway system or what have you, but almost to airport standards, really, because of the congestion of traffic.
MR. RUSSELL: We were talking earlier, Mr. Chairman, about the roads in the member's constituency, and as I said, a number of proposals came forward that are being looked at. I do not believe - and I might as well be right up front - that that road will be done this year. I don't think so, simply because there are so many priorities in every riding that you have to compare them.
MR. MACKINNON: I understand that, and there are other roads in the constituency that are desperately more worse off than that one. I flag it now because if it's an issue that has to be dealt with in conjunction with the federal government, it takes, sometimes, several years to get from the planning to the active stage of financial commitments. Certainly it's an issue I will be raising with the local MP and encouraging him. It is one that I have raised with him, as well as the federal minister for Nova Scotia. I flag that as well.
MR. RUSSELL: It's interesting that you should bring that up, Mr. Chairman, because of the fact that I have also been informed by the federal member that perhaps there is some federal money available. He seems to think that he can, perhaps, secure some. The ideal place to put that federal money, as I understand it, as far as the feds are concerned is with regard to their parks, golf courses, Fortress Louisbourg, et cetera. If we could get that boost, it would be a tremendous help. I would encourage Mr. Eyking to certainly move ahead.
[Page 643]
MR. MACKINNON: I will certainly forward my correspondence to both those gentlemen, respectively, as well as the federal minister on that. I know you're being bombarded by all members of the House, particularly your own caucus, and I can appreciate that, for precious dollars. One final comment. I notice you're putting an extra $23 million in for capital, and that's because of this 2 cent per litre fuel tax, but the overall budget for your department is only increasing by $7 million, so obviously you took the dollars from somewhere.
MR. RUSSELL: I beg your pardon?
MR. MACKINNON: Your budget, overall, contemplated for this year is only increasing by $7 million, but your capital budget, you're coming up with an extra $23 million because of the additional 2 cent tax on fuel. Where did the other $16 million out of your department go?
MR. RUSSELL: The easy answer and the correct answer is that you're speaking about the operating budget that has increased by $7 million, but if you will turn the page to the capital budget, you will find that it has increased by $30-odd million, $35 million. We have put in approximately $24 million which we estimate we will receive from the 2 cents per litre on gas, and $10 million additional that the government has dedicated each year to improving the capital spending on highways. There was $10 million extra last year, there's another $10 million on top of that this year.
MR. MACKINNON: I turn it over to my colleague, the member for Cape Breton Nova.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cape Breton Nova. Your time is now 2:27 p.m.
MR. PAUL MACEWAN: I always have a short time span, but I try to make the best use of it that I can. Mr. Russell, you have eight of your officials here with you today, and I don't notice my old friend, Luigi Centa here, I hear he retired 10 years ago. Who are your officials here today, could you tell us who they are?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, in fact I will introduce them and what they do. You know Martin, everybody knows Martin I think. Martin Delaney, Director of Operations. On my right I have Greg Penny who looks after the finances of the department. At the back we have
Richard Perry, Public Affairs Communications. He writes the words that I bring to you, yesterday and today. Greg Lusk, Executive Director of Government Services. (Interruptions) Don Stonehouse, Policy and Planning. Ted Kennedy, Director of Building Services. Bob Fowler, CEO of Sydney Tar Ponds Agency.
[Page 644]
MR. MACEWAN: And who else? Where's Mr. Fitzner? He's the boss down my way, I don't see him here.
[2:30 p.m.]
MR. RUSSELL: No, we don't have Mr. Fitzner here, Paul.
MR. MACEWAN: Oh, a shame. I thought he would want to expand on all the great things he has done.
MR. RUSSELL: We brought along a team, I think, that can probably answer all the questions you might have.
MR. MACEWAN: That new bridge in Margaree Harbour, that's quite an achievement. Is that within his district?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes it is.
MR. MACEWAN: Any other new bridges? Are you putting one across the Black Brook this year?
MR. RUSSELL: Where is the Black Brook?
MR. MACEWAN: The Black Brook has a one-lane bridge on it, one of the few remaining one-lane bridges in Nova Scotia. It's halfway between Port Morien and Mira Gut.
MR. RUSSELL: You speak of one of the last one-lane bridges in Nova Scotia. I can tell you whereabouts there are probably 10 or 15 of them in my riding.
MR. MACEWAN: Yes, you can make those into tourist attractions.
MR. RUSSELL: And there are over 200 in the province, I would advise the member for Cape Breton Nova.
MR. MACEWAN: Well, it's the only one that I frequently go across, I will say that. What other one-lane bridges do we have that need replacement, Russell, any others? (Interruptions) The one in Great Village. How about those bridges on the Intervale Road, have they been made into two-lane bridges? (Interruptions) No, I thought not.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: The residents aren't taking issue with that, they're quite happy with the historical significance.
[Page 645]
MR. RUSSELL: The old steel-truss bridges that we have in the province, Mr. Chairman, are approaching 100 years of age. We have a replacement program for those steel-truss bridges, however, some of them, at least most of them, are still in excellent condition and there doesn't seem to be any problems with them.
MR. MACEWAN: I should mention, also, the one-lane bridge at Mira Gut, which until very recently had a hand-propelled central span that could be moved so a ship could go up into the Mira River. It has now been replaced with an electric motor, so we're making progress.
MR. RUSSELL: We're making progress from one point of view, but if I remember correctly there was a great outcry because the gentleman who used to look after winding the handle no longer had a job. It's progress on one side and not much progress on another, perhaps.
MR. MACEWAN: Well that progress we can blame on the Tories. In any event, there is a one-lane bridge at Mira Gut that was a railway bridge originally for the Sydney and Louisbourg railway. It was made into a highway bridge back when I was a boy. The old highway bridge was taken out, so the railway bridge is now the highway bridge. I just mention it for your consideration.
Now we're talking about highways. There are many things we could be talking about. Let me take a look briefly at the 100-Series Highway program down in Shelburne and Queens County and in the Annapolis Valley, because I don't think it's completely finished down to Yarmouth in either direction, is it?
MR. RUSSELL: No.
MR. MACEWAN: No. Could you update us on that, what the plans are for the two sections there through Huskilson land and . . .
MR. RUSSELL: The two sections, the section on Highway No. 103 and Highway No. 101. Well, they are in the box to be looked at for funding. That's about all I can tell you at this time, to be quite honest. We have a large number of projects in the mill. Just one moment, I have something in my book here, I think. Those would be considered major projects, Mr. Chairman, and as such we do have a number of different projects. I had a list.
I think it was in the remarks that Richard prepared for me.
MR. MACEWAN: These plans that you're accessing, they're not private and confidential plans are they?
MR. RUSSELL: No, no.
[Page 646]
MR. MACEWAN: They're upfront plans that a new government could access easily?
MR. RUSSELL: Pardon?
MR. MACEWAN: A new government could access those plans easily? They're not like Donnie Cameron's hospital closure plans of 1993 that were kept under lock and key?
MR. RUSSELL: No, that's not our intent.
MR. MACEWAN: Good.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, I can tell the honourable member that, for instance, I know on Highway No. 101 from Weymouth to Digby, that section that is not brought up to standard, we're still acquiring land for that particular route; on Highway No. 103, the piece down around the Barrington bypass, construction has taken place over previous years but there's still construction to be done down there to bring it up to speed. Thank you Richard, that's what I was looking for.
Some of the highway projects that are in the planning stages, not necessarily going to be done this year by any means, are: Highway No. 101 from St. Croix to Avonport; Highway No. 104 from New Glasgow to Sutherlands River; Highway No. 103 from Waterlake Road to the Hammonds Plains Road at Tantallon; Highway No. 103 at Barrington; Highway No. 107 from Burnside to Highway No. 102; and Highway No. 113 from Sheldrake Lake on Highway No. 103 across to the Hammonds Plains Road. Those are the major highway projects that we're looking at for completion in the next number of years. There is planning work being done on all of them.
MR. MACEWAN: Good, good. You don't have the extension of Highway No. 125, past Trunk 4 on Grand Lake Road, on that list, do you?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. MACEWAN: You do have it there. Down in 17th position or 18th?
MR. RUSSELL: The section from Balls Creek to Sydney River, we're working on this current year and the other section will come in time again.
MR. MACEWAN: I have somewhat of an interest in that project because it's in my constituency. I know the department has purchased the land that would be needed to build that highway, some years ago.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, I think we have all the land. I'm not absolutely sure on that.
[Page 647]
MR. MACEWAN: My information is that you do. But it takes more than the purchase of land to build a highway.
MR. RUSSELL: Indeed it does.
MR. MACEWAN: Well, I know that the Cape Breton Regional Municipality is going to be petitioning you to extend that highway in some way to connect down to the Sysco Pier and the Devco Pier, the International Pier, at Whitney Pier.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. MACEWAN: Just what form that will take, I don't know, but I would certainly support that highway construction if possible, because it would access that facility and make it much more user-friendly.
MR. RUSSELL: There is some considerable interest by the Cape Breton Regional Municipality in doing that. As I understand it, there are ongoing discussions between the department and the regional municipality, as well as with the federal government, I believe.
MR. MACEWAN: I'm not going to endorse one route or another, I know there has been some debate on that point. Whatever will work is fine with me. That's the test. Now, I wanted to ask a few other questions before we start getting down to specific projects. I want to ask you, Mr. Minister, about the Halifax-Dartmouth metropolitan area. It seems to me, driving downtown every morning, that it's a heck of a job to try to get downtown here in the morning to get to work. The traffic is just unreal. That seems to be the way that most people get to work here. Some may go on the bus, but the bus is so slow I think the car is probably better. Have your officials given any thought to the construction of a light, rapid transit system, such as they have in Edmonton, Alberta or Calgary or other such places, Vancouver, that people could get on a train and go to work? Have you thought of that, and, if so, where does it stand?
MR. RUSSELL: There have been discussions, and I don't know if it has progressed much beyond discussions of the line from Sackville through Bedford down to the VIA Rail station. Federal funding seems to be available to some extent for that type of endeavour. Certainly in the City of Toronto, they've been able to benefit greatly from federal funding. I don't know whether we would get it or not. The project itself would be largely a municipal endeavour. It would have to be spearheaded by the Halifax Regional Municipality. No doubt they would be looking at the province for some, perhaps, financial assistance, as well as the federal government. It's an expensive proposition, as I am sure the member is well aware.
MR. MACEWAN: I know that. I also know that in Vancouver the Bennett Government - and I'm not talking about Wacky, I'm talking about his son - took major credit for developing the light, rapid transit system throughout Vancouver and into its suburbs. I
[Page 648]
don't know to just what extent they made it happen, but their publicity certainly made it sound like they made it happen.
MR. RUSSELL: In 1986, they had the Exposition there, I forget exactly what it was called, and that certainly helped to a large extent. (Interruptions) Both of us were there. Certainly British Columbia benefited from federal government largesse to build all kinds of things, including that light rail system.
MR. MACEWAN: All right. It's something that we would like to see developed here if possible. The rails are already in place to do it. It's just a matter of getting trains to run on them. That's quite a big job. If you would like to speak more on that subject, Mr. Minister, you certainly have the floor here. I would like to hear anything you want to say on it, but I don't want to tie proceedings up on account of that one item.
MR. RUSSELL: We are not in the business of transit within the HRM or for that matter the CBRM. We consider that to be a municipal venture, and we are not prepared to get involved. As far as other services, such as bus services and ferry services, et cetera, they all help, certainly in a smaller community such as Halifax. When you think about the City of Halifax, it's not a large community by any means. The population is somewhere in the neighbourhood of about 250,000 perhaps, which is a fairly small-sized city even by Canadian standards these days. It's my understanding from what I've read on the subject that to run a rail transit system in particular, you need a fairly large population, probably 1 million people, and certainly we don't come even close to that.
MR. MACEWAN: That's true, although in Edmonton, the line they have there only runs on one line. It doesn't have any branches yet. It runs from the northeast to the southwest throughout the city. If you're not within walking distance of that line, it really doesn't relate to you. You can't get to the West Edmonton Mall by the LRT system in Edmonton, it doesn't go anywhere near there. In Calgary, the system there has three branches going in three different directions. In Vancouver, the system there is being elongated to a distance quite far out in the suburbs, to Mission now, all the way to Mission. Here comes Mrs. Baillie with a mission in mind, to take you out of here. (Interruptions) Well, if you like the discussion, stay.
[2:45 p.m.]
I don't want to dwell on that one subject all afternoon. I see you have your gentleman here from the Sydney tar ponds. Did you want to make a report on that project?
MR. RUSSELL: I just did a few minutes ago. (Interruptions) Do it again?
MR. MACEWAN: Yes. Did you give a report to the NDP on this?
[Page 649]
MR. RUSSELL: I was asked a question. The member for Cape Breton Centre asked me a question, about what we were doing with regard to the tar ponds. Essentially, I'm sure that you know where we are anyway, without me reading through the prepared script. Mr. Chairman, the member for Cape Breton Nova, of course, is well aware of the problems, so I'm not going to speak about why we're in the business of trying to clean up the tar ponds. I would just like to tell him that we are following down a path now that we believe is going to be successful.
We believe that we've taken the right direction by appointing Mr. Fowler - who is sitting at the back of the room - with deputy minister status to provide a single point of entry to information and to action with regard to the tar ponds. By the end of this year, we will have - well, probably not the end of this year, but by early 2003, we will have the results of the various proponents for cleanup. They will have come forward with their proposals and the selection will be made as to what process we're going to follow. We have, as you know, cleaned up all the above-ground structures in the coke ovens site. We've capped the adjacent landfill site. Generally speaking, I think things are proceeding pretty well. As part of that process, we're now cleaning up the yards of the residents that had some evidence of environmental damage. I don't know what else I can say to the honourable member, except that things are moving, albeit slowly, however perhaps that's the best way for things to move.
MR. MACEWAN: Well, I don't think you need to say a great deal more than you've already said. Steel was made at Sydney for 100 years, most of it without any real environmental consideration at all. It was just made. Then the residue, the leftovers are there now, today, for us to deal with. We do the best we can. I know that some of the contaminants that are left behind are pretty corrosive, pretty poisonous. It's not a nice place to build a home next to, but if you've built your home there or your grandfather did 75 years ago and you're in it today, well, you're not very likely to tear your house down just because of where it's located. You have to try to reconcile these things in a way that people will accept, and that's hard to do sometimes.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, I think the good news, if I may say there is good news, is the fact that we have done what I believe is a very fair and very comprehensive check on the health of the residents within that area, and in consequence of that, we have found that in point of fact the health of those people is no different in reality from the population at large in the Sydney area.
MR. MACEWAN: Well, that's true. I know most of them personally, and many have lived to a very advanced age without any serious health repercussions. It's a fact. I'm not saying it's the ideal environment or atmosphere in which to live, but if you're already there, I don't see any sense in tearing the city down or making it a population-free area because there was some stuff done there in the past that probably wouldn't be done today by today's standards.
[Page 650]
I would like to move, if I could, from the tar ponds and the coke ovens, which we've just been talking about, to the actual Sysco site itself, which is not included in the tar ponds or coke ovens sites. My point of view is that the Sydney Steel plant is still capable of being operated today, if someone came along who had the know-how and the financing to make it happen. It might be operated at the present site or it might be dismantled and shipped over to India, reassembled there and steelworkers hired over there for 50 rupee or whatever they pay them an hour. Either way, it could be operated. Maybe this isn't a fair question, but I will ask it anyway and see what happens. Is there any reason why, in the demolition of the Sysco plant, you have not demolished those parts that actually made steel, the basic oxygen furnace and the universal mill and the rail finishing mill and such facilities? They're still there and still quite capable of being turned on, if somebody turned the power on.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, actually Sydney Steel doesn't come under my department, as you realize. The reason that the arc furnace and the rolling mills, et cetera, have not been dismantled and taken away is that, I believe in most cases, they're simply waiting for a buyer.
MR. MACEWAN: That's a good way to put it.
MR. RUSSELL: When somebody buys those particular pieces of equipment, they will then be dismantled and removed.
MR. MACEWAN: So we should send the word out that there is a steel plant awaiting a buyer.
MR. RUSSELL: It's been awaiting a buyer, I would suggest, for a long time. There's no takers. I share your enthusiasm for the area, but I don't share your enthusiasm for the resurrection of Sydney Steel because I think Sydney Steel's day is done.
MR. MACEWAN: Well, we never know. I won't try to prejudge the future, I don't have the gift of prophecy. It's there today anyway, and it could be used if somebody wanted to set it in motion. You make the point, quite correctly, that you're not the minister responsible for Sydney Steel, that's Gordon Balser, so your territory ends where the plant gates begin.
MR. RUSSELL: Correct.
MR. MACEWAN: As far as the coke ovens, tar ponds and such sites go, I think we pretty well know what is planned for those areas. It doesn't really require any great explanation here. I would encourage you to carry on and not to become discouraged by such slight interventions as there may be from time to time.
[Page 651]
Now did you want to have Mr. Fowler address our committee, or is he just to sit there and witness these proceedings?
MR. RUSSELL: I don't think so, no.
MR. MACEWAN: You don't think so. You want to keep him down there. Well, he's quite willing to explain his side of the picture anyway, I know that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to advise the honourable member, you have about 5 minutes remaining. Also, the rules of the House require the minister answers all questions, not the staff.
MR. MACEWAN: I don't know. When I was the Speaker of the House, I had my deputy right next to me and he was very helpful, but I won't get into that one. (Interruptions)
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back to this 2 cent per litre fuel tax. I want to be certain of the difference between operational and capital. What is the total dollar figure you expect to raise with this tax this year, $37 million or was it $15 million?
MR. RUSSELL: One cent per litre raises about $12 million. So 2 cents per litre should raise $24 million, however it, of course, it also depends on how many litres are sold. In other words . . .
MR. MACKINNON: What are you budgeting for?
MR. RUSSELL: For $24 million.
MR. MACKINNON: And all $24 million will go to capital road construction?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, it will - no, I misspoke. It will be going into capital, but there is some capital in bridges, there's some capital in equipment, there's some capital for ferries, and . . .
MR. MACKINNON: So you could be buying a new snowplow?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes. For instance, I think we're spending something in the order of about $6 million this year on acquisition of machinery, trucks . . .
MR. MACKINNON: You're going to use $6 million out of that $24 million to buy new road machinery?
[Page 652]
MR. RUSSELL: No, no. I'm just saying that there is $6 million coming out of our capital fund. Of the $24 million that we will be taking in on the gasoline tax, about $22.2 million will be spent directly on roads.
MR. MACKINNON: On roads. Forgive me, I may be getting just a little confused here, maybe I'm getting mixed signals. You expect to raise about $24 million, you expect to spend approximately $6 million on new capital equipment . . .
MR. RUSSELL: We will be spending out of our capital budget - which is in the neighbourhood of about $85 million - about $6 million of that $85 million.
MR. MACKINNON: So we have two different capital budgets, is that what you're saying?
MR. RUSSELL: No, we just have the one. However, we will be accounting, and Mr. Chairman, I think this is an important point, for the money that is raised through the gas tax at this table next year and detailing exactly where that money went with regard to highways, et cetera.
MR. MACKINNON: I want to be clear. Every cent of that 2 cent per litre that you're going to raise is going specifically for capital road construction.
MR. RUSSELL: Into the capital road program, yes.
MR. MACKINNON: Capital road program doesn't necessarily mean spending it on the roads.
MR. RUSSELL: No, it could be bridges or machinery and other items, such as ferries, et cetera.
MR. MACKINNON: But normally you would have to replace your equipment anyway.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: In essence what you're saying is there wasn't enough money in your budget to be able to replace equipment that has outlived its usefulness without this additional tax.
MR. RUSSELL: Exactly. Over the past few years, and when I say the past few years I mean about the past 10 years, we have not kept replacing our machinery at the rate we should be replacing it. In other words, we're keeping machinery beyond what would be the
[Page 653]
normal age at which we would write it off and buy a replacement machine. This year our budget is $6 million - I'm told that the figure is not exactly $6 million, it's $5.3 million.
MR. MACKINNON: So you're taking $5.3 million out of this . . .
MR. RUSSELL: Out of our capital budget, which includes the . . .
MR. MACKINNON: The $24 million.
MR. RUSSELL: The $24 million, yes.
MR. MACKINNON: So the $24 million plus X number of dollars will give you your total capital.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, as a for instance, in 2001-02, our total capital program, and this includes Public Works as well, was $68,983,000; this year it is $95,824,000.
MR. MACKINNON: But your total capital on highway construction is?
MR. RUSSELL: The total on highways, in the Transportation side of the Department of Transportation and Public Works, is $85,527,000, plus $5,300,000 for equipment, for a grand total of $90,827,000. Those are capital dollars.
MR. MACKINNON: I just have to be clear. The 2 cent per litre, every dollar that you raise from that, it's not necessarily going specifically for capital road building . . .
MR. RUSSELL: It is going into capital for transportation.
MR. MACKINNON: It's just all lumped in there.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes. Highways, bridges, machinery.
MR. MACKINNON: Maybe we will come back to this after the NDP have their turn. Thank you, Mr. Minister.
[3:00 p.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The time for the Liberal caucus has now expired. We are now back to the NDP caucus. Mr. Deveaux, your time is now 3:00 p.m.
The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
[Page 654]
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, I'm only going to take about 10 minutes. There are two particular areas. My riding is in the core area of HRM, so I don't have a lot of transportation issues per se. There are two particular issues I want to bring up. One is Highway No.111, the Circumferential Highway, which is on the extreme north end of my riding. It's an issue in the South Woodside area because there are no lights on that stretch of highway from Portland Street to Pleasant Street. It's a particular problem, and in the past I think the argument was that there was a lack of traffic to warrant street lights on the highway. It's lit from Portland Street all the way over to the bridge now, with the new lighting put in there.
MR. RUSSELL: Can I just interrupt for one moment?
MR. DEVEAUX: Sure.
MR. RUSSELL: When you say street lights, do you mean actual street lights rather than the traffic lights?
MR. DEVEAUX: Yes, I'm talking about making the highway lit at night. I guess my question is, is that something your department has looked into, and have they made a determination that there isn't a sufficient volume of traffic to warrant nighttime lighting of Highway No. 111 from Portland Street to Pleasant Street?
MR. RUSSELL: I'm advised that we've looked into it, and we don't need lighting beyond Portland Street.
MR. DEVEAUX: And when was the last time that a study was done? Can you give me a rough idea?
MR. RUSSELL: About four years, I'm told.
MR. DEVEAUX: I was elected four years ago, and there has been a fairly large increase in population in that area. Particularly now even, you're going to have a new emergency room, you've got all the construction work going on on the two oil rigs, you've got a much busier Woodside Industrial Park, you've got Moirs chocolate factory that has expanded its production to 24/7. So it's not only in my side of the riding, it would also be Mr. Olive's area in Dartmouth South. There is a lot more traffic coming down there, plus the new residential housing in the Eastern Passage area. I guess my question to you is, would your department be prepared to make a commitment to do another traffic study to determine whether there is sufficient traffic now to warrant night lighting of that section of Highway No. 111?
[Page 655]
MR. RUSSELL: I do know that area a little bit. I can vouch for the fact that the population has increased out there, but I will have to check whether or not the gentleman to my left agrees that we should be doing traffic studies. Okay. I'm advised that the department will review it, and we will get back to the member and to your committee, Mr. Chairman, with the results of our review as to whether or not we will proceed with a full-fledged traffic study or not.
MR. DEVEAUX: Thank you. I appreciate that. The second question around Highway No. 111 is HRM is planning to put a new highway in or a connector road from a portion of Highway No. 111 over to Caldwell Road, which is between Cole Harbour and Eastern Passage. Part of that includes the need for an exchange or exit ramps off Highway No. 111, which would come under the Department of Transportation and Public Works. Has the Department of Transportation and Public Works worked out an agreement with HRM for the construction of exit ramps for Highway No. 111 to create the new connector road?
MR. RUSSELL: HRM, I'm told, is exploring the project or is coming forward with the project under the Infrastructure Program. We would probably be supportive, but we are reviewing the plans at this time.
MR. DEVEAUX: That's been a year or so since they submitted their list, I believe. When could we expect to hear back on finalizing whether that project will be part of the infrastructure funding?
MR. RUSSELL: Well, I do know it's time constrained, but I'm not too sure. I'm advised that we're supporting the project in principle, but HRM is the body that's going to determine when the decision is made to go ahead. There are time constraints on the Infrastructure Program, and I think that's two years. It has not yet been approved as a project. I believe, from another project that I know about, that there is a termination, the projects have to be approved and underway, and I think it's two years hence.
MR. DEVEAUX: Two years hence today? What is the date - the date on which they are approved?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: It's the federal government that has to give final approval.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: When are you expecting the federal government to give final approval for the infrastructure projects in Nova Scotia?
[Page 656]
MR. RUSSELL: That's what I'm saying, I can't answer that, Mr. Chairman. What I can say is that I presume that the city knows that they have to get the project approved by the federal government and something underway within the next two calendar years.
MR. DEVEAUX: Two years of the date in which the project gets approval.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, the end of 2004 is the end of the Infrastructure Program.
MR. DEVEAUX: So you have no idea - have there been other infrastructure projects approved or are all the infrastructure projects in Nova Scotia pending federal approval?
MR. RUSSELL: Some have been approved and some are still pending. A fairly large number, actually, are still pending, but also a fairly large number have been approved.
MR. DEVEAUX: There's no deadline for the federal government to either approve or not approve those projects, other than it has to be completed by 2004?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, and there has to be sufficient money. The Infrastructure Program, as you know, has a cap on it, and I forget what the cap is in Nova Scotia. Once the projects reach that cap, then that's the end of them.
MR. DEVEAUX: Has there been any preliminary work on designing an interchange there?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, there has.
MR. DEVEAUX: So assuming the money was approved by the federal government, it could move fairly quickly?
MR. RUSSELL: Oh, yes. I'm just informed that it also has to be approved by the province as well as the feds.
MR. DEVEAUX: For infrastructure money you mean?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: But the list that was submitted by the HRM put it on the list, that list is not also approved - did you submit a separate list for HRM projects that your government was willing to fund under infrastructure?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: And did this project make it to that list?
[Page 657]
MR. RUSSELL: I can't answer that question because, quite frankly, I don't know. In fact, I don't know if we can even find out. Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, evidently, would be able to answer that question. I didn't know that before, so I've learned something today.
MR. DEVEAUX: Because they deal with municipal relations, is that the theory?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: My only other question is with regard to shore erosion, which is something that . . .
MR. RUSSELL: Just before we leave that, if I could make a suggestion, you could certainly ask the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, but I would also think that with your access through council, you should be able to get a pretty fair indication of where it sits with regard to HRM. I think it's HRM that would have to push to get that project through.
MR. DEVEAUX: It is fairly high up on the list, I believe, at HRM, number two. I think it's right after the sewage treatment project. I guess I wasn't clear, though, whether the province had a separate list and prioritized it differently. I wasn't sure how that worked. That's okay.
My other question is around shore erosion, which as you know, from time to time I write you letters and I write to the Minister of Natural Resources around that issue. In Eastern Passage there's a certain stretch of land that is not protected, does not have armour rock in place or rip-rap - I think that's what it's called - that prevents the erosion of the shore. My question to you is, at this point the city may very well be in the position, because of the proximity of the erosion to Shore Road in Eastern Passage, may be forced to do something. Up to the high-water mark, I understand, to be the province's jurisdiction with regard to the protection of the shore, so my question is, would that . . .
MR. RUSSELL: Beyond.
MR. DEVEAUX: Is that your understanding, up to the median high-water mark?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: So if there was a proposal brought to you by the residents who live along the shore that they were willing to address some of the shore erosion areas on their property, they would need permission from you - I presume it's you, maybe it's Natural Resources - with regard to addressing below the high-water mark. My question to you is, do you see that as being a problem, if they are willing to address the erosion issue on their part
[Page 658]
of the land? Will your department have any problem addressing the issue below the high-water mark, or is that a Natural Resources issue?
MR. RUSSELL: It wouldn't come under our jurisdiction.
MR. DEVEAUX: Is it Natural Resources?
MR. RUSSELL: Or the federal government. Mr. Chairman, as the honourable member may be aware, erosion is becoming more and more of a problem in this province, not because of changes in environment, et cetera, but just simply because of the fact that people are more aware of the fact that the lands are washing away from under their houses in many cases. We do not get involved, except where there's an erosion problem taking away part of one of our highways. Then we would react. But generally speaking, no.
MR. DEVEAUX: I guess that's my point, though. If we have a situation where the homeowners on the shore want to address it in their area, and they're willing to pay for their part of the land that they own, the problem is that you can't put armour rock on their land unless you also put armour rock below.
MR. RUSSELL: They have to have the permission of the federal government to do so.
MR. DEVEAUX: I don't think it's the federal government, because up to the high-water mark would be provincial. I understand that the harbour itself, the low-water mark beyond would be federal jurisdiction, but I believe that the province, between the high - and low-water mark, would be the owner of the land. I don't want to get into the nitpicking of that.
My other question is, assuming that it was a reasonable cost, and I'm not asking you to say yes or no to this here, is it something your department would be willing to look at in order to share the cost between the land owned by the province and the land owned by the residents? Is that something you would even be willing to look at?
MR. RUSSELL: I would suggest probably no.
MR. DEVEAUX: Okay, thank you. I think those are all my questions. I think my colleague has some more.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Again, I welcome the opportunity to have this exchange with the minister and his staff on a few matters of concern. I would like to get a couple of local issues out of the way before we deal with some other matters that have been
[Page 659]
brought to my attention by constituencies outside of Timberlea-Prospect. Can you clarify for the people of Five Island Lake, Mr. Minister, how many containers are currently in the enclosed, fenced-in area, and what is the schedule for their eventual final removal?
Maybe you have that at your fingertips, or if your staff knows the answer, I have been asked by the committee to pass on to you directly and to the members of your staff and to previous ministers an example of the co-operation between an active community group and your particular department. I don't mean this disrespectfully, sir, ministers come and go, but it's the staff who have the follow-up. On behalf of the Five Island Lake Liaison Committee, we want to thank the people in your particular department for their consistency in dealing with the issue. It certainly will be a relief when the containers are actually removed.
[3:15 p.m.]
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, I hear the member loud and clear. This project, as I said yesterday and as I said last year, is probably one of the best-managed, best-organized, best-communicated environmental cleanups that we've had in this province. It has worked extremely well. We're now at the final stage, and there are approximately 21 or 22 containers still remaining on-site. I'm told there is about 70 tons of contaminant in each container. As the member is well aware, of course, we have to ship these containers to Quebec to get rid of them, and that is the expensive part of the operation. I'm told in this document that all the material in the containers, and I presume that's all the containers - or am I misreading something here? - should be gotten out of the site by next year.
MR. ESTABROOKS: I don't mean to be - next year means to me, January 2003.
MR. RUSSELL: I am going to have to talk to my people on my left and on my right, because they've each given me a different answer here.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Mr. Minister, we can follow up with a letter or something specific, I don't mean to put your staff on the spot.
MR. RUSSELL: I can tell the honourable member, Mr. Chairman, that we are moving containers out of there this year.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Yes.
MR. RUSSELL: And it was my understanding that we were moving all the containers out by the end of this calendar year.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Yes.
[Page 660]
MR. RUSSELL: However, maybe I'm mistaken in that we will not have them all out. Okay. I'm advised that we have the money in the budget to remove all 22 containers this year.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Again, I certainly appreciate your staff's commitment over the years. I would like to go to another local issue of some consequence, and that, of course, is the connection between identifying roads as a priority and the tourism industry. During Tourism estimates I asked the minister, aside from Arts Council questions, about the connection, economically of course, with certain primary tourist destinations. I have heard Ms. Cabrita from TIANS make comments in the press, to the media, that tour buses will no longer go down through certain sections of the Eastern Shore. That's what she's reported as saying. That's unfortunate of course, and I know the member for Eastern Shore has probably raised that issue.
As you are well aware, the tourist - although I know the Cape Breton members, perhaps, will question this, the Highlands are a wonderful part, as there are parts all over this province that are great tourist destinations. People getting off those cruise ships - and I know there is an increased number of them coming in this year, and I heard you mention the number earlier, over 100, 120, I think - want to get to Peggy's Cove. I don't particularly see the fascination because I can take you to Terence Bay or Shad Bay, but I understand that it's a pretty popular, highly-marketed destination.
I want you to clarify for me - and this is self-serving, of course, because the Prospect Road is getting beaten to death by these tour buses. Your department certainly recognized the increased tourist traffic along that route by expanding the parking lot at the memorial for the Swissair disaster. It was necessary, of course. We now have a special part, there's one of the restaurants there where the bus drivers go and receive meals on their own and have a break from dealing with the tourists on the bus, there's a special removed parking lot for buses only.
The huge majority of tour buses that come either from the cruise ships or into Nova Scotia get to Peggy's Cove. Surely there has to be a strong correlation between attention to highways, secondary roads such as Highway No. 233, and that popular tourist destination. Can you assure me and the people who live in my constituency that this will continue to be a major factor in considering the upgrade of that road?
MR. RUSSELL: Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to ministers who preceded me and ministers who will probably follow after me, we have to take into consideration roads to resources, whether they be tourist resources or whether they be manufacturing resources or coal mines for that matter. The roads have a tremendous economic impact upon tourism, and we recognize that. Certainly, whether we're talking about the Cabot Trail or we're talking about just going out to Peggy's Cove, we do have to take that into consideration and as a priority.
[Page 661]
I'm always disturbed when I'm told by such people as Ms. Cabrita that tourism buses won't go down a certain road because they're in terrible shape. If that were so, I would be absolutely horrified. I don't think we have any roads quite that bad. Admittedly some of our roads do need to be spruced up for our tourism traffic, and some our roads certainly need recapping to take care of our tourism traffic. Highway No. 333, I think we did some work on that last year.
MR. ESTABROOKS: You did.
MR. RUSSELL: And we will do some work again this year. Hopefully, I would think by the end of the next year, we will have that highway in what could be considered to be good shape. I don't know what else I can say about that road in reality. We can't make it much wider than it presently is, because of the restrictions. All we can do is make sure we have a decent surface for traffic to ride on.
MR. ESTABROOKS: I know I've heard - the member for Chester-St. Margaret's, if you want to put some comments on the record, go right ahead. I don't mind you taking a couple of minutes of my time. It is much improved on the opposite side of the loop, as we call it, but I want to point out to the minister that's not in my constituency but that's okay.
Let's turn to a matter of some consequence. Why is your department fascinated with the unlucky number 113? That stretch of road, and I have the utmost respect for Paul O'Brien, I told your deputy this earlier and I want to make it public now, if I may. Paul O'Brien has been exceptional in the quality of service, his professional engineering. He's a model in my view for an area manager. Now, I know there are demands for 100-Series Highways all across this province, whether it comes to work on Highway No. 103, further down to some of the extreme examples that have been brought to my attention. If I look at the exit to Kejimkujik Park, or if I looked at Raddall Park, there's work needed all the way along Highway No. 103.
Why is Highway No. 113 - and you brought it up in your introductory comments that I listened to and there have been concerns expressed by various interest groups that this particular stretch of road should not be a priority, that there are other highways that are just as badly needed. I have to ask you, sir, why do we keep bringing up Highway No. 113, when in the view of many, most of the people who I deal with, it's not something that we should consider a priority? I know the reaction is, you mean you don't want roads in your area? We want as much road work as we can get, but we're not interested in this particular section of road for a number of reasons: old growth forests, needs in other areas, and so on.
Yet it's brought up again and it surfaced in your opening comments. Could you clarify for me, why is Highway No. 113 resurfacing again?
[Page 662]
MR. RUSSELL: Highway No. 113 is a long-range priority. It's certainly not a high-priority at the present time, anywhere approaching that of Highway Nos. 101, 102, 103, 104. However, at some time in the future that connect is going to have to be made, but for the present time there is no priority on that road at all. Any money that is being spent is being spent primarily on the planning and design, that type of thing.
MR. ESTABROOKS: If I may, I have received correspondence in the past from people further down Highway No. 103. I am talking about Highway No. 103 that is down at the seaside adjunct for Kejimkujik and the Raddall Park, down off Highway No. 103, and the need for attention to those - I've been there and driven by them, I can't honestly say that I've used them - that these turnoffs are dangerous and they need work. Is there any plan in your department that these needs will be addressed?
MR. RUSSELL: To be quite frank I haven't heard this before. I'm told that there's no action planned in the immediate future for them because they are a low priority, simply because there are low traffic volumes. We do not consider it to be a high accident-prone area. For now, nothing is contemplated.
MR. ESTABROOKS: They are dangerous for those residents. Of course they are tourist destinations. My last local issue that I would like to deal with is I hear from a number of constituents on a regular basis, and one of them is Greg Parsons who lives in Governors Lake. I bet if the member for Cape Breton Nova was there, he could tell me what his civic address is, but I can't do that just yet, Paul.
Mr. Parsons travels a number of our 100-Series Highways regularly. He points out to me that there are a number of serious potholes on 100-Series Highways, on Highway No. 104, five or 10 minutes from the Bible Hill exit, headed towards New Glasgow. He sees that as you come out onto Highway No. 102, as you come up towards Dutch Village Road - we're talking 100-Series Highways - the concern comes down to the fact that we're not talking about back roads here, if there are such things in Nova Scotia anymore, back roads, we're talking about a 100-Series Highway that has potholes down to the gravel.
It remains a concern that these are not getting the attention that they deserve. Is that because there's a lack of staff, for example, out of the Truro garage? Most of the people I deal with are very conscientious about getting out there and getting at those jobs. I heard from Mr. Parsons twice this week on the potholes on Highway No. 104, a stretch of road that unfortunately I know too well, having been involved in an unfortunate accident there. We're talking about potholes on 100-Series Highways that have taken a while to get repaired. Is that because of a lack of staff?
[Page 663]
[3:30 p.m.]
MR. RUSSELL: No, it is not, and it's unacceptable, to be quite honest. I would advise Mr. Parsons, if he runs across a pothole, to advise the nearest base to the hole. As I think everybody is aware, in our climate in the wintertime it is very difficult to make a repair of a pothole, because we are putting in a cold mix, it goes in there, you roll it down, it looks as solid as a rock, and about a week later the whole thing just pops out and sits on the road and looks at you. We do have to pay attention to potholes when they occur.
I think our staff does a reasonably good job, but sometimes there is a pothole on a road that a motorist will observe that our people might possibly miss. I advise anybody who sees a pothole that could create damage to a vehicle or perhaps create an accident that they notify the Department of Transportation and Public Works.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Thank you. I will pass that on to Mr. Parsons. I received a very prompt reply from your office February 20th of this year. I had earlier corresponded with your office, enquiring about the inventory of the snow removal equipment that was operating out of the Beechville base. You responded that the department runs 13 plows, a department grader, a contracted grader from the base, and all pieces of equipment are fully manned for continuous operation. As your staff probably knows, I know a number of those men personally. A number of them used to be students of mine, which says something about my age.
Honestly, in a growing community with more and more subdivisions and more and more responsibilities for your department to get at those roads on a regular basis after a snowstorm, I look at what we have here, 13 plows; is there any kind of ratio for amount of kilometres to be cleared as compared to pieces of equipment? I certainly want you to know that your staff, Randy Pulsifer in particular, Leon Cordeau, out of that same office, they stick to the schedule, they have those roads in and out, most snowstorms, they're ready within the allotted number of hours, to their credit, particularly on the 100-Series Highways.
Is 13 plows enough gear to take care of the snow removal on a timely basis when next year - Mr. Minister, I can tell you it's like those houses are mushrooms, you keep them in the dark and feed something to them because the next day you come by and a house has popped up. I can guarantee you that this summer there could be as many as 200 or 300 new homes, and I don't know how many new streets, in Timberlea-Prospect. That is outside of the core area, let's be clear on that. Is there a ratio between the number of kilometres you're responsible for as opposed to the pieces of gear?
MR. RUSSELL: The area is growing, I don't think there's any argument about that. The areas that are growing are primarily HRM's responsibility. Our commitment, if you will, to the number of kilometres that we have is static. The growth is in HRM and becomes their responsibility. We have a variety of ratios for our equipment. A snowplow, perhaps under
[Page 664]
certain circumstances, would have maybe 45 kilometres to look after. In another circumstance, maybe 100 kilometres. It depends entirely on the road, it depends on the type of road that is being plowed. It's difficult to answer your question with any specificity.
MR. ESTABROOKS: I heard the Minister of Finance say to me the other day that when he was in Opposition he always referred to the Supplement to the Public Accounts because it has some fascinating information in it. He was quite critical of a particular member of our caucus who was waxing poetic, philosophically. I said to him, Mr. LeBlanc, you should come in and perhaps talk to us because I rely on that book all the time.
I'm on Page 179 of the supplement, and I see a huge figure which says the Halifax Regional Municipality had an allocation of $2,999,264.71. Can you or staff give me a more specific breakdown? I understand the fact that I could receive this in writing at a later time, and that's not a problem. Can you give me a more specific breakdown on what that sizable amount of money is actually used for?
MR. RUSSELL: That money is rental of office spaces and taxes from the Halifax Regional Municipality. If you would like a breakdown on that - I understood that you just said you would like that - we can certainly get that for you. We can get it for you almost immediately, not today but later this week.
MR. ESTABROOKS: A few more questions. I was expecting another member from our caucus to pick up the time, Mr. Chairman, but that's not going to happen, so I just wanted to let the members of the Liberal caucus know that in a few more moments I will be giving my time over and we will be finished. I'm not going to repeat that for the chairman coming in.
I want to talk about the crosswalk committee. Mr. Chairman, both chairmen, the one leaving and the one coming, are aware that within the municipality, of course, there was a terrible tragedy on Robie Street. At that time the Liberal Government was in place and there was a crosswalk committee formed under the leadership of Mr. Huskilson, I believe. I'm not sure but I believe he was the minister. There are, throughout this region, and I'm sure throughout the province but I'm not aware of them throughout the province, dangerous ones; there are numerous dangerous crosswalks that have been the scene of some, well, in this case here in the city, tragic accidents. What is the status of this committee? Will they be forthcoming with a report at some time in the future?
MR. RUSSELL: This is the committee for HRM, you're speaking about, specifically, or were you speaking about crosswalks generally?
[Page 665]
MR. ESTABROOKS: I was under the impression, Mr. Minister, that when the issue happened there was a commitment given - again, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure it was under Mr. Huskilson's watch - that there would be a crosswalk committee to review all dangerous crosswalks, and I don't think it was just the HRM.
MR. RUSSELL: I don't think there is such a thing as the crosswalk committee at the present time. If there was one, I wasn't aware of it. I've had some experience with crosswalks from the point of view that I had a high school opposite an elementary school, and a very busy highway running in between the two. Of course they used to cross back and forth from the high school to elementary school, et cetera. I remember getting into all kinds of trouble trying to find somebody who could talk to me about crosswalks. I think at that time they told me there was a committee but it didn't apply to rural areas. That's where maybe I jumped to the wrong conclusion.
Anyway, at the present time it comes under the Highway Safety Committee. There is representation on that committee from Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation and Public Works, as well as HRM and the RCMP. Now, that doesn't answer your question because I've forgotten what your question was, actually.
MR. ESTABROOKS: No, it does. I know that they usually remain in municipalities, particularly when they're in towns. That particular one you're talking about is an even more serious crosswalk because there's a Tim Hortons nearby, isn't there?
I have some photos of a few things, and I take them particularly when it comes to tourist attractions. I am going to be snide and sarcastic, and members opposite will be upset with me, but I have some pictures of some guardrails on a very prominent tourist route that are an absolute eyesore for various reasons. Guardrails get bumped into, they get scraped, for various reasons, and this is just on a well-travelled area that I happened to be on. I notice that in the Supplement to the Public Accounts, Atlantic Guardrail received over $190,000 in work. Is this for the replacement of damaged guardrails?
I know we're always at the minister about paving, we're always at the minister about things that cost money, but there are some guardrails that are an embarrassment. Maybe they might still be safe. Am I talking about coats of paint here? I'm talking about guardrails that have to do the job, and I know that there will be advice given to you on the average number of years that a guardrail can be in place before it's replaced, but there are some guardrails, particularly along a tourist route or two, that are in pretty hard shape. I'm wondering, is there a replacement schedule; and secondly, what is the life of a guardrail, one that has not been run into by a plow, one that hasn't received any kind of major damage?
[Page 666]
MR. RUSSELL: I think at one time several years back we got a bunch of guardrails that did not stand up, and that has created some problems. However, to your question, I'm advised that we have $500,000 in the RIM program for guardrail installation and replacement this coming season. A guardrail certainly doesn't last forever, and it varies with the area in which the guardrail is placed. Down near the shore, obviously, it's going to get more damage once the galvanizing disappears from any areas, it will start to rust. We replace guardrails for safety, really, not for the aesthetic value of guardrails; in fact, they probably never have any beauty-enhancing qualities, I would image.
As I said, there is a steady replacement of guardrails, and there's an inexhaustible demand for guardrails. Everybody - I shouldn't say everybody, but many members in the rural areas are aware of areas where people are anxious to have guardrails put up along what they consider to be a dangerous section of highway. I suppose if we acquiesced to every request that was made for a guardrail, we would have guardrails along every foot of highway.
[3:45 p.m.]
MR. ESTABROOKS: Mr. Minister, as you might be aware, I'm a member of the largest service club in the world, Lions Clubs International. Lions Clubs throughout my area participate in the Adopt-a-Highway, along with the Scouts, and there's a very active environmental group at one of the schools. If a service club is interested in painting a guardrail, I suppose there would have to be standard, maybe orange and black colours - no, no, just joking - and this is something that was discussed during a recent highway cleanup. I said well, during estimates if I have the time I will ask this question. I have one more after that. Is it possible to communicate, in this case I guess it would be Mr. O'Brien, and ask if a service club could paint guardrails?
MR. RUSSELL: Well, I've never been asked that question, and I don't know - we can take it under consideration. The Adopt-a-Highway Program is a good program, number one. However, it does have its difficulties. I hate to enumerate the difficulties but part of the difficulty is the policing of the people who are actually doing the cleanup. Heaven help us if a young Boy Scout or someone ever gets killed on the road, either by his own fault or the fault of a motorist. So there are some constraints on how much use we can make of people who want to adopt a highway.
Getting back to painting the guardrails, I don't see any reason why there would be any prohibition against that. The only difficulty there would be, I suppose, is that they would probably have to have a sandblaster come along to take the rust off before they could paint them.
MR. ESTABROOKS: And of course there's the other thing with proper signage to warn people, work ahead. I didn't discourage this, but I said that it would be something that we would have to look at. Again, it's along a tourist route, it's actually along the road in
[Page 667]
Chester-St. Margaret's which goes towards Peggy's Cove. I thank you for your direction on that.
I got myself in a ton of trouble here a couple of years ago asking about coffee. I don't know why teachers now, when I ask Education questions, will not allow me to ask about the amount of coffee that the Minister of Education provides for meetings. I'm not going to ask the coffee question. This is my last question, and I don't mean to be a smart aleck about it but I'm going to ask, Sparkling Spring Water Ltd. received $38,284.80. That's in the Supplement to the Public Accounts on Page 184. Now you tell me, if you wouldn't mind - okay, I'm getting the answer, go ahead.
MR. RUSSELL: I thought this would probably be the answer. As you know, our usage of salt on highways is being cut back. One of the reasons for that is simply that we put a lot of salt on the road which gets into the ditch, which travels downstream a little bit and ends up in somebody's well. When that happens, if they can show that it is road salt that is causing the contamination of their well, then we are obliged to provide them with water, and in many cases to dig them a new well or make other arrangements for a water supply for these people. That's why the majority of that water is purchased.
MR. ESTABROOKS: I notice that's up from the previous year. In the year 2000, I have the figure of $33,400 for Sparkling Spring Water, and it's now up to $38,200. I guess it is a growing problem.
MR. RUSSELL: It's a growing problem, and it's one that there's really no solution for except to quit using salt. You will notice, as you drive around our roads today, areas where they say, sanding only. In most cases that's simply because the residents along a stretch of road don't want to get salt in their wells or else don't want the salt poisoning their landscaping in some way.
MR. ESTABROOKS: With that, I will finish my questions. I want, for the record, to know that whenever I go to the Beechville base, I bring the coffee for the workers, there's no free coffee there, unlike, I guess, at teachers' conferences where there's all kinds of free coffee, but on occasion they are disappointed that I might bring the coffee but I don't bring the Timbits. Those are the last comments from the NDP, and I will give the remaining time over to the members of the Liberal Party. Thank you for your time, Mr. Minister.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Liberal caucus has some questions for the minister.
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
[Page 668]
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Minister, I wanted to go back to this issue of the capital budgets. I guess I'm trying to get it straightened out in my mind, the issue of spending approximately $5.3 million for additional equipment that has to be replaced. Did the department dispose of any plows, graders, that sort of equipment over the last year?
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, yes, we have. The equipment that we have that's still of value for its primary purpose, in other words a plow that is still suitable for plowing but not for the rigours of normal Department of Transportation service, quite often is purchased by municipalities or people who have smaller contracts, perhaps, for snowplowing.
MR. MACKINNON: Could you provide the detail as to what equipment you disposed of and who acquired it?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, we can do that. Some of our equipment, as you know, is disposed of through the Crown Assets Disposal; others, I believe, just go up for tender. Most of it is through an auction, I'm advised.
MR. MACKINNON: Are you able to ascertain at this point how much money you realized as a result of those sales?
MR. RUSSELL: No. I'm saying I don't know. We can certainly get that information for the member, Mr. Chairman, and we will get it for him.
MR. MACKINNON: The equipment that you still have, that's obviously depreciated somewhat, do you have any estimate as to what the value of your equipment is now? Is it at 50 per cent value or is it all relatively new equipment, what is the status of our fleet?
MR. RUSSELL: Our fleet, on average, is much older than in other provincial jurisdictions. We don't appear to have the age with us, Mr. Chairman, but I can advise the member that we have about 400 pieces of equipment for snow and ice control, and we have another 800 or 900 pieces of equipment for general use. I don't know if the member is aware, but we have taken over the motor vehicles of the Department of Natural Resources - we didn't, sorry, wrong information. At one time we were going to take over the automotive equipment of the Department of Natural Resources, and now I recall we did not do so, simply because their bases were not actually coincident with ours, so there would have been a lot of transport required. What else can I say about it? Our equipment is generally in very good shape, but some of it is over-age.
MR. MACKINNON: What is the average age of the equipment, one year, two years, three years, five years, 10 years?
MR. RUSSELL: We try to replace our trucks, for instance, in our fleet every nine or 10 years, however we have a large number of them that are up around 13, 14 years.
[Page 669]
MR. MACKINNON: What percentage would that represent, out of the 800?
MR. RUSSELL: I don't know. What we can do, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, is provide to your committee the overview of our fleet, particularly our winter fleet, the number of plows and front-end loaders and what have you and the average age of each piece of equipment. Also, it's interesting, the cost of some of this, a snowplow, fully equipped, I believe is about $195,000.
MR. MACKINNON: When you depreciate it, do you depreciate in the straight-line method or the declining-value method?
MR. RUSSELL: Declining, 20 per cent.
MR. MACKINNON: That's the method you use until it goes down to zero. So after five years, it's worth zero value.
MR. RUSSELL: Right.
MR. MACKINNON: Is that the way you carry it on your . . .
MR. RUSSELL: I don't think (Interruptions)
MR. MACKINNON: It's just that if the average turnover is every nine or 10 years, you have a piece of equipment that's worth nothing for five years.
MR. RUSSELL: No, it never gets down to nothing. It declines to a certain value and declines no further. It's substantially depreciated after five years to a minimum value, but there will always be a value there.
MR. MACKINNON: Do we know what the minimum value is? There must be a calculation or formula that you use.
MR. RUSSELL: Absolutely.
MR. MACKINNON: Could you tell us what it is?
MR. RUSSELL: It's 20 per cent per year.
MR. MACKINNON: For the first five years?
MR. RUSSELL: For the first five years.
[Page 670]
MR. MACKINNON: Well, that would mean it would be worth nothing after five years.
[4:00 p.m.]
MR. RUSSELL: No, 20 per cent per year forever. It never gets down to absolute zero. You have a declining value after year one, taking 20 per cent of that, and a declining value for year two, et cetera, et cetera, all the way down, but you can keep going at that forever. You are getting down to a figure that's infinitesimal but nevertheless there is still a value.
MR. MACKINNON: If you paid say $195,000 for a piece of equipment, and 20 per cent on that, then 20 per cent of the 20 cent depreciated value for the second year, and so on and so forth, sooner or later you're going to come up with zero, within a time frame, it's going to be less than that nine-year period. Am I correct? You have number crunchers handy there.
MR. RUSSELL: I'm not arguing your mathematics but I'm telling you that if you keep taking 20 per cent of a total amount, you will never get down to zero.
MR. MACKINNON: Okay. Let's put it this way, perhaps when you provide that other detail, your fleet list and the ages, if you could put what the fleet's estimated value is this year, that would be good.
MR. RUSSELL: That can be done.
MR. MACKINNON: I'm a little perplexed. When the Minister of Finance gave his Budget Address, he indicated, "The Government of Nova Scotia has committed itself to increasing the allocation of motive fuel tax revenues towards highway and bridge construction and maintenance . . ." That's in reference to this 2 cents per litre. You seem to be indicating that some of that money will go towards the acquisition of equipment.
MR. RUSSELL: A very small amount, it would be less than $2 million.
MR. MACKINNON: On the exchange of services with HRM, in terms of the capital and maintenance budgets for what we would refer to as the J-Class roads but also for the urban core, last year the municipality had expressed considerable concern with the fact that the department wasn't putting its fair share into upgrading and paving of many of the streets in HRM. What's the status of that situation? Has that problem been resolved?
MR. RUSSELL: You're speaking of the service exchange?
MR. MACKINNON: Yes.
[Page 671]
MR. RUSSELL: The quarrel, of course, was that we put both the Aid to Towns and the Aid to Municipalities programs aside. We completely abolished the Aid to Towns, but the Aid to Municipalities, we just put it in abeyance but didn't fund it. This year, we will be putting $1 million into that program.
MR. MACKINNON: That's province-wide?
MR. RUSSELL: That's province-wide, and of that $1 million I suppose you could assume that about one-third would come to HRM.
MR. MACKINNON: So about $330,000 would come to HRM, approximately. It's just that I know in CBRM, when they're preparing their budgets this year, they have about $800,000 set aside for that program, which would mean that if you go percentage-wise, you would only be talking about 20 per cent of the $1 million, about $200,000, so they have $600,000 that the province can't match. That's essentially what you're saying.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, and the same thing, I would suggest, applies to HRM, that they have greater financial resources to fund the paving of J-Class roads than the province has.
MR. MACKINNON: Another question, before I turn it over to my colleague, the member for Victoria, for a few minutes. Perhaps when you're giving the detail on that equipment that was sold off over the last year, could you indicate who purchased the equipment, how much they paid for it, and the age of each piece? It's depreciated value as well.
MR. RUSSELL: I think we can do that.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could suggest that we take a two minute break before we start with the member for Victoria.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will recess for a five minute break. We will be here at seven minutes after.
[4:05 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]
[4:10 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We will reconvene.
The honourable member for Victoria.
[Page 672]
MR. KENNETH MACASKILL: Mr. Minister, I make reference to an e-mail that I sent to your office. As you know, the Premier has said that we don't need to FOIPOP everything for information we want, and I'm making reference to an e-mail that I sent to the deputy minister on April 8th, relative to volumes of traffic and revenue for the two ferries in Cape Breton, Englishtown and Little Narrows. I'm wondering when I might receive that information.
MR. RUSSELL: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I can speak directly to the member and establish exactly what it is you need. You need the revenue and the passenger volume?
MR. MACASKILL: The traffic volume and the revenue for the Englishtown and Little Narrows ferries.
MR. RUSSELL: Can do. No problem.
MR. MACASKILL: Just a few questions, Mr. Minister, I won't take up too much time. Could you tell us today how many workers have been admitted to the union over the last three years? Would you be able to provide that? That would be to CUPE or any other union involved in transportation.
MR. RUSSELL: Primarily our workforce is CUPE. There are some, of course, from NSGEU. You're looking for CUPE entrants to . . .
MR. MACASKILL: Yes, any new members.
MR. RUSSELL: I'm not absolutely sure we have access to that, just one moment. We can get that information for the member for Victoria.
MR. MACASKILL: Can you also get me the increase or decrease in numbers of members?
MR. RUSSELL: It will either be an increase or a decrease in numbers.
MR. MACASKILL: It would go both ways. There should be an increase and there may be a decrease, that's what we're saying. Have the numbers increased or decreased?
MR. RUSSELL: The numbers will have probably decreased, I would think. The good news for the workforce is the fact that we were speaking about full-time equivalents a little while ago, we have more full-time workers now than we had in the past and we have fewer part-time workers. On average we have 1,200 to 1,300 CUPE employees working in the summer season and 1,400 or 1,500 working in the winter season - that doesn't tell me anything - and what I'm saying is that whereas in the past we had workers who would be considered to be casual or part-time workers, many of those workers are now full-time
[Page 673]
employees. So there is a lesser number of casual workers, a lesser number of actual live bodies in the workforce. Am I confusing you?
MR. MACASKILL: No, that's fine.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, if I could just interrupt again, it's just been pointed out to me that the number of hours of work performed by CUPE members in 1998 was 2.8 million; in other words, there were 2.8 million hours in 1998 put in by CUPE, 2.9 million hours in 2000 and 2.8 million hours in 2001. There's been essentially no change in the total number of hours worked, however, the number of actual employees has decreased.
[4:15 p.m.]
MR. MACASKILL: Could you tell me how many contracts were privatized for gravel distribution, as well as snowplowing; combining the two, how many contracts were privatized over the last year, between gravel distribution and winter maintenance?
MR. RUSSELL: I don't know if this answers the member for Victoria's question directly, but we had $10 million in RIM last year and we have $10 million again this year, in round numbers, and all that work is going out to private tender, small tenders for the small contractors. We have about 33 pieces of equipment working as standing offers to provide the equipment and operator to the department for specific jobs. Does that answer your question?
MR. MACASKILL: Yes, that's fair. At this point in time, is the department satisfied with the work the private contractors are doing, relative to winter maintenance and gravel distribution?
MR. RUSSELL: Absolutely, positively; absolutely. There are stories going around, I know, within the bases in the rural areas that the department is not getting the same value and the same quality of work as we get from our own forces, and that isn't true. That is absolutely untrue. The work that is being performed by private contractors must meet exactly the same level of competency as our own workforce has to meet. On top of that, they have to deliver that service at a lower cost than the public sector. We have said that we will not turn over to the private sector any particular job that is not going to be performed at the same level at lower cost. On top of that, we will not turn over a job to the private sector if it means laying off one of our regular employees.
MR. MACASKILL: Let me ask you, if I lose control of my car on the highway and I damage a guardrail or something, I could be held responsible, what about the contractors who do this work for the department? Any damage that is done, who is responsible for that damage, the contractor or your department?
[Page 674]
MR. RUSSELL: The contractor is responsible. They're required to carry their own insurance.
MR. MACASKILL: So the contractor would be responsible for any damage.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. MACASKILL: My favourite subject is ferries. As you know, I have two of them. There is a lot of backlash relative to the latest increases, which runs, for commuter tickets, from 75 cents to $1.25. Let me ask you, in the beginning, what does the department consider local traffic and non-local traffic?
MR. RUSSELL: Are you referring to ferries?
MR. MACASKILL: I'm referring to - I think the release said something where local traffic could buy commuter tickets.
MR. RUSSELL: That's right.
MR. MACASKILL: And that has increased from 75 cents to $1.25.
MR. RUSSELL: Okay. Now I know what you're speaking about. We're considering local traffic as being traffic that probably resides within the local area and uses the ferry fairly often during the course of a week or a month or a year. Frequent uses.
MR. MACASKILL: Would you consider industrial Cape Breton local traffic? I'm getting to the question of . . .
MR. RUSSELL: Unfortunately you're getting there by a very circuitous route, because I don't quite follow what you're getting at. When I spoke of local traffic, I meant people who perhaps use the ferry to go to and from work, or who go to church and use the ferry to get to the church across the river, or who have to go across the river to go shopping. That is what I consider to be local traffic, doing local things. Non-local traffic would be people who are travelling from A to B, where A may be Sydney and B may be Halifax, or perhaps tourist traffic which just goes through that way on one occasion.
MR. MACASKILL: If a commuter who lives in Sydney has to travel to Ingonish, they may not be familiar with purchasing enough tickets, they may or may not. You say the reason for this increase is cost recovery, correct? Do you follow me so far?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, I'm with you.
[Page 675]
MR. MACASKILL: Okay, I'm somebody from Sydney and I'm driving to Ingonish. I have a small car. I'm on one side of the ferry and then there's a transport truck with probably 50 tons of goods on it or something. That small car pays the same fee as that big truck. Am I right?
MR. RUSSELL: I'm not sure about that.
MR. MACASKILL: Well, I'm pretty sure.
MR. RUSSELL: I'm told that's correct.
MR. MACASKILL: Do you really believe that's cost recovery for the department, that it can transport a piece of equipment that size and charge the car the same rate? Do you get the point I'm trying to make?
MR. RUSSELL: I get the point you're trying to make. From the point of cost recovery, of course we're not cost recovering 100 per cent by any means, we're recovering something in the order of about 10 per cent.
MR. MACASKILL: If I was a private operator running that ferry, that's not the way I would go about recovering some costs, moving a 100-ton vehicle for the same price as moving a two-ton vehicle. Can you explain that to the committee?
MR. RUSSELL: The person who's driving the truck, though, is not able to get commuter tickets. There's a fee for trucks. They pay $5 . . .
MR. MACASKILL: Well, what's the difference? There are no $5 commuter tickets.
MR. RUSSELL: . . . regardless of whether they are just going backwards and forwards for local deliveries or whatever.
MR. MACASKILL: But can you understand why the people are frustrated when the government talks about recovering costs for an operation of the ferry and they're moving 100-ton vehicles for the same price as two-ton vehicles?
MR. RUSSELL: Is this a change from what has occurred in the past?
MR. MACASKILL: No. Mr. Minister, it's gouging local people, that's what it's doing. We go back to our constituency and we try to explain that to people who know about trying to recover money. It's hard for them to buy that argument, that this is a cost-recovery measure.
MR. RUSSELL: Are you waiting for me to answer that?
[Page 676]
MR. MACASKILL: I'm waiting for you to explain how you feel this is cost recovery. Surely a 100-ton vehicle does more damage to the equipment than a two-ton car, but they're still paying the same fee. That's the point I'm trying to make.
MR. RUSSELL: But the person who is driving the automobile, unless they're a tourist or a one-time user, is able to buy tickets for $1.25.
MR. MACASKILL: Yes, Mr. Minister, provided they know that. I had a call from somebody as close as North Sydney who was not aware that that fee had gone up to $5 until the purser entered him on the ferry. He was only going across the ferry to Jersey Cove. It cost him $10 to go to Jersey Cove.
MR. RUSSELL: Previously, the cost was $3.
MR. MACASKILL: Initially, yes. It went up to $3 - when? - 1999, I believe.
MR. RUSSELL: I don't recall, to be quite honest. It was $3 this time last year, and today it is $5. The price of the individual ticket has gone up from 75 cents to $1.25. Yes, the price has gone up. The price has gone up so that the actual cost of running the ferry service that accrues to the province is less than it was last year, simply because of the fact that we put the fares up. We are still actually bringing in less than $1 million and making a $6 million investment in the ferry service.
MR. MACASKILL: I agree with you. What piece of highway do you recover your costs on? There's no piece of highway that actually makes money for the government. Why should the ferry, it's part of the transportation system. People will tell me that the government is just gouging the poor people who can't afford to pay.
MR. RUSSELL: Well, when you use the bridge coming across to Halifax or use the ferry coming across to Halifax . . .
MR. MACASKILL: But you pay 75 cents.
MR. RUSSELL: Right.
MR. MACASKILL: I certainly hope that the minister would revisit the ferry increases. I think that we're targeting the wrong people. I certainly don't want to see industry carry the total burden, and indeed I'm not raising the issue today to consider hardships on truckers or anybody, but it just seems to me that if you're talking cost recovery, it doesn't make sense to me that you're charging $5 for 100-ton vehicles and $5 for two-ton vehicles. It just doesn't seem to make sense.
[Page 677]
MR. RUSSELL: You made a good point, and I will certainly bear that thought in mind.
MR. MACASKILL: It's an issue I face every weekend. I want you to know that. I guess I speak on behalf of the people who feel that you're trying to recover costs but you're recovering it from the poor people. There are lots of people who get to that ferry - a contractor in Baddeck may not be familiar with crossing the ferry, but he goes down to Jersey Cove or Ingonish or something, and he doesn't know that that increase is there until he hits the ferry, and then what does he do?
Anyway, let's go to Seal Island for a minute, the Great Bras d'Or bridge. Can you tell me, when will the construction begin on the deck for this season? And who has the contract?
MR. RUSSELL: Momentarily, the commencement of the repair for this year I think starts very shortly. When I say very shortly, I would think that in the next two to three weeks, something in that order.
MR. MACASKILL: So the contract has not been awarded yet?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes. All Steel Coatings.
MR. MACASKILL: The same as last year, then?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. MACASKILL: And you expect the work to start . . .
MR. RUSSELL: I would think two or three weeks. We will use the same routine as we used last year.
MR. MACASKILL: You're going to use the signal.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, in alerting traffic to the closure, et cetera.
MR. MACASKILL: Roughly about May 1st. Okay, Mr. Minister, that's all the ammunition I have for you at the moment. We will turn it over to my colleague.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cape Breton The Lakes.
MR. BRIAN BOUDREAU: Could I ask how much time I have left, please?
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have 27 minutes.
[Page 678]
MR. BOUDREAU: Good afternoon, Mr. Minister. First of all I would like to ask you about paving projects, resurfacing. How many did you do last year in the Province of Nova Scotia?
MR. RUSSELL: How many kilometres?
MR. BOUDREAU: How many paving projects?
MR. RUSSELL: How many projects. Oh my gosh. I can certainly get that information for you, but I don't think we would have that at hand. You're looking at the number of tenders, I guess that's what we're coming to, is it?
MR. BOUDREAU: I'm looking for the number, yes.
MR. RUSSELL: We can get you the number of tenders that we let for paving projects last year. That isn't necessarily indicative of the amount of work that's done, because some of them are quite short.
[4:30 p.m.]
MR. BOUDREAU: Could you abbreviate it a little perhaps? Could you tell me how many paving projects were approved in Cape Breton County last year?
MR. RUSSELL: We would have to get you that information. The number of paving projects - there were major projects, I know, on Highway No. 104, on Highway No. 105, there were a couple of large bridge contracts and the Seal Island Bridge, of course, on top of that again. There were a large number.
MR. BOUDREAU: Isn't it true the only repaving projects that you did in Cape Breton County to date, since you became minister in 1999, is on 100-Series Highways that are cost-shared by the federal government? You did not resurface any secondary roads in Cape Breton County to date. Are you aware of that?
MR. RUSSELL: We did not resurface any secondary roads in Cape Breton County?
MR. BOUDREAU: Yes.
MR. RUSSELL: I can't answer that question because I don't know. I know we've done work in Cape Breton County, but . . .
MR. BOUDREAU: Could you explain . . .
[Page 679]
MR. RUSSELL: I've just been advised that certainly we did that section of Highway No. 104.
MR. BOUDREAU: Isn't that cost shared with the federal government, as a 100-Series Highway?
MR. RUSSELL: No, it was not cost shared, if that's what you're suggesting.
MR. BOUDREAU: So that was 100 per cent your cost, to your department?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. BOUDREAU: Could you explain why you did that project?
MR. RUSSELL: Simply because the federal government is not making money available to the province. It's not paying its share of the freight. The only money that we've had in the last three years anyway has been from the Infrastructure Program. That was for Highway No. 101.
MR. BOUDREAU: How do you decide which areas receive paving projects? How do you share it across the province?
MR. RUSSELL: Each region sends in their priorities, each region's priorities are then looked at within the department, and the decision is made as to which ones will be progressed. You would understand, obviously, that from each district there would be a large number of proposals coming forward, but there would only be a limited number of dollars. I think that among the divisions, they pretty well average out to the same amount, depending on the amount of roads they have. I have just had a look at this repaving - I will have to get back to you because that figure isn't correct.
MR. BOUDREAU: Little Bras d'Or Bridge, is that cost shared?
MR. RUSSELL: No, it's not. The only roads that are cost shared with the federal government are part of the national highway system. The national highway system in Nova Scotia consists of Highway Nos. 101, 102, 104 and 105 - sorry, not Highway No. 105, just to Highway No. 104.
MR. BOUDREAU: Little Bras d'Or Bridge is on Highway No. 105.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, and it is not cost shared under the national highway system, it's not cost shared with the federal government.
[Page 680]
MR. BOUDREAU: Why not? It's part of the national highway system if it's part of the road.
MR. RUSSELL: No, it is not part of the national highway system. The national highway system in Cape Breton consists of Highway No. 104.
MR. BOUDREAU: What about the Leitches Creek Bridge?
MR. RUSSELL: That is provincial, first of all. Secondly, there's a temporary structure, as I understand it, at the present time, and we will be putting in a permanent structure some time in, I would imagine, the near future.
MR. BOUDREAU: Will it be this year, Mr. Minister?
MR. RUSSELL: No, it will not.
MR. BOUDREAU: It will not be?
MR. RUSSELL: I don't believe so, no.
MR. BOUDREAU: Are you aware that bridge has been down now for approximately one year?
MR. RUSSELL: It's a panel bridge which is a perfectly good bridge, however it is not a permanent bridge, and a permanent bridge will be put in eventually. You understand that we have a huge number of bridges that need replacement, and everything goes on a priority list.
MR. BOUDREAU: Is this bridge cost shared, Leitches Creek Bridge? I'm under the understanding, Mr. Minister, that it is. It's adjacent to the off-ramp of Highway No. 125, which is a national highway, and because it's classified as an economic route within close proximity of Highway No. 125, it is cost shared. That is the information the federal government provided to me. Is that true, or isn't it?
MR. RUSSELL: That is incorrect.
MR. BOUDREAU: So the federal government does not fund the replacement of Leitches Creek Bridge, is that correct?
MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. We would be very pleased if they would cost share.
MR. BOUDREAU: I imagine you would be. Perhaps it's something you or your staff may look into, because there may be half the cost associated with the federal government.
[Page 681]
MR. RUSSELL: That would be very pleasant if it were so, and we will certainly have a look.
AN HON. MEMBER: That bridge was put there many years ago, when a school bus fell into Leitches Creek. The bridge collapsed and a Bailey bridge was put in there as a temporary replacement, and it's still there to this day. It was part of the old Trans-Canada Highway. That was the way you went from Sydney to North Sydney when I was a boy, on that bridge. (Interruptions) No, it wasn't horse and buggy, that was before that. That was in your time.(Laughter)
MR. BOUDREAU: So the bridge in Bras d'Or is not cost shared either? It's part of the Trans-Canada Highway and you're telling me that it's not cost shared. Highway No. 105 is not cost shared, is that what you're telling me?
MR. RUSSELL: That's correct.
MR. BOUDREAU: How many roads do you plan on paving in Cape Breton County this year, Mr. Minister? Are we going to get our fair shake down there from this minister this year? You didn't pave any roads down there in the past two and a half years, and the people deserve the same type of attention as in other areas of the province. You are the minister and I know you're familiar with the community down there. I believe you have relatives there and you visit there on a regular basis. You travel the highways. You travel the roadways. You know, Mr. Minister, that the roads are in dire need. Why are you not attempting, at least, to provide some development on those secondary roads in Cape Breton County? Not necessarily in my constituency, by the way.
MR. RUSSELL: We are providing, in Cape Breton, the same level of service as we provide to every other part of Nova Scotia. I challenge your view that there has been no money allocated for paving of secondary roads in Cape Breton over the past - did you say three years?
MR. BOUDREAU: Two and a half, sir.
MR. RUSSELL: Two and a half. I can't, off the top of my head, tell you what roads they were, but that's my memory that's at fault not the system. (Interruption)
That section, I should also advise, was one of the most expensive sections of road that we did last year, based on a per-kilometre basis. It was a very costly portion of road to rehabilitate. I can assure the member for Cape Breton The Lakes that we will provide to Cape Breton the same services that we provide the rest of the province.
MR. BOUDREAU: So that means we will obtain some paving projects this year then?
[Page 682]
MR. RUSSELL: Absolutely.
MR. BOUDREAU: In other areas of the province, in the two and a half years since you became minister, there have obviously been some paving projects undertaken. We didn't have any, Mr. Minister. I think, in all fairness, if your words are good, then I can expect to see some projects approved this year in Cape Breton County, is that correct?
MR. RUSSELL: That's correct.
MR. BOUDREAU: Thank you.
AN HON. MEMBER: The riding of Cape Breton Centre has been completely neglected since the Conservatives came to power; it has been.
MR. BOUDREAU: I'm going to ask, Mr. Minister, about your . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: Now in my riding, when the Liberals were in power, we paved everything. I realize that for probably two or three years, we're going to have to wait.
MR. RUSSELL: Since you said that, perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I may interject that for five years I didn't get one foot of paving, from 1993 to 1999.
AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't, in Hants West?
MR. RUSSELL: Hants East might have but Hants West certainly didn't. However, I would advise the member that that kind of paving that's stop-and-go, depending on the government in power, I think it has, hopefully, disappeared. There is such a tremendous need out there for rehabilitation of our highway system that you could spend money anywhere and it would be well spent.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Minister, I will find out this year if your word is any good, and I will be looking forward to seeing the list with approved projects for Cape Breton County and, as I indicated, not necessarily in my riding. Cape Breton County comprises a large area that has approximately 123,000 people and it deserves the same type of attention that you pay to other areas of the province. Since other areas of the province, obviously, have already obtained paving projects in the last two and a half years, then I think we will be looking forward to your approved project list this year.
After having said that, I am interested in your new 2-cent per gallon gasoline tax which you indicate is for new roads or road construction. Is it new roads or refurbishing roads?
[Page 683]
MR. RUSSELL: No, it's for capital construction, which includes repaving and can include bridges and other parts of the transportation infrastructure as well. There is about $23.2 million, I believe, coming in from the imposition of the 2-cents per litre.
MR. BOUDREAU: Is that the entire anticipated income revenue, coming from this 2 cents?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, it's 100 per cent of the revenue from the 2 cents additional tax on gasoline, going to the Department of Transportation for capital works.
MR. BOUDREAU: Do you have a policy for administering this new fund?
MR. RUSSELL: It isn't coming to us with a label on it, it's coming to us as a block from the Department of Finance through the normal capital programs. However, that capital program in total has been increased by the $23.2 million or $24 million, whatever the case may be, when it comes to us. What we've said is we will identify, at the end of the fiscal year, where we have spent that additional $24 million total. We will be identifying what that money was spent for one year hence.
[4:45 p.m.]
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Minister, I don't want to sound like I'm personally attacking you because I'm not. Traditionally in the province, when the Tories are in power, they pave roads in Tory constituencies, and perhaps that's the same way with the Liberal Government. What we want to see or I want to see is a fair process that will ensure all areas of the province receive the same amount of funding.
MR. RUSSELL: No.
MR. BOUDREAU: That will not happen?
MR. RUSSELL: I won't say that, because there are some roads that have got to be fixed that will cost a certain amount of money in excess of perhaps another road in another area. Both will be getting work, however, to say that we're going to take up the $24 million, divide it by 52 constituencies and say that each constituency is going to get the same piece of money, no that isn't the way it works. It works on need and it works on the value of the work that's being done. For instance, the Seal Island Bridge, this year we're spending $6 million just on that one project, provincial money, that is not federal cost sharing, but there's $6 million going into the Seal Island Bridge. Who's riding is that? Well that riding happens to belong to Victoria.
[Page 684]
MR. BOUDREAU: I know you're firing back $6 million here, but in all fairness that bridge has been there for 40-some years now and it has never been maintained properly, and that's what happens. It's not only Liberal Governments that have done that. Your government, in the past, has neglected infrastructure such as bridges in this province. Now, Mr. Minister, you have the responsibility to sew up. That's the way it works. You realize that.
MR. RUSSELL: Of course I realize that.
MR. BOUDREAU: Just because you're spending $6 million on one infrastructure, so what? How much did you spend on the Dartmouth bridge last year?
MR. RUSSELL: Nothing.
MR. BOUDREAU: What about the previous year?
MR. RUSSELL: Nothing.
MR. BOUDREAU: Who decides where the paving projects go?
MR. RUSSELL: I couldn't follow . . .
MR. BOUDREAU: With your new plan, your new 2 cents, your new $24 million, who decides what projects come out of that fund?
MR. RUSSELL: Who decides what particular projects go forward?
MR. BOUDREAU: Yes.
MR. RUSSELL: That is decided within the districts and within the department itself. The projects come in from the districts, they are prioritized by the districts, and we have so much money. We can't fulfill every project that comes in from the districts, so we have to make choices.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Minister, you just told me that this is being shared within the districts. Could you table for me, so I could understand the process, how you intend to approve projects under your new capital project program? Could you table, for the benefit of the members, the process in which that fund is going to be administered?
MR. RUSSELL: The priorities come in from the districts. I presume that every district has far more roads that need attention, far more bridges that need attention, far more infrastructure that needs attention than we can possibly cope with within our total budget.
[Page 685]
Therefore, what we have to do is, among those prioritized projects, be selective and make choices as to which ones are the top priority, province-wide.
MR. BOUDREAU: So the process actually hasn't changed yet. That's the way the process worked since I became familiar with it, approximately 11, 12 years ago. Has the process remained the same?
MR. RUSSELL: No. The process doesn't remain the same, because the roads are analyzed on the basis of need, the surface condition of the roads, the amount of traffic that's on that particular road, whether it has any other priorities, such as being a road to some resource or some manufacturing facility, whether or not it's on a tourist itinerary - whether or not it has some importance for the tourism industry, I guess is what I'm trying to say - and a number of other factors. Based on that, you come up with a priority. Then, amongst those roads that you have prioritized, you have to make your choices according to the amount of dollars that you have. I would suggest that this is a fair way of arriving at what should be done and what cannot be done even though it is desirable.
MR. BOUDREAU: Isn't it true that you have the final say in the projects that are approved?
MR. RUSSELL: No, I don't have the final say. We have a discussion of the amount of capital that's available, and we have a discussion about the projects that have come in and whether or not there are elements, perhaps, that we should discuss at length, but then the staff goes away and makes the decisions.
MR. BOUDREAU: Are you telling me that the staff approves paving projects?
MR. RUSSELL: I sign off on all, because they have to go out to tender and the only person who can sign for the tender is myself. I do that, yes, that's true.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Minister, have you ever turned down a recommendation from your staff?
MR. RUSSELL: Have I ever turned down a recommendation from my staff, yes, I think I have. I think I can probably remember one in particular that I turned down.
MR. BOUDREAU: So that process is not going to change, Mr. Minister, is it? You're going to have the final say on which projects are approved, isn't that correct?
MR. RUSSELL: I am going to sign off on the tender. I do not have the final say from the point of view that the projects that come to me - you could name a road in your constituency and quite frankly it would probably be a road that I wouldn't have ever driven on, so I can't make a decision on that road. Any decisions that are made within the
[Page 686]
department are going to be based on what the district recommends, within your particular district.
MR. BOUDREAU: Do you intend to do any repairs to the Bras d'Or Bridge this year?
MR. RUSSELL: I'm advised that we probably don't have any plans for the Little Bras d'Or Bridge this year.
MR. BOUDREAU: Why not?
MR. RUSSELL: Well, I can't answer that question. I'm not the arbiter that goes out and looks at a bridge and says, yes, we should spend money on that bridge. It's up to the prioritization within the department as to whether or not we do the Little Bras d'Or Bridge compared to some other bridge in the province which may have a greater need.
MR. BOUDREAU: Do you have an inspection report with regard to this bridge?
MR. RUSSELL: I have just been advised by Mr. Delaney that there is a proposal - he is suggesting that probably next year we will be getting to the Little Bras d'Or Bridge.
MR. BOUDREAU: There will be?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, next year, not this year.
MR. BOUDREAU: So that's 2003?
MR. RUSSELL: That's right.
MR. BOUDREAU: I'm glad you told me that, Mr. Minister, because as you are aware, and I know you are aware the mess the traffic flow was in last year. You will have lots of time to ensure that the proper traffic patterns are in place to deal with the high volume of traffic that comes off those Marine Atlantic ferries.
MR. RUSSELL: There's always a problem when you have a bridge and you have to close it for traffic, on and off, or just have one-way traffic, because of the fact that people get very annoyed. I don't think there's any easy solution. We will be doing the work on that bridge at low-volume times, hopefully before June or after September.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The time for the Liberal caucus has now expired. Does the NDP have any further questions for the minister?
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: No, we don't, Mr. Chairman.
[Page 687]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions to this minister from the government caucus?
The honourable member for Sackville-Beaver Bank.
MR. BARRY BARNET: Mr. Minister, a couple of issues that people have raised with me or concerns that they've raised with me over the last couple of years, one of which I see the department has undertaken to complete, and that is the lighting at Victoria Road and the bridge overpass off the A. Murray MacKay Bridge. Could you inform the committee when this work is expected to be completed, and how much the total project costs?
MR. RUSSELL: Interesting question. We've been having ongoing discussions with the Bridge Commission over the past several months with regard to the Dartmouth side of the A. Murray MacKay Bridge. As anybody who uses that bridge knows, on the Halifax side it's very nicely landscaped, it looks pleasant and it's quite a safe exit off the bridge; whereas at the other end it is very ragged, there are bushes growing halfway across the road, actually, the lighting was in terrible shape, and also the actual curves coming in for an entry onto the bridge were such that a semi-trailer of any great length couldn't make the turn without running over the curb. So, it's in pretty rough shape.
We've spent $600,000 this past year putting in the high lighting at the bridge, and got rid of the old cobra head-type lighting. Over the next couple of years, we're probably going to invest a couple of million dollars in upgrading the interchange. Hopefully, again, at the end of that period the Bridge Commission will take over that entrance to the bridge, and they would be responsible for maintenance and landscaping and what have you. I think it's a worthwhile project and one that I hope comes to fruition.
MR. BARNET: Mr. Minister, I too believe that it's a worthy project. In fact, constituents have often asked me why it is that the bridge abutments and the ramps leading from the Halifax side seem to be so much better maintained, and why it was that the Bridge Commission maintained the ramps on one side but didn't maintain them on the other side. I brought this to your attention on a number of occasions, and I'm pleased to hear that there are ongoing discussions with the Bridge Commission, I think that's the right direction for the government.
It's probably something that should have been done a number of years ago. It's somewhat disappointing that we have to spend $2 million plus the $600,000, but it's money that needs to be spent. Obviously, if we had been able to maintain it and keep it in good condition it's not likely we would have had to spend that amount of money, but that's neither here nor there.
[Page 688]
[5:00 p.m.]
Mr. Minister, your Aid to Towns, I believe, was the program that has $1 million, is that right?
MR. RUSSELL: No.
MR. BARNET: Aid to Municipalities?
MR. RUSSELL: Aid to Municipalities.
MR. BARNET: And the Aid to Municipalities program, what exactly is the purpose of the funding for that program, and which municipalities can apply?
MR. RUSSELL: We will be sending out a letter, Mr. Chairman - it may have already gone out - to all municipal units, advising them of our reinstatement of the program for this year with $1 million in funding being available on a 50 per cent cost-sharing basis with the municipal units for paving of J-Class roads. I expect that we will have a very rapid take-up of that $1 million. In fact, I would suggest that probably if we had about $50 million it would be closer to meeting the true needs of most of the municipalities. Having said that, it is a start. I would suspect that the allocation will be made based on population and the number of roads that the municipalities have, and whether or not they actually submit a request for funding.
MR. BARNET: Mr. Minister, the other day in the House the member for Timberlea-Prospect raised an issue about roads that are now required to be paved under changes to the municipal planning Act, I believe it is, or municipal planning strategies, and gravel roads that lead to those where you get into a circumstance where you go from a paved road to a gravel road to a paved road. He alluded to the fact that that only occurs outside of the core. That's not the case, that actually occurs inside the core and outside the core. In fact, there are more circumstances inside the core, where you have roads that go from pavement to gravel to pavement.
The municipality, particularly in the riding that I represent, inside the core, has some 30 or 40 streets that are gravel, about half of those are in a situation where you are travelling from paved to gravel back to paved. Outside of the core, I can only recall one circumstance where a road is in that condition, where you're going from paved road to gravel road back to paved road. I guess my question is, with respect to the Aid to Municipalities program, could this be an opportunity for municipalities like the HRM and other municipalities that have these anomalies, where you have a gravel middle, paved on both ends, to apply for this particular section of road, so that you have a continuity of service, where you have continuous pavement, therefore reducing their overall cost? Mr. Minister, I'm talking specifically about outside of the core.
[Page 689]
MR. RUSSELL: I'm advised that the municipalities would have that option, to apply to do roads in those circumstances.
MR. BARNET: Mr. Minister, the municipality's 50 per cent portion, is there a requirement for the municipality to collect that money from abutters, or are they required to fund that out of their own sources, or what is the plan with respect to that, with their 50 per cent?
MR. RUSSELL: There is no requirement for them to get it from abutters, however in many cases I guess, as the honourable member is aware, they do indeed go after the people on the road. Some municipalities, as I understand it, at the present time are doing their J-Class roads with the abutters paying 50 per cent and the municipal unit paying 50 per cent, and there's no actual provincial money involved. I don't know what the circumstances are in your end of HRM, whether or not they're doing any of that.
MR. BARNET: As I understand it, inside the core the abutters pay 50 per cent and the municipality pays 50 per cent, and you go through a process of petitioning your street and then successful petitions will get you on a list. Ultimately staff will make a recommendation to council, and council will then approve it. I guess my concern here is that in this particular program what you end up with is municipalities actually contributing nothing from their general budget, the province contributes $1 million overall, and abutters will contribute an additional $1 million, which would ultimately mean $2 million in program funding. Is that correct?
MR. RUSSELL: There is the possibility - and I say it's a possibility - that the municipality could cost share with the abutters, and instead of the province's share on a particular road being 50 per cent, just being 25 per cent, thus expanding the number of kilometres of road that they could get done. That would be acceptable.
MR. BARNET: My next questions are surrounding proposed projects. In the area surrounding my district, there are a number of projects that are proposed to deal with long-standing congestion issues with traffic: one of them was the Beaver Bank bypass; another one was the Glendale bypass, which I understand has been abandoned; and a third one is the Glendale to Burnside. Could you inform myself and the committee what the status is, particularly with the Beaver Bank bypass and the Glendale to Burnside Drive bypass?
MR. RUSSELL: Okay, on the Glendale-Burnside route, it's not a high-priority item. It is one that we would like to do when funding becomes available. On the other one, the Beaver Bank bypass, there seems to be some lack of interest by the municipality to continue with that. As I understand it, we're protecting the right-of-way from Highway No. 101 to Trunk 1, and that's where it sits at the moment, it's not progressing.
[Page 690]
MR. BARNET: So, if I understand your comments correctly, then it pretty much rests with HRM, in terms of whether or not they want to move forward with this project.
MR. RUSSELL: If they became a little more enthusiastic and were prepared to cost share, then we could move on it.
MR. BARNET: Right. That's primarily because it's a road within the core, is that the rationale?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. BARNET: Does the department have funding within its budget to look after issues of illegal dumping along road rights-of-way and along highway rights-of-way? If so, how much?
MR. RUSSELL: We do, of course, dissuade people from dumping by putting up'No Littering' signs, and there's a fine structure. We don't get the money, incidentally, it goes to the Department of Justice. We do not have the same zeal, I don't think, today as we used to have in the past, having our trucks on the road picking up anything they find lying, obviously, beside the right-of-way that somebody's just dumped there. We do it, but as I said we don't do it as zealously as we did, perhaps, in the past.
MR. BARNET: Mr. Minister, the reason I asked is not long after getting elected I had contacted the department about a particular access road for Highway No. 101 that had, I recall, either 11 or 13 tandem truckloads of garbage that the department ended up having to go out and clean up because the stuff was illegally dumped within the right-of-way. I know that since that time other people have mentioned to me other areas within the right-of-way where somebody has dropped off a refrigerator or a stove or, in one case, the rear end of an automobile. My curiosity was to find out how much money, annually, we, as a government, and you, as the department and the minister, spend in this regard.
MR. RUSSELL: I don't think we have a particular budget item that would be specified for garbage pickup alongside the highways, it would just be part of our operation. I can get back to you on what money is normally associated with litter pickup by the department to do that. I am always horrified, to be quite honest, to think that people do the things they do, with garbage alongside the road. I know in my riding we had an incinerator and a dump at the same time, and the road down to it was just littered with garbage by people who just wouldn't drive that extra couple of kilometres down to the dump. They would get on this road which was leading up to the dump, and just dump their garbage there. I don't know, maybe we should increase the fines.
[Page 691]
MR. BARNET: I agree. Mr. Minister, in 1994, the department of highways purchased property for a proposed collector road from the Beaver Bank Road to the Cobequid Road. It was called the Second Lake Collector. At the time, they assumed they were going to move forward with a collector road that would see a road that intersected some of the province's land between First Lake Drive and Second Lake. In 1996, the planned road was abandoned after a great deal of community consultation and some interest of some conservationists who wanted to protect this particular piece of property for a park. That land has now been protected, subsequently the previous government moved to have that land turned into park.
There is no longer an opportunity to have a road that runs from the Beaver Bank Road to Glendale Drive in this particular location, however, the department still owns that piece of land that sits at the intersection of Windsor Junction Crossroad and Beaver Bank Road. My question to you, Mr. Minister, is, what's the department's position on that land? Do they intend to dispose of it, or is it going to be held for some other use?
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, this piece of land is one of several that we have, and we're looking at consolidation with the HRM of certain other lands that we have. So we have a land-swap deal in the making. It hasn't come to fruition yet, but a number of these small blocks of land that we have are of interest to the city, and other blocks of land which the city has are of interest to the province, and we're trying to find a basis for an equitable exchange. We've been working on this now for about a year, and hopefully this year we will come to the conclusion and carry out the swap.
[5:15 p.m.]
MR. BARNET: So this particular piece of land is part of that overall, broad discussion.
MR. RUSSELL: I believe so.
MR. BARNET: Two more questions, then I will pass it to my colleague. Discussions surrounding the core boundary between politicians have been ongoing for quite some time, between staff and bureaucrats at the Department of Transportation and Public Works and the staff at HRM. In fact, I would say that discussions about the core boundary probably began the next day after the boundary was developed. Interestingly enough, as has been pointed out, I was the councillor at the time who moved the resolution to enter into the agreement with the Department of Transportation at the time, and almost immediately saw some flaws that the agreement had, particularly in areas where there are clearly better ways to provide service to some of those fringe areas.
In my community, there's a 6.-something kilometre section at the end of the Beaver Bank Road that has services provided by DOT, and there's a 4.-something kilometre service area that's being provided by DOT at the end of Highway No. 1. These two areas - obviously,
[Page 692]
it would make eminent good sense to have one provider of service rather than running these trucks up and down the roads with the plow up, particularly in the wintertime, then dropping it for four kilometres, then turning around and going the other way. My question to you, Mr. Minister, is, in your opinion, are there still ongoing discussions; can we as a community expect to see some adjustments and changes to that boundary; and can the province realize some financial benefit as a result of these? Obviously there should be some savings for the municipality doing those particular areas that are right at the edges of what's called the core boundary.
MR. RUSSELL: Absolutely. I would hope that we are doing something about it. I know that in some of the rural areas, we have done that, where we have roads that run in and out of different counties. I don't know if we've saved a lot of money, but I know that we've cut down on a lot of grief by residents who hate to see a snowplow go by their front yard with the blade up, and then start plowing further down road, leaving their section unplowed. There is some indication, I'm told, that the city does want to sit down and talk with us to discuss boundary issues. I will certainly make sure that I pursue it to make sure that it does happen, because to me it's something that makes, as you said, eminent sense and certainly should save money, I would think, in the long run.
MR. BARNET: Mr. Minister, on behalf of those councillors and members of the Legislature who represent those areas that have both, I think that's the kind of discussion that needs to take place quickly for some resolution to come to that. It's obviously something that has been troublesome for those of us who represent those cross-over areas.
My final question is something that constituents have brought to my attention, and it's one of those ones that's hard to answer as a member of the Legislature in terms of a question, but I often get asked. It seems as if, when governments are making reductions, that it's only the workers who actually do the work and the people downtown who do the planning and the overall big thinking of the departments never get affected. I want to ask you, Mr. Minister, how many people work now at Purdys Wharf, and is that up or down from the time that we became government?
MR. RUSSELL: It is down. I can tell you that one of the impacts of the additional funding that's coming in for capital construction this year is to point out the fact that we have laid off several of our people who do planning, design and that kind of thing with regard to capital construction. Now we have, in the preparation of tenders, a backlog at the present time, because we just don't have the staff we used to have. I've just been advised that the bridge department, a year or two back, had 12 people and now it has four. Since we're ramping up, to some extent, our capital expenditures, that is providing us the opportunity to start into the bridge replacement program, and we do need extra people. I guess we will have to get by for the time being anyway. Mr. Chairman, for the committee I will get the decrease in the workforce at our department headquarters.
[Page 693]
MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the time is now being passed to the member for Kings North. I just wish to remind members of the committee, we rise tonight at 5:48 p.m. I understand the minister may wish to close his comments tonight.
The honourable member for Kings North.
MR. MARK PARENT: It's a delight to be able to ask you some questions, not that I don't press you on transportation issues privately, and perhaps I've harassed you on some issues, as have other members of the caucus. Two specific questions, then more general ones. One specific one is, there's an intersection which at one time was adequately served, the Greenwich intersection, and I know that you're aware of it, coming from Port Williams into the old Highway No. 1 that runs between Wolfville and New Minas.
At one stage this was adequately served by a small Y they had, but with the increased traffic both between New Minas and Wolfville and with the increased traffic that feeds down from Canning through Port Williams, it's become a bit of a problem. Some work was done on it recently to try, on a short-time basis, to alleviate the problem, and it did alleviate it. A third lane was put in and it did help in the flow, east-west, from New Minas to Wolfville, but actually, according to drivers, made it worse for the Port Williams people. I'm just wondering if you're aware of this situation and are there any ideas on how to alleviate it?
MR. RUSSELL: I can certainly tell you I'm aware of it, because I get out to Canning quite often and I'm well aware of that intersection. I must confess that I have not discussed it with staff, but I do remember, some time ago I think, that there was a suggestion made that we purchase property and move the Y further down towards New Minas than it is at the present time. I'm told, Mr. Chairman, that there's nothing in the mill at the present time, but that staff is aware of it and I certainly am aware of it. I will bring it to their attention. The solution, as I said, what I heard at one time was to branch out further down towards the . . .
MR. PARENT: I expect that would be the best solution, an expensive one.
MR. RUSSELL: But there is another solution that was just suggested to me by Mr. Delaney, and that was that perhaps we could square off the intersection, that would be better than the present Y which is just a tremendous hazard because you don't know who has the right-of-way and it is a hazardous situation. I will take that under advisement and get back to you.
MR. PARENT: Mr. Minister, one quick question. I understand that the Liberal caucus has some more questions that they want to ask. The patching program, the RIM program and the patching part of it, which is a wonderful program, I know in Kings County they moved from west to east in doing the patching and ended up in my riding, basically, in August. I am wondering if any thought has been given to prioritizing the patching according to tourist draws, so that areas where tourists would be travelling would perhaps get the patching done
[Page 694]
first. I don't know whether this is possible, whether it's a logistical nightmare or not. I'm thinking, for example, of Blomidon Park in my riding or Halls Harbour, which are big tourist draws. Many people go to Blomidon Park, starting as soon as the park opens. I'm just wondering, has that ever been a consideration, and maybe logistically it would be difficult to look at that, whether that's part of the mix in patching in the RIM program?
MR. RUSSELL: We had several questions, actually, as we moved along, both from the NDP and the Liberal caucuses and now from you, with regard to roads to tourist attractions. Certainly that is a concern, and it does add to the priority of a certain road if it's carrying a lot of tourist traffic. The problem that you're referring to, though, is patching early. In truth, you're better not to patch too early, because you can waste an awful lot of money putting asphalt in holes which lasts a couple of weeks and then just pops out. We are giving priority to those roads, but I would suggest that we will not be doing the patching all that early. Perhaps during the regular patching program, we can make sure that with the tourist roads, because they reflect on the public that comes to visit us and to spend money from out of province, we should be concentrating on those roads.
Mr. Delaney was just telling me something that I should have known, and I think it's important. We are getting tenders out earlier now. It's better by far in patching potholes if you can do it with spreader patching or hot asphalt, and if you can get the tenders out early enough we can get those jobs done properly rather than having a temporary patch. In point of fact that's what we're doing during the winter months, just filling a hole with some black stuff that's going to sit there for a little while and then pop out, and we've still got the problems. Our early tender policy is good from the point of view that we can get to those roads early.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No further comments or questions from the government.
MR. PARENT: I have some questions that I want to ask, but I'm willing to ask them later.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will now pass time over to the Liberal caucus.
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, on the Public Works side, with regard to the school construction, as you know, under the P3 construction program the cost of maintenance was built into the lease. Now, obviously we're not going that method now, the government is not using that method presently. I guess I'm looking down the road at a lot of the problems that we're having with some of the schools today, the mould and aging schools and so on. I'm curious as to what kind of controls were placed - no, still better, what provisions were put in for the long-term maintenance of these schools that you're going to construct?
[Page 695]
MR. RUSSELL: That we're constructing under the present program?
MR. MACKINNON: Yes, that you've announced.
MR. RUSSELL: The school boards are responsible for maintenance, I'm sure that I'm not telling the member anything he didn't know. The school boards do assume the cost of maintenance when they take the school over. The schools are being built to a high standard so that maintenance should not have any great effect on their budgets, providing they do maintenance on a regular basis. As I've said with the roads, schools or anything else, unless you do ongoing preventive maintenance, then you're going to run into trouble. We've done that both in roads and schools.
[5:30 p.m.]
MR. MACKINNON: That's true, but under the P3 process that maintenance was built in, you knew exactly, at the end of the day or at the end of the year, what your total cost would be, whereas using this methodology you don't know what your maintenance is going to be. It could be an unforeseen cost with the Department of Education or Public Works, or whatever department. That's really the issue that I'm raising.
MR. RUSSELL: The school boards are going to be financed by the government, though, to take care of ongoing maintenance, and whether it be the P3 methodology, where you paid up front, or the methodology that we have at the present time, where you pay as you go, I don't think makes a heck of a lot of difference. The maintenance has to be done to a standard and whether we do it or the owner/operator of the P3 school does it, I don't think that's . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Am I interpreting your comments to suggest that essentially there would be relatively no difference in the maintenance cost?
MR. RUSSELL: There should be essentially no difference in the maintenance cost, correct.
MR. MACKINNON: What controls has your department put in place to ensure that the capital construction costs are not over budget?
MR. RUSSELL: That construction costs are not over budget?
MR. MACKINNON: Of a school. Let's say you're building a school, estimated at $8 million, do you find yourself in a position where maybe it's $8.5 million or $9 million, that sort of thing? Rarely ever do they come in under budget.
[Page 696]
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, they do, surprisingly enough, and I admit I was pleasantly surprised. The Department of Transportation and Public Works manages the contracts for schools, as we do for other public buildings, and we have pretty tight controls on the expenditures on the job, close monitoring and hopefully we can bring jobs in on estimate.
MR. MACKINNON: Fundamentally, what's the difference, at the end of the day, cost-wise between the P3 process and the traditional method that you have just outlined, in dollars and cents?
MR. RUSSELL: In dollars and cents, I don't think I'm in a position to answer that question, but I can answer the question from the point of view of what the difference is between the P3 process and the process we're using at the present time in that we own the schools. To me, that's number one. We control the school, we're not beholden to some third party to use the schools, for instance, after hours, to use it for certain functions that the owner might not agree with. I think also the fact is that at the end of the P3 process we still don't own the school, we've paid on a mortgage per se without ever achieving full ownership, whereas with the present process we own the school, we borrow the money ourselves and we amortize the cost of the school over 25 or 30 years, and at the end of that period it's our school.
MR. MACKINNON: I would like to just shift the focus a bit back over to the Transportation side. The blue book promise of all taxes raised through motor vehicle licensing and fuel sales would be dedicated by the end of year two to highway construction and maintenance, obviously your government wasn't able to meet that target. What was the big pitfall in trying to achieve that target? I know you've gone with the additional 2 cents per litre for capital construction this year, but aside from that what's the status on this blue book commitment?
MR. RUSSELL: The commitment was made, there's no argument about that. I think the actual revenue from motive fuel taxes and fees and licenses is something in the order of $235 million. The Department of Finance has allocated to the Department of Transportation and Public Works an additional $10 million, including this year, over the past three years. So we've had a total of $30 million to close the gap. Next year there will be an additional $11 million which will close the gap. We didn't meet our commitment so far as the time is concerned, but the overall commitment will be met during this mandate of this government.
MR. MACKINNON: But that's because you put an additional 2 cents tax.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, that was the rationale that was given to me and I had forgotten it. The thing is that that raises the revenues to the province by $24 million, so it makes the gap bigger, but then it injects the same amount to close the gap again. So it's actually neutral to the whole process.
[Page 697]
MR. MACKINNON: You should have had him working on your blue book promise.
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, indeed. That's why he earns his pay.
MR. MACKINNON: Yes, I can see that. You may be called upon within the next 365 days for some upgrade on that blue book promise. I guess the other point from your blue book is the commitment for a comprehensive, non-partisan, multi-year plan for maintenance and upgrading of secondary roads based on need and not partisan politics. Have you articulated that plan yet, or is it still in the oven being cooked, so to speak?
MR. RUSSELL: We have a 10-year needs study, which I'm sure the member is familiar with, and that does articulate our policy and our proposals for repairing the system.
MR. MACKINNON: Do you have it broken down? You have a list of all your roads, some 8,000 miles of road in the province. Do you have any type of a needs assessment priority listing on that?
MR. RUSSELL: No, the roads themselves are not identified. At one time we did have, in the needs assessment, a list of all the roads in the province and where they sat on the priority list, however, we found that our system was deteriorating so fast that practically every road got to the top of the list. You could list them alphabetically, and you would be listing them just as well as you would by listing them by priority and need.
MR. MACKINNON: Really what the minister is saying is we have a moving target here, the variables keep changing year to year, so you can't identify with any . . .
MR. RUSSELL: What I can say to you in all truth is that I don't think any member of the Department of Transportation would tell you that our road system was in good shape. It's not the fault of the Department of Transportation that our roads are in such bad shape, the fault is sitting around this table. It's the members of the Legislature and successive governments over the past 15, 20 years; they have just simply not made sufficient money available to the department to do the necessary ongoing maintenance to stop the system from falling down.
It's so obvious that you say, well, why didn't somebody else do something about it?
Well, the point was I think successive Ministers of Transportation and Department of Transportation officials have tried to, but the priority has always been that we need more money for Health, we need more money for Education; where can we get it so that nobody notices that we're robbing Peter to pay Paul? The obvious place is to go to the Department of Transportation and say, look, you've got $30 million in there for what is essentially a program that you don't have to fulfill, and that is maintenance, ongoing maintenance, ongoing repair, ongoing capital work.
[Page 698]
So the money would just be siphoned from the budget of the Department of Transportation to go into other essential services, which in the eyes of the public and, I presume, where governments have always had priority, and that is Health and Education. At one time we had about 11 per cent of the budget devoted to the Department of Transportation; it has dropped steadily down to around about 4 per cent or 5 per cent. The need hasn't decreased; the amount of traffic certainly hasn't decreased; the speed of traffic on the roads, which contributes to the wear and tear on the roads, certainly hasn't decreased; the weight of the traffic, the weight of trucks certainly hasn't decreased. When you combine all those things, there's been a tremendous demand for more money not less money.
As I say, we have to correct that, and I honestly believe that within the province we don't have that capacity, to be quite truthful. We just don't have it unless the federal government steps up to the plate and says, look, yes, we will, on an ongoing basis, pay a percentage of what we take out of this province in motive fuel taxes and pay it back to the provinces to invest in their highway system; not in the national highway system but in their highway system. You must have feeder roads in good shape. There's no use having 100-Series Highways in fantastic shape and all the rest just being mud trails. You have to be able to get from your house or your village or your town onto the 100-Series Highways to get somewhere.
There has to be a change of attitude by the federal government to designate, on a yearly basis, not just a spurt of money here and a spurt of money there but on a continuous basis, a funding formula to provide money to the transportation network that we have in this country. As I said in my opening remarks, we are the only country of the G7 countries that does not have a nationally-funded highway system. We're the only one.
MR. MACKINNON: I agree with you, Mr. Minister, particularly with regard to the federal government, but all the same, let's be fair, this was a commitment you made knowing that.
MR. RUSSELL: Oh yes.
MR. MACKINNON: So there's lots of guilt to go around. Just on that same line of thought but in a slightly different manner, in your blue book as well, you made a commitment that there would be improved rail links between Nova Scotia and New England. What specific action have you taken to fulfill that commitment? Obviously one rail car, I think, my understanding, is the equivalent of 30 tractor-trailers on the highway.
MR. RUSSELL: The only thing I can speak to, I suppose, with regard to rail, CN of course, is the fact that we did achieve double-stacking, and that is of supreme importance to the Port of Halifax and the economy of the province as a whole, the fact that we can take out the containers that we bring into the port.
[Page 699]
MR. MACKINNON: That was done before your government, too.
MR. RUSSELL: It was started but it certainly wasn't completed. It's within the past two years that it's been possible to double-stack from Nova Scotia out of the country.
MR. MACKINNON: On the issue of highways, I noticed last year, especially on the 100-Series Highways, where old asphalt was torn up and new asphalt was put down. Do you have any specific policy on what you're doing with all this old asphalt? Where do you stockpile it or bury it, or what do you do with it?
[5:45 p.m.]
MR. RUSSELL: I'm glad you mentioned that. We have had, as you know, a use for recycled asphalt, we've been grinding it up, mixing it with an emulsion and laying it again. Fortunately we've had some successes, but unfortunately we've also had some non-successes. There is a new process which we will be using this year, I believe, called foamed asphalt. The process is where you take an asphalt road surface, grind it up, mix the ground-up material with new asphalt and water, and you end up with air particles inside the asphalt mix. Then you lay it, and I understand it's done on a continuous process. In other words, the machine is digging up in front and delivering the stuff to the back, and the back is laying it.
There's a machine designed specifically for this process. We don't have any in Nova Scotia at the present time, so the contract that will be let - it will probably be contracts because we will let two or three, just to make it worthwhile to the contractor - is going to move a machine in from Ontario to do a demonstration project. He will be doing it in concert with local contractors, so that our people will learn what this process is. We're going to give it a go this summer. From what we know, it saves money, number one, which means that we can put down more asphalt with the same amount of dollars, but secondly it is a very smooth and very durable material that we're laying. It has a lot of things going for it. They're using it extensively in Ontario. We believe that we should try it, and we're going to do that this year. Hopefully it will be successful. It will then be picked up by local contractors who will buy the machine and will be laying this product.
MR. MACKINNON: Will you be able to - I realize time is getting a little tight here - utilize a lot of the old asphalt that's stockpiled in different locations?
MR. RUSSELL: I'm told that we cannot use it with this process, but so far as using that asphalt that's stockpiled, I hope we can because to my mind it makes a very good shoulder. I would think that's where we should be using it, because leaving it in a stockpile, it just leaches and makes a mess.
MR. MACKINNON: Where did you stockpile all the asphalt that was dug up down in Richmond County, off Highway No. 104, last year?
[Page 700]
MR. RUSSELL: I don't know.
MR. MACKINNON: Would you give an undertaking . . .
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, I can give an undertaking to the member that . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Do you have to get environmental permits in order to be able to stockpile that stuff or store it anywhere?
MR. RUSSELL: I don't think so. We are stockpiling it, generally in areas that are parking spots around the intersections of 100-Series Highways and collector roads. If I could just go back for a moment to what I was talking about, foamed asphalt. We are also going to be doing some concrete paving as well, and we will be doing a section of Highway No. 101, actually, that they're building at the present time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The time has expired for debate today, we have now reached our limit of four hours. The minister will probably be required to return on Thursday, April 25th, to conclude any questions the caucuses may have and to give closing comments. Next on the list after that will be the Speaker's Office.
We stand adjourned.
[5:50 p.m. The subcommittee rose.]
