HALIFAX, MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2013

 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

 

4:46 P.M.

 

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Clarrie MacKinnon

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I call the Subcommittee on Supply to order. We are about ready to proceed with the estimates of the Department of Environment.

 

The Government House Leader has made an agreement with both Parties that we are only going to deal with the Department of Environment for one and a half hours. I would expect that the minister would have an opening statement, and in a sense of fairness, the Liberal caucus would take a half-hour and the Progressive Conservative caucus would take a half-hour.

 

Resolution E7 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $24,954,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Environment, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Environment.

 

HON. STERLING BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's an honour to present the details of this year's budget for the Department of Environment. It's also providing a summary of some of our accomplishments over the past year. Before I get started, I want to introduce my staff who are joining me here today: Sara Jane Snook is the Deputy Minister of Environment and Barry Burke is a manager of Financial Services. I'm delighted that we have such qualified staff at my table.

 

Although a few staff are here today, I can tell you that hundreds more are dedicated staff who work in communities right across Nova Scotia to protect the health of Nova Scotians and the environment. Our staff make great efforts to protect the environment, both in the work they do and their personal actions. They truly are stewards of our environment. Our process is due to the dedication of these hard-working employees who deliver the many programs and services of the department. I will talk about some of these programs and services shortly, but first I'd like to share with you the department's mandate and vision.

 

The Department of Environment's mandate is to support and promote the protection and enhancement and careful use of the environment; create, manage, and protect wilderness areas; preserve, protect, and study ecological sites, and promote understanding among Nova Scotians; conserve and allocate water resources; and promote the connections between a healthy environment and a healthy economy. Our vision is to ensure that Nova Scotia continues to have a healthy, well-managed environment that supports strong communities.

 

This government is moving forward to this vision. In the past year, Nova Scotia Environment has undergone many important changes to its structure. These changes align our staff and services to be more efficient and encourage collaboration among our employees. I'll speak a little bit about the process that we undertook as a department in bringing about these changes.

 

Most of us realize that change can be very stressful and difficult in any organization, regardless of how necessary it may be or how many people support these changes. From the very beginning the department's leadership made every effort to consult staff, speaking with them one on one, to get a picture of where we are and where we want to go. This was truly a fully inclusive process, and the end result is a departmental structure that we are proud of. Two key priorities were to create a safety-first culture and promote a respectful workplace. Mr. Chairman, measures have been taken to improve employee safety and awareness to respectful workplace policies in government.

 

The next task was to carefully redesign the structure of our department. As of April 1^st, Nova Scotia Environment has the following divisions: Compliance, Science, Policy, and Sustainability and Innovation. I'll outline the roles and responsibilities and I'll update you on the work of these divisions in a few moments.

 

Mr. Chairman, our department's budget estimated for the year is $24.954 million. This budget will support the work carried out in the department's core business areas. Some of the highlights of our work in the last budget year include working towards an equivalency agreement with the federal government in lowering emissions from coal-fired electricity. This agreement will save Nova Scotians hundreds of millions of dollars in electricity rates which reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

 

We've made the largest additions, since 1998, to the province's protected areas with the addition of the Kelley River and Raven Head wilderness areas; released a draft parks and protected areas plan that will not only meet but surpass our 12 per cent protected areas goal; renewed the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act and added four new goals that will promote cleaner energy and a green economy; encouraged more local food purchases and increased the number of farms in our province; released the province's first contaminated site regulations that will streamline the process for cleaning up properties; and supported a cleaner environment and economic development.

 

Mr. Chairman, I'll now discuss some of the activities of each of our core business areas of Nova Scotia's environment. The Compliance Division listed in the budget under its former name, Environmental Monitoring and Compliance, is the service delivery arm of our department. Staff in this division deliver field operations related to environmental protection and promotion. Their work includes inspection, enforcement, auditing, and monitoring environment activities. They also process applications for industrial water and waste-water activities and operational approvals. This work is delivered by approximately 140 staff across Nova Scotia.

 

In addition to our central office in Halifax, Nova Scotia Environment services the province with offices in Yarmouth, Bridgewater, Kentville, Bedford, Truro, Amherst, Antigonish, Port Hawkesbury, and Sydney. It's the largest division of our department and the public's direct link to many of our services. These folks are the face of our department. They are the front-line workers who speak and meet with Nova Scotians every day.

 

The Compliance Division's budget for 2012-13 is $11.079 million. Staff in this division review and process about 5,000 - I repeat, 5,000 - applications each year. These applications are for more than 100 different activities affecting the environment. They also inspect more than 3,700 facilities each year that are under approval from the department.

 

This division is extremely busy. I'm always impressed by their dedication and their delivery of key services that protect our water resources and land and air. Inspectors have a complex and challenging job and we need to ensure that they focus on the activities that pose the greatest potential risk to the health of Nova Scotians and their environment.

 

Changes to the Environment Act came into effect in October 2012. These changes have allowed us to work on and improve regulations, policies, and guidelines for the department. Our goal is to streamline low-risk activity for developers, businesses, homeowners, and giving our staff more time for more environmentally sensitive and complex files. New processes are being developed to allow property owners and contractors to provide notice to the department of some low-risk activities and follow standards instead of requiring an inspector to grant an approval. This means far less paperwork for individual businesses and government staff. These changes will help our programs become more efficient and more effective and still protect the health of Nova Scotians and their environment.

 

The new Science Division, formerly known as Environmental Science and Program Management, focuses on drinking water, water resources, and industrial management. Water is the foundation of life itself and it also plays an important role in growing the economy and creating clean energy in developing communities. Yet, despite the importance of our water supply, Canadians know very little about the value of water and our ecosystem.

 

Nova Scotians, like most Canadians, often take our water for granted. Most of us turn on the tap and all that good-quality water is readily available. The Science Division helps Nova Scotians understand the importance of protecting and conserving our valuable water resources, including drinking-water supplies. It also supports our Compliance Division in managing industrial approvals for major industries in Nova Scotia. The Science Division budget for 2012-13 is $3.542 million.

 

Water for Life, the province's water resource strategy, guides much of the Science Division's work. We are in the third year of implementing the strategy. In addition, Nova Scotia Environment released the province's first drinking water strategy in 2002. As part of our commitment to provide excellent and safe drinking water for Nova Scotians, we will be completing a renewal of the drinking water strategy this year.

 

Some key areas of progress include our development of Nova Scotia's watershed assessment program in partnership with Dalhousie University, which outlines the status of the province's watershed health and possible risks. The Nova Scotia Groundwater Observation Well Network is a series of observation wells that monitor groundwater quantity and quality on an hourly basis across the province. In 2012, a new observation well was added at Rainbow Haven Beach, bringing the total number of active wells to 38.

 

In 2012, the number of municipal drinking water systems that met Nova Scotia's treatment standards rose to 86 per cent. Those municipalities serve 98 per cent of Nova Scotians who receive municipal water. In 2012, the number of waste-water treatment facilities that received at least primary treatment, increased to 92 per cent.

 

We continue to work with the remaining municipalities to make the necessary upgrades for meeting the standards for drinking water and waste-water treatment. A key program that helps Nova Scotia families is the Environmental Home Assessment Program. In 2012, our partners carried out 480 environmental home assessments, and 88 septic repair grants were provided to Nova Scotia homeowners. This program provides information about the importance of on-site water wells, septic systems, and home heating oil tanks. It's delivered through community partners, with funding and training provided by government.

 

Mr. Chairman, in the coming year the Science Division will focus on drinking water programs, renewal projects, and the continuing implementation of the water strategy. We will also update the storm-water policy for the province and manage approvals for larger industrial activities. Centralizing these larger operations will allow the department to provide a better level of client service.

Mr. Chairman, developing a new storm-water policy is a key initiative for the Science Division, as it is linked to our work on climate change, emergency response, and flood mitigation programs. A new standard for municipal waste-water treatment that is in line with new federal regulations will be put in place. All these measures will help protect our water supplies and environment now and in the future.

 

The new Sustainability and Innovation Division brings together the former Climate Change Directorate with staff who work on air emissions, contamination sites, hazardous materials, and solid waste and land protection. This division's budget is $4.772 million. The Sustainability and Innovation Division focuses on immediate and long-term environmental and economic opportunities in the province. We are seeking to use creative and innovative approaches to protect the environment and promote sustainable development. Staff engage stakeholders on a regular basis on a wide variety of issues. They have worked hard to develop a culture of collaboration across departments. By working together, we can take on some of the biggest environmental challenges facing the province.

 

One of those challenges is air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Last September a draft Canada-Nova Scotia Equivalency Agreement for Coal-Fired Electricity was released by the federal government. This agreement supports Nova Scotia's approach to clean energy and will save families hundreds of millions of dollars on their power bills, while also enabling the province to meet our greenhouse gas targets as well as the new federal targets.

 

Our made-in-Nova Scotia approach was recognized by the federal government. This will help all Nova Scotians. The agreement acknowledges the strength of our approach. We were the first jurisdiction to place hard caps on GHG emissions in the electricity sector, an approach that continues to be recognized by our federal and provincial colleagues and organizations everywhere.

 

Other clean energy policies this government has put in place over the past four years will result in improved air quality and stable electricity prices for Nova Scotians. The additions of wind, tidal, biomass, and hydroelectric power from Muskrat Falls will help us reach our targets.

 

Another major challenge facing Nova Scotia is the reality of changing climates. Nova Scotians are facing higher sea levels and more frequent and severe storms from climate change. We need to continue our efforts such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions to lower the contributions to climate change. As a coastal province, Nova Scotia also needs to prepare for these new climate change realities. Staff in the Sustainability and Innovation Division concluded their work on the Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Program in 2012.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't want to interject, but I will. My understanding is your opening remarks will be cut to a half-hour and I just wanted to give you a 10-minute notice that there are 10 minutes remaining in your time, so judge yourself accordingly.

MR. BELLIVEAU: I think we need to synchronize our watches because I'm down to seven minutes and I'm trying to do the math in my head.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I said about 10 minutes - I think it's closer to eight and a half.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Well, we won't argue about whose clock is right, but we're keeping track and we'll try to keep on time. Thank you for the update.

 

This project supports research and planning to address the risks and opportunities brought on by climate change. In March 2012, Nova Scotia presented its research results at a conference in Halifax entitled Climate Change: Getting Ready. As Minister of Environment, I was proud to see a high quality of research and knowledge among our staff. Our department's expertise on the climate change issue is highly respected and recognized regionally and nationally. I congratulate the staff on their success on the ACAS project.

 

Nova Scotia encourages community-based projects through the Climate Change Adaptation Fund, and in 2012 five projects received this funding: $5,000 was granted to the Canadian Coalition of Green Health Care for its Health Care Facility Climate Change Resiliency Toolkit, and this project seeks to integrate climate change into health care facilities' emergency management plans. By recognizing any vulnerabilities health care facilities can ensure they are prepared to respond to weather events related to emergencies.

 

The fund provided $10,000 to the Town of Truro in partnership with Colchester County for the Hazard Risk Vulnerability Analysis Model. They studied how risk vulnerability is considered in emergency management planning and the communities can produce better adaptation strategies on climate change; $10,000 supported climate change education in the arts community in Cheticamp through an English-French play on climate change impacts in the community; and $17,260 was granted to Jason Loxton for climate change education for teachers.

 

As I mentioned, despite our best efforts to slow the rate of climate change, Nova Scotia has areas that are at high risk of damage from floods caused by higher sea levels and increased storms. In September 2012, homes and businesses in Truro and Colchester County were damaged by severe floods caused by heavy rains.

 

I'm going to jump ahead, Mr. Chairman, because of the time. The department's dedicated staff and I are committed to building on our many accomplishments in the coming year. Our mission is to be a leader in ensuring that our environment is valued, protected, enhanced, and in partnership with all Nova Scotians. I thank the many stakeholder groups that have worked with us on issues affecting the environment, for their dedication and their passion that inspire us all. Working together we will not only protect and enhance Nova Scotians' environment, we will make our province one of the best places in the world to live, work, and play.

 

My staff and I look forward to hearing thoughtful ideas from Nova Scotians on ways to improve the work that we do today. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to share with our committee, some of our department's programs and accomplishments of the past year. At this time I look forward to my critics' questions. Thank you for the opportunity.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will now go to the Liberal caucus for a half-hour of questioning.

 

The honourable member for Dartmouth East.

 

MR. ANDREW YOUNGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to keep my questions short and if we get the answers short, we might be able to get through a few.

 

The first one I wanted to ask you about is you're obviously aware of some of the things the Halifax Regional Municipality is considering around their landfill site and changes - I mean to be clear, they're actually voting tomorrow to consider a consultation phase. They're not voting to do anything particularly. However, there are some things they are considering which would require a change to the permit by you, as minister, and I'm wondering whether you have given that any consideration and if you can tell us whether you would agree or not to changes in HRM's permit for their current landfill site.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much and I really respect the question, but officially there has been no official request come to me directly. Actually, I have visited that site; I'm familiar with the area and I find that interesting, because I actually toured that site. The short answer is it hasn't officially come to my desk yet but I'm very aware of that.

 

I also understand that there's an industrial approval so any major change or any changes, they'll have to come through a request to the minister's department. That's basically where that is.

 

MR. YOUNGER: Okay, and I appreciate that and I do recognize there hasn't been an official request. I guess more directly the question would be, would you be inclined to grant permission that would allow them to put - at the moment, you've been there so you know that when the garbage comes in, if there are any organics that haven't been separated or recycled, they get pulled out and they don't end up in the landfill site, which is one of the things that makes it quite good. It also extends the life of the landfill because the cells don't get filled as quickly.

 

I guess understanding that you haven't received any sort of request - and you may never receive a request, and I think that's important as well - if such a request came across your desk to allow organics in a Nova Scotia landfill, whether it's HRM or otherwise, is it something that you would be inclined to permit or not?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Well, it's difficult to speculate on something that you haven't seen, but in fairness to the process, there's an official application that has to come in if they're going to make any changes, but our staff has to assess that so there's a process to follow. Again, I'm familiar with the area that you're talking about, I've been there and visited, I'm familiar with it. They actually have a shredder for tires; they shred the tires. I'm familiar with the operation.

 

Again, in fairness, you're simply speculating, because you need an opportunity for our staff to evaluate the application and for them to present it and for the minister and our staff to be briefed on that. So basically that's speculation at best.

 

MR. YOUNGER: On another issue - and I apologize that I'm changing gears quickly; I'm just trying to cover a few issues in the half-hour. The disposal of fracking waste in Nova Scotia - and I do recognize that there has been no fracking activity under the term of this government, but there has been the disposal of fracking waste water - both fracking waste water that has been generated in Nova Scotia and fracking waste water that has been imported. I assume the only place it has been imported from is New Brunswick but I suppose it could have been imported from elsewhere, but that's neither here nor there.

 

I'm wondering why the decision was made to allow some of the sites, such as in Debert, to dispose of that fracking waste water and whether that waste water has been tested by your department before it was allowed to be treated and whether it was tested before it was discharged.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I want to thank the member opposite for the question. First of all, you're right; we have not allowed any fracking. In fact, there is a review that's ongoing - I want to make sure we get that on record - and that review will not be completed until 2014. You're talking about the disposal of these particular fluids with AIS in Debert.

 

First of all, the company must have treated waste water and there are tests done on that before it is disposed of so there's a process in place, and naturally, the issue you're talking about is that this needed to be addressed. Our information, without getting into details here, because we have to follow a certain protocol so we don't give out privileged information on a company - I can assure you that this is in compliance with all of the approvals that must be met. We think this is the right thing to do because this needs to be looked at.

 

MR. YOUNGER: I'm wondering what exactly is privileged. You have fracking waste water from various sites, and I'm not suggesting you would know right here, but is it possible to find out what that waste water is being tested for and what the results are before and after treatment? It's going into a public water body so I can't see why that would be privileged since the discharge of all other treatment plants are public knowledge across the country, publicly available. Can you explain exactly what information would be privileged in terms of testing that material?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you to the member opposite. At this time I would like to table the industrial approval for the company that my critic is asking about. I'll present this and table this for the pleasure of the committee at this time, if I could.

 

I know that the member has some concerns regarding this issue. What I can tell you is that the advice given to me is that there is some privileged information on the company that is not for public access. I'm being guarded about that information; to me there is some respect of that, understanding that process. But what I can assure you is that this particular company is in compliance with our regulations and these fluids have met and are actually lower than the federal guidelines. So there is no health issue there and the public safety is not at risk. Actually, we're doing this in a manner that is actually treating these fluids which are basically lying untreated in some holding pond.

 

To me, there is a process in place that is actually improving the situation that we have, and we're meeting the guidelines and making the environment better.

 

MR. YOUNGER: Maybe the minister would undertake to have staff - and I'm not asking for exactly what the information is but what the category of information is that they feel is privileged, because in New Brunswick and so forth, they're not allowed to have any of that information privileged.

 

I think the issue here is, I'm not quite sure what - and maybe I haven't read the industrial approval, and I will - but we don't know what they're testing for. So I understand that what the minister is saying is that what they're testing for is coming out within or under federal guidelines, and that's good, but that doesn't mean they're testing for the right things, which has been one of the concerns raised not only in Canada but internationally.

 

The U.S. EPA has pointed out that there is no treatment plant or design that is designed to actually clean up fracking waste, and that's one of the issues. In fact, in some places in the States they're building pipelines to take it and keep it in tanks because they don't actually know how to treat that, so I'm surprised that Atlantic Industrial Services would be the only place in North America that's suddenly able to adequately clean that. I'm not saying they're not because I don't know what's in it, but I think that's the issue. Maybe we could find out more about that.

 

All of the information available would suggest that it is not only dealing with the fracking waste water from the Kennetcook site, which was the site that was fracked in Nova Scotia, but they're also dealing with waste from sites fracked in Sackville, New Brunswick and areas of New Brunswick. I hear what you're saying about making the environment cleaner and I guess we'll have to wait until we see the information, but why would we accept waste from other jurisdictions? Let me just say we don't allow the - I don't believe we allow the transport of solid waste, garbage, between municipal boundaries, as far as I know, so I'm wondering why we would allow the transport of fracking waste from another province to be treated here.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, first of all, the company you're talking about, AIS, has an approval to treat waste water, so that's the first, for any industrial activity. There are terms and conditions in place to protect our Nova Scotian population, for their health and the environment.

 

To me this is - and I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm trying to make a point that these fluids that were left in a holding pond, to me we are improving the environment by dealing with what has been left over from previous years or whatever. We are committed to making the right move.

 

We meet the standards and they pose no risk, as pointed out - the fluids pose a very low risk. But the other point that I want to keep emphasizing - and the member has raised questions around this, regarding fluids of this nature - and I want to echo this message again: we take this particular industry very seriously. We know that Nova Scotians are also concerned about it so this is one of the reasons why we initiated a review, which is going to be completed in 2014.

 

There are a number of other jurisdictions that also have the same questions, Mr. Chairman, around this. The United States - I believe it's the New York area - and Quebec are interested in this same thing: understanding this industry. We want to have that information for Nova Scotians.

 

Getting back to the initial questions, these particular fluids are in our province and we want to address it and do the right thing for the environment and for all Nova Scotians concerned. Thank you.

 

MR. YOUNGER: You're asking for us to trust you on this and I'm not saying that there's no reason to trust you, but we don't have the information and I think you can understand why people would be concerned. I've mentioned the imported waste a number of times and you haven't denied that, but maybe just to give you the opportunity: is there imported waste being treated at AIS, or would there be anything that would prevent it?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Our understanding is that none is coming in but there was in the past. There was some that has been treated and I'm not trying to duck the question, to me this is something that I know is important to you and your colleagues, but again, I really believe, as a personal point of view, that Nova Scotians are better off because this is being monitored as we speak. It's being treated and to me, if it were not processed, it would simply be laying there. I think the environment and the public are better protected by allowing this treatment. It's being monitored and there's an industrial approval for the company; they have to meet certain standards to qualify for their industrial approval.

 

MR. YOUNGER: Is there anything that would prevent them from importing waste? I haven't read the industrial approval; my answer might be in there. If somebody calls them from New Brunswick - I understand Newfoundland and Labrador is looking at fracking now - and they say we'll treat it, is there anything that prevents them from doing that?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Again, we're not aware of any fluids coming to Nova Scotia, what you're talking about, from other provinces. There are certain terms and conditions in place to protect Nova Scotians and the health and the environment. Again, we emphasize that these industrial approvals are in place and these particular sites continue to be monitored by our staff. I want to emphasize - and again, I go back to the review that we're doing - as a government, I can assure you that we have never granted an approval for fracking and we have no permits that we're going to allow until this review is complete.

 

We understand the concerns all Nova Scotians have on this topic. What you're talking about is fluids that we basically inherited or received from other provinces and we want to make sure that we do the right thing for the environment.

 

MR. YOUNGER: I agree, but to me there's a difference between dealing with the fracking wastes in the province that come from the province and then also importing them, which is why I asked if there was anything that prohibits the importation. There are rules in New Brunswick now which will allow fracking under certain conditions so they're going to be generating fracking waste. I can tell you, as you acknowledged, at least if not now, in the past that site has accepted fracking waste from New Brunswick in volumes, which seems to be the only thing that anybody knows at the moment, that exceed what would have - well, there was nothing coming out of Kennetcook at the time.

 

I just want to be clear; do they need ministerial or departmental approval to accept imported waste from other jurisdictions? Or if somebody called them up today and said we have a truckload of waste we need to dispose of, can you take it - would they be allowed to accept it without contacting your department?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I just want this to move forward here. What I can say is that our approach regarding these particular fluids is that as a government, as a Party, as a province, and as a department, we're certainly taking a more careful approach of this whole process. I think that's one thing that we need to highlight at this time. I just want to remind the member opposite that it's unfortunate, but the Liberal Government of the past in New Brunswick is the one that supported fracking in the past. We're basically dealing with a situation, some of the stuff that other jurisdictions or other governments of the day made decisions. We're left basically trying to deal with that and to me this is the reality of the situation that we're in.

 

We're here dealing with fluids that are from other decisions that have been made. I want to emphasize again, we are taking a more careful approach regarding this particular industry. We have granted no permits for fracking and we continue to have a review which will be completed in 2014, and we think that is the right and careful approach as we move forward. I hope that information is somewhat satisfactory to you, but again, getting back to your initial question, there is an industrial approval that this particular company has in Debert - AIS - an approval to treat waste water, which meets the industrial approval and the terms and conditions that are placed to protect the health and the environment of all Nova Scotians. Hopefully that is an answer to the question.

 

MR. YOUNGER: Let me just say that I don't much care what the Liberals in New Brunswick did, as I'm sure you don't care that the NDP in Newfoundland and Labrador are against the Muskrat Falls project. If you want to have that debate, we can certainly go down that road. I'm not sure you're right anyway, because I'm pretty sure all those fracking things happened under David Alward. But either way, even if it's accurate, I don't much care what they did. I'm sure the Progressive Conservatives here don't much care what the Progressive Conservatives in Alberta do, because the positions tend to be fairly different.

 

One other issue I wanted to discuss, I understand, Mr. Chairman, from my colleague to my left, he's only going to need 15 minutes so he's . . .

 

HON. CHRISTOPHER D'ENTREMONT: If the member wants to ask a few more questions, that's fine, as long as I have about 15 minutes. It's interesting here so far.

 

MR. YOUNGER: He's giving me 15 minutes of his time so we'll still be within the half-hour.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you.

 

MR. YOUNGER: I agree that New Brunswick has their own mess but New Brunswick can kind of clean up their own mess and be worried about it, especially while the review is going on. So you can't tell me or you don't think you can tell me what they're testing for because that might be privileged, but are they testing the water before and after it goes through their system? At some point it's being discharged. I call it water, but the waste - fluids, I guess.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: If I understand your question, I am protecting the company and there is privileged information but my understanding on the fluids is that the majority of that, in the 90 per cent, is saltwater. I'm not trying to . . .

 

MR. YOUNGER: That's true, but that's not the part that people are worried about in fracking waste.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Again, I want to thank the member opposite for the question and I can repeat that there is industrial approval, there is monitoring going on to protect - Mr. Chairman, if I can, there is industrial approval for this particular company and it's something that we're doing the right thing. We're taking a very cautious approach on this industry as we speak.

 

Again, I want to emphasize that there's a review in place. These fluids either came from another jurisdiction or from a previous mandate of another government and we're basically left cleaning up a mess, or if you want to use the term "some other decision." We are taking the appropriate action to protect the health of individuals, the health of the environment, and we care what we do.

 

Earlier the members made a note of that phrase but we do care how we deal with the environment. I think of the recognition of our accomplishments and I know that the member opposite has raised questions and I've gone to great lengths in memorizing some of our accomplishments over the last 1,500 days of our mandate and I'm very encouraged by some of the accomplishments that we have done in those 1,500 days, and that's a very short time for a government to be recognized in Copenhagen, to be recognized by the Suzuki Foundation. Some of our drinking waters are the highest in the land. I believe we had an A-minus, if my memory serves me correctly. So I'm very appreciative of the recognition of us protecting the environment.

 

I believe there was some evaluation of how we're doing with this particular question regarding fracking, our move to have a fracking review, how we're dealing with an issue that basically we inherited when it comes with the question that was initially raised. I believe we may be eligible for another award. Not to sound too boastful but sometimes we have to beat our chest to get that point across. Hopefully I addressed the question.

 

MR. YOUNGER: I'm not sure if you would be eligible for an award for arguing against the moratorium on fracking for six to eight months until finally agreeing to do it. We can go get the Hansard clips where you stood up in the House and the Premier stood up in the House and said it was absolutely not needed, week after week after week, after I had introduced a bill asking for it. But I'm glad you finally got there, and I guess that's what's important, at the end of the day, is that you did get there.

 

In terms of the review, I might add that on the David Suzuki and the others, after they gave you that award, you then relaxed the mercury emission requirements for Nova Scotia Power and they were none too impressed about that and made quite a fuss and statement about it, so I'm not sure you still would have gotten the award had it been six months later, because some of the people that gave you that award were not terribly impressed by the move on mercury emissions.

 

As we discussed last time- and I won't get into this because we asked it last year in estimates - it's a bioaccumulative substance that you can't make up for later by having stronger mercury rules later because it accumulates in the environment over time and does not degrade. I know you know that because we had a good half-hour discussion on that at last year's estimates.

 

What I will do is go back to this fracking issue; you talked about the review. The review timeline has been pushed up to 2014 and at the time, if I understand correctly, it was pushed off because there are some studies in Quebec and I think the U.S. mainly, and will not become available until that time. I can actually understand some of the rationale behind that because everybody's kind of looking at the same thing. In the States, some of the U.S. EPA studies have now been pushed off further. So does that mean that the timeline for the review here will be pushed off further than 2014?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The short answer is no, but I want to expand on that. I believe that we're taking - I want to emphasize again - a very cautious approach, a very careful approach. This is something that Nova Scotians want to understand thoroughly. When you have an opportunity to have the expertise of these, knowing that these reviews that are being conducted in the U.S., in the New York area, and also in Quebec and Canada, this is something that our staff wants to have an opportunity to evaluate and get all of that information as we move forward.

 

We have no indications that we're moving from that date of 2014, but we appreciate gathering all that information. This is what this particular government does: it goes out and gathers that information and makes a decision based on good, solid information. Again, I know that there are concerns of Nova Scotians on this issue and we believe we're taking a very careful approach on this particular matter. Thank you.

 

MR. YOUNGER: I want to ask you about the protected areas. This is a financial question and it crosses many departments but I'm told that it's your department that ultimately is taking the lead on it. You have purchased some land but you intend to purchase other lands, all of which I assume will - some might get donated, but for the sake of argument they'll get purchased at market value. Which makes sense, somebody will go do an appraisal, and if it's timberland, a Christmas tree farm, or the back 40 of somebody's cottage and they're willing to sell it to you, then you'll pay market value. I don't think anybody would suggest that you shouldn't pay market value for it.

 

If you read the legislation that governs the protected areas, immediately upon purchase and putting it into the protected areas, it changes what can be done on that land - obviously because it becomes a protected area, which will change the value of that land. I'm not talking about the value to Nova Scotians, which we all agree on, what I want to know is, because the actual financial value of that property will drop from the day you purchase it, so if you purchase it for $100 and then you change the allowed uses on that land, it will drop the value of that land.

 

I know you're not reselling it so it's not about are you losing money, but on paper you have paid for something and then the value has reduced, and that has to be shown in the budget somewhere in terms of the net debt and the assets and the net liabilities. There are a number of accountants that have talked about this issue. I'm just wondering how that is going to be reflected and when we would see that reflected in the budget.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is less than 10 minutes remaining in the member's time.

 

MR. YOUNGER: If you need to get back to me on an answer on that one, that's okay because I know that's a very sort of bizarre . . .

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I'll do my best here. First of all I think there needs to be a review of where we are. I think I made reference to it in my opening remarks. On February 28, 2013, Our Parks and Protected Areas: A Proposed Plan for Nova Scotia was released after two months of public consultation. The plan describes what lands and proposed protected areas and the management regime, provincial parks, wilderness areas, natural reserves, are proposed for each property. Seventeen - I repeat, 17 - open houses are being held throughout the province, starting on March 4^th of this year and ending April 9^th of this year, to allow Nova Scotians an opportunity to provide comments.

 

Mr. Chairman, comments are also being accepted on-line and in writing until May 1^st. A final plan will be submitted to government for approval. I just want to highlight that the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act, which all Parties approved of, required legal protection of at least 12 per cent of the total land mass of the province by 2015. Currently 9.3 per cent of the province is legally protected. In June 2011, Nova Scotia Environment launched Our Wild Spaces, 12 per cent land review process, inviting Nova Scotians to help choose lands that should be protected. Over 700 written submissions were released. The proposed plan includes that lands that will allow the province to protect more than 13 per cent, and some conditional lands included in the plan will only be protected subject to.

 

Mr. Chairman, I know that the member opposite talked about the value and yes, we have spent some money in acquiring some of these lands, particularly the Bowater lands, but the majority of these lands are Crown lands that are being protected.

 

To the member opposite, do we have an appreciation of the value? To me, this is a legacy, and I'm dead serious when I talk about this because this is something that each one of these candidates that are chosen and are successfully meeting a protected wilderness area is a jewel. I know there are a number of them across Nova Scotia and I actually have seen - I call it the collective hug when we reach a proposal and these candidate sites have been chosen and selected to meet the 12 per cent goal that we're talking about. It's a very good story that we get a lot of comments on and I'm glad the member opposite actually asked that question.

 

MR. YOUNGER: In my preamble I actually said I'm not disputing whether you should buy the land or whether it's important to protect it, it's just a technical question of - the Crown land is fine. The Crown lands that you're going to protect obviously won't change in value because they're Crown lands - at least I assume they wouldn't. I'm just wondering how that's going to be reflected because in paper terms, for the accountants of the world, you'll lose money the day you buy the land, which is okay, I agree, there's a legacy. I'm not disputing whether it's a good idea; I just want to know how that's going to be shown in the financial statements.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I guess the question you're talking about, the answer is the change in the value would only occur when the lands are sold, which won't happen because it's protected. Where I was trying to go with this whole value chain on this question is that when I go into a room and we go through this exercise, there are lots of people, different stakeholders who have different perspectives of this land, this whole process.

 

You literally get a collective hug from all the different groups and stakeholders, and it's going to be my grandchildren's generation, our grandchildren's generation that is going to tell us that we got good value in this particular exercise. The land that's going to be purchased - basically the change in value would not occur when the land is sold because it's protected, it's not going to be sold. Our future generations are going to tell us, I'm confident, that this is a good proposal. Thank you.

 

MR. YOUNGER: I'm not worried that you're going to sell the land, I'm not worried that somebody else is going to sell the land, I'm not worried that - it's not about the legacy thing. The reason I'm asking is because there's a lot of talk about net GDP ratios and all that over in the Department of Finance and I don't understand how the value would only change when it's sold, because the way the Act is written, it changes the uses on the land the day it's designated a protected area, which is unlike any other land purchase the province makes.

 

I don't even know who does this, but somebody in the Department of Finance, I assume, makes a value for all of the assets and if you read the books of the province, they say here's the stuff that the province owns and here's the value of it. If the province went bankrupt, here's what we sell. Then people create net GDP ratios and all kinds of other financial mumbo-jumbo.

 

I'm not an accountant, what can I say? I'm not saying you shouldn't buy land, I'm not saying it's not a bad idea, I just want to know how it's going to impact the books, because unlike all of our other land purchases or if you buy a school or something, this legislation is unique in its wording because it changes - I should have brought the section of the Act - it changes the allowed uses on the land the second you designate it protected. I'm just wondering if that will show up somewhere in the books of the province after the designation happens. I get that for Crown lands it probably doesn't count.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Member, is that an appropriate question for this particular department?

 

MR. YOUNGER: He's the one purchasing the land. He can get back to me.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I know our staff has the questions the honourable member is asking us to address. I'll pass that on and take that under consideration.

 

MR. YOUNGER: Somebody can write me an answer, I don't need it right now.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Our staff can consider the response for that, but I can tell you that this whole exercise is about a future generation's legacy being passed on. I know these are valuable - I call them jewels that probably once in a lifetime we're going to have an opportunity to acquire. This 12 per cent is something that I'm really excited about being part of, and I guess the point I want to keep going back to is that when you have all different stakeholders in a room that actually go through this consultation process and you literally get a collective hug when this whole exercise is complete - and I've seen a number of announcements - it's a very warm occasion when you see people of different backgrounds, stakeholders that have different interests in these particular lands, they all understand it and they all appreciate it so it's something that makes you warm inside.

 

Again, I think of future generations that will tell us that this was the right thing to do, like EGSPA, the Act that all Parties supported. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister, just for clarification, I think that you are not going to have closing remarks, right?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: That's my understanding, Mr. Chairman.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: That being the case, I'll certainly give another minute and a half or two minutes to the member so he can get his last good question in.

 

MR. YOUNGER: Thanks, it's the last good question even. The last question I have is that I think it was about a year ago you released the water strategy and I'm just wondering if that will be backed up by legislation, and if so, what the timeline is for that. I recognize that not everything in it requires legislation but there are some items that strike me as benefiting from the legislative framework. I'm just wondering if that's going to happen, and if so, what the timeline on that might be. That would be my last question.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, with the water strategy, we do not plan legislation because it's actually included in the Environment Act. That is the short answer.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything to add to that?

 

MR. YOUNGER: Everybody is shocked by the short answer. (Laughter)

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I give a short answer and everybody looks at me, so I'll expand on that.

 

The central theme of the Nova Scotia water strategy is integrated water management, or IWM. IWM is a comprehensive approach to managing water resources, including human activities and their effects on watersheds and ecosystems. These include integrations of the management of water activities across our province or provincial government departments. That's a lot longer answer.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we were used to your fishery responses which were about three times as long.

 

Thank you very much, that concludes the time for the Liberal caucus. We will now turn the clock over to the Progressive Conservative caucus for 15 minutes.

 

The honourable member for Argyle.

 

HON. CHRISTOPHER D'ENTREMONT: Thank you very much. It's my pleasure to be here for a few moments to ask a few questions in regard to the Department of Environment. The biggest issue that gets knocked around in my constituency office when it comes to the environment really revolves around our parks and protected areas, the 12 per cent plan for Nova Scotia, so most of my questions will probably revolve in and around that for a few moments.

 

As we're looking for new nature reserves and wilderness areas and provincial parks, there has been a lot of giving from southwest Nova Scotia over the last number of years with the creation of the Tobeatic and other sites around the province. But I'm starting to get a little bit of push-back and I know the minister is probably getting some of that as well, especially from hunting and wilderness enthusiasts who are just wondering what is going on, what they're going to be able to access, what they're not going to be able to access as this is going on. I know there have been a number of representations in our neck of the woods.

 

Maybe I can ask the minister's overview of how this is going. I'm looking at some relatively large expansions; Tobeatic is somewhere around 12,000 hectares, the Bowater lands are, of course, another 16,000 hectares, so where is some of this going? There's a couple more specific spots that I do want to ask about. It's a pretty broad-based question but I thought one that is important for the residents in southwest Nova Scotia.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The question that the honourable member brings is something that, in fact, I have all the maps of the tri-counties in my constituency office, I have all the camps, all the cottages that are leased on Crown lands at my disposal and I'm very familiar with this topic. I can appreciate the member for Argyle bringing it forward because I'm very familiar with this particular issue and I know that a large percentage of the protected land now is in southwest Nova Scotia.

 

I've had a number of meetings with interest groups throughout the tri-counties. I appreciate their understanding of what this exercise is all about. I encourage them to participate in the open house - I mentioned earlier in my remarks about the number of open houses that we've had in the last 90 days or so. I'm encouraged with making sure that everybody participates in the consultations and the talk about their proposed plans and interests can be considered in developing their final plan for the government.

 

I want to emphasize that I know the culture and the importance of camp leases, the access for recreational use, and not only in the tri-counties but across Nova Scotia; there are many people from the Halifax area that actually travel to rural areas to appreciate the wilderness areas. I understand it from that perspective and I have put this file on my desk as something I want to follow. I've indicated to our staff that I want to make sure that the concerns of these particular interest groups, whether it's snowmobiles or ATVs, and one of the other questions is access - access to lands either from private dwellings or cottages.

 

Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member, I understand this question in delivering that message by all good intentions to our department, so I hope the member for Argyle appreciates the answer.

 

MR. D'ENTREMONT: I thank you for that. What we're continuing to hear and going through the experience of EGSPA, working towards the 12 per cent and going through the challenge, you remember that we went through the Tobeatic exercise, making that into a wilderness area as well. As we look at the camps that are held within that circle, a number of camps that were phased out and they were given somewhat access to leases outside of that. I think to ensure access is the most important piece of this whole story.

 

I think of the oversight - if you look at some of the people who participated in the original discussions on the wilderness areas, they would probably say something a little different today as they're looking at the Tobeatic, for instance, and then I'll move that into some other pieces, that from a canoeing standpoint, when you're trying to access some of those back lakes and rivers, if you're a well-abled person it's not too bad to get back there; as you become a little less able, it's very difficult to get there.

 

I know a number of individuals who worked very hard on creating the Tobeatic are today kind of questioning it, wishing they had allowed some kind of access because now they can't get back there and they'll never get to see it again. So I think those are the challenges we have over time: to be able to look at wilderness areas - we need the protection and to have this put aside for future generations, but at the same time, if the people who traditionally used it for many things, whether it's hunting, fishing, or canoeing, not being able to get there is kind of a disservice to what the original intention was.

 

The reason I say that is because as we look at the expansion of Tobeatic, of the 12,000 hectares, there's also the Tusket River wilderness area which sort of puts us up above Quinan, which was sort of one of the areas that was opened up for the possibility of camp leases for the ones that were displaced out of the Tobeatic. So we continue to squish the usable area mass in southwest Nova Scotia, particularly in the constituency of Argyle, and I'm getting a little push-back from people who traditionally use those lands. Can you speak to the expansion specifically and the Tusket River wilderness area which is sort of up past Coldstream Road and Kegeshook, up in that area of the constituency? That will finish up my time anyway.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually, without a closing statement from the minister, you do have more time because we allocated a two-hour period today for this department. By rights, you can keep going without a closing statement for another 30 minutes or so.

 

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Absolutely, the agreement was an hour and a half so I'll try to finish off with this one. If he wants to say a few closing remarks, I've got no problem with that as well. I might think of something as he's answering and we'll see where we go.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Argyle, I want to explain that the different interest groups have brought their concerns about access to me, at a constituency level. I can assure the member that I understand that message and I know the exercise to get the remaining 3 per cent, or a little over 3 per cent, is something I'll take basically their message forward. I assured the different groups that I will, but what I emphasized in my earlier comments was that I literally have the maps of the tri-counties in my area and with each camp lease that's designated on Crown land. I encourage anyone who has any issues to bring those camp leases forward.

 

The question is always around access and making sure that people can accommodate or get to their dwelling. I use the word "dwelling" because come of these are hunting camps or cottages, or whatever, but to them it is a castle. This is part of our culture and people in rural Nova Scotia - and there are people in the urban areas that actually go out to the wilderness and enjoy that. Recreational use is something that we understand.

 

I think what is creating a lot of concern is the exercise of the Tobeatic. This is not a Tobeatic scenario, this is protection of wilderness areas, separate from the Tobeatic, so that's usually my first statement when I talk to anybody that this is not the same exercise, so please don't think that there are the same results because there was a bit of a chill that went through the communities when the Tobeatic plan was implemented. We need to disregard that particular scenario. The idea of protected lands, we have plenty in southwest Nova Scotia, I understand that, and we've always had an opportunity most recently to purchase more land from Bowater.

 

I can assure the member for Argyle, I know he's nodding his head, but there are a lot of people in southwest Nova Scotia that enjoy the recreational use of land near the Queen's Tobeatic, the eastern portion of that area where the Bowater lands are. I can assure you we are bringing that message forward that by purchasing land there is a friendlier attitude toward access over that land. So that's all incorporated in our path as we move forward. I hope that I eased some of the concerns of the member for Argyle and thank you for the question.

 

MR. D'ENTREMONT: I appreciate that answer and maybe just as a follow-up to that, why people use the Bowater lands is because they had access. Bowater was probably a great steward of those lands, but at the same time they allowed a few keys to go out to people who could access. Some of those are super highways that go in up through there that were made for logging roads and made for big trucks but are marvellous locations for wheeler access and that kind of thing in order to get further in than most people would think they could get. So I just want to make sure that when the discussion around the Bowater lands continues is that that same kind of open-door policy is there. I'm sure there are some pieces within that that need more protection than others, but at the same time we should be allowed as Nova Scotians to see the land that we actually do own.

 

With that I hope that maybe there are going to be some keys available and those kinds of things so that people can access the Bowater lands just as they always have.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Today in my constituency, without getting into files in general, I appreciate that Bowater in the past had lands that were gated and individuals had access to them through a key policy, if you want to call it that. I can assure you that this is certainly dear to me and I appreciate that question and I can assure you that's being addressed through the proper channels. Their concerns are being heard and I thank the member for Argyle for bringing that forward. I can say that the tri-counties and that general area appreciate that particular group that enjoys the recreational use of these lands. We'll bring that concern forward and I can tell you that it has already begun.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's about five minutes left if we want to keep within the hour and a half. I understand the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal is ready to go and I think some Opposition members want to get some roads put forward for the record.

 

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Well, I want to thank the minister for that. I know he has always been open to be able to answer any questions along the way so I'll use that avenue, and if the minister has anything to finish up with, the two minutes are yours.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have three more minutes or so if you want to have some closing remarks.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I have 30 seconds or so, but quickly, because I don't want to be a hindrance to people bringing their road questions forward; I think I've been in politics long enough to know that. But I do want to take a few seconds just to thank our staff. I know they've done a lot of work. We were very well prepared, and we were prepared to go four hours because I have such a reliable staff and professionals. I want to thank them in a public setting so I thank all my staff who endured this session today. Time flies when we're doing it right.

 

Thank you for your time; I thank my colleagues; and thank you for your time to be in front of you, Mr. Chairman.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E7 stand?

 

Resolution E7 stands.

 

There will be a five-minute break while we change departments.

 

[6:07 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

[6:14 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I call the subcommittee to order. We will begin the estimates of the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal.

 

Resolution E36 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $425,458,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal.

 

HON. MAURICE SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; good afternoon everyone. I welcome the opportunity to be here today to talk with you about the great work we're doing at TIR. I understand it has been a few years since the department has had this chance to defend the estimates so I'm looking forward to the discussion.

 

Before I continue, I would like to introduce the staff who are with me today. Bruce Fitzner, on my right, is the chief engineer for Highway Programs, and on my left we have Wayne Barry, manager of Budgets for our Finance Division. I thank both of you for joining me today. Together we're going to do the best we can to answer your questions. If there's something we don't know we'll get you the answer in a timely fashion.

 

I have to admit, before joining the department on May 30, 2012, I did not fully appreciate the extent of the work and the level of responsibility at TIR. After close to one year, I have a much better appreciation of and a greater respect for TIR staff. Each and every day they work hard to deliver quality public infrastructure for our province; it is, indeed, impressive. I'm grateful to serve as minister of this great department, a department that has more than 2,000 employees and is responsible for 4,100 bridges and approximately 23,000 kilometres of provincial roads, including 1,199 kilometres of the National Highway System that connects Nova Scotia to the global community.

 

The department operates and maintains approximately 1,300 pieces of highway maintenance equipment, four cable ferries, and three self-propelled ferries. We're also responsible for 2,400 buildings with an assessed value of about $1.9 billion, and for acquiring, managing, and disposing of furniture, fixtures, and equipment assets of the province valued at about $320 million. It's an extensive and impressive list.

 

So what do we do with all of this impressive infrastructure? How are we contributing to building stronger, safer communities? How are we helping to grow the economy? How are we making life better for families and how have we helped to get us back to balance? Through a combination of good fortune, and the hard work and dedication of many, this government has lined up a number of opportunities that are truly starting to transform Nova Scotia for the better.

 

TIR is one of many playing a key role, and here's how. I want to talk a bit about highway improvements. Providing a transportation network for the safety and efficient movement of people and goods is a key part of what we do. While we do this important work we're committed to being fiscally disciplined to keep Nova Scotia's finances balanced. Getting back to balance was critical for families today and tomorrow, for delivering better health care, for putting kids and learning first, for creating good jobs, and for growing the economy.

 

At the same time we recognize the need to invest in maintaining and improving our roads and highways. The last four provincial highway budgets have been record-setting, totalling more than $1.1 billion. I think that bears repeating - $1.1 billion. It's a significant investment, all the while we've been able to get back to balance.

 

It's a remarkable achievement. It represents thousands of jobs and millions of dollars to the economy. It means Nova Scotians travelling across the province have a safer, less congested, and more efficient drive. It means local businesses can transport their goods to market. Nova Scotians can stay connected to vital services, employment, and education, and visitors can travel safely to our communities.

 

To understand how communities across the provinces are benefiting from this investment, we introduced our very first 5-Year Highway Improvement Plan in 2010. It outlines our road and highway projects on a five-year cycle. I believe many of you would be familiar with this plan. When we launched the plan, it was the first time Nova Scotians could look ahead to road improvements. Since then we have been working to get the plan together earlier, to be more accountable to Nova Scotians about where tax dollars will go in the next year, and to give private companies more time to prepare for tenders.

 

The advanced planning allows us to fix more roads and highways, to reach more communities, and to work more effectively with our many partners. At the same time, we're able to be more accountable and transparent. Our new and innovative ways are allowing us to pay less and to pave more.

 

We're also taking a new approach to making the most of every dollar we invest in highway construction and maintenance. We're focusing more on improving paved roads before they become too damaged and need more costly repairs. It's called pavement preservation.

 

As explained in our plan, the new approach is cost effective. We're investing in maintenance before the roads deteriorate to the point of needing more extensive and more expensive work. The province is saving millions in the long term, and at the same time improving the overall condition of the provincial highway system.

 

Increased competition across the province and new approaches such as our new chip seal and asphalt crews, along with greater use of pavement preservation techniques, have already resulted in significant savings and will continue to save taxpayer dollars in the long run. It is also allowing some capital projects to start ahead of schedule.

 

The province's 5-Year Highway Improvement Plan allows Nova Scotians to learn about major construction projects, repaving, major bridge replacements and maintenance, and infrastructure work year by year. It outlines how we're making things go further, types of roads and how they are prioritized, and a project schedule for the next five years.

 

I just want to introduce Paul LaFleche. The deputy minister has joined us.

 

I'm pleased to say the province paved or resurfaced more than 900 kilometres during the last year, 100 more kilometres than planned. The 2013-14 plan aims to do more than 700 kilometres of resurfacing. Since 2009 we have resurfaced more than 3,000 kilometres of road. This is a tremendous accomplishment when you consider the cost per kilometre is over $300,000 to repave, $500,000 to $750,000 per kilometre or more to upgrade a trunk highway, and $3 million per kilometre or more to twin a highway.

 

This year we're investing $245.8 million for highway capital in 2013-14. It's a significant investment, particularly as government continues to focus on a balanced budget. Over the past four years our highway capital budgets have been the largest in the department's history and the current year budget continues that trend. We have made tremendous progress over the years, which was no easy feat, appreciating the extent of work that was needed. Having said that, there is still a great deal of work that needs to be done, all while ensuring we continue to do our part to balance the budget.

 

I often hear from people that nothing has been done on this road for 20 years. I can't comment on what has happened in the past but what I can say is that we are doing everything we can to address the significant infrastructure deficit we inherited. Here are just a few examples. We're continuing our work on Phase II of Highway No. 104 near Antigonish. Motorists travelling this route can look forward to fewer traffic jams and safer travel. The project will complete eight kilometres of a new, four-lane highway, two lanes in each direction, between Beech Hill Road and Taylor Road near the Town of Antigonish.

 

We're also working on twinning Highway No. 125, Sydney River, Kings Road to Grand Lake Road. We're building a new alignment on Highway No. 103, Broad River to Port Joli. We're starting work on Highway No. 107, Burnside to Bedford, Phase I. We're improving the intersection on Highway No. 102, Exit 14, the eastern ramps, with Robie Street in Truro. We're also doing work on Portland Street from the on ramp to Woodlawn Road. We're making drainage improvements on Route 374, the Foord Street culvert in Pictou. We're doing work on Trunk 4 in Richmond County, and we're doing more work on the Cabot Trail.

 

There is also a lot of work going on now as part of the Joseph Howe interchange upgrade. It's one of the oldest and most heavily travelled sections of Nova Scotia's 100-Series Highways.

Additional highlights include replacing Yarmouth's Indian Sluice bridge. I want to take this opportunity to remind those of you with a particular interest in that bridge that you can watch minute-by-minute construction of the wider and more efficient transportation link using the newly-installed Indian Sluice Bridge Web cam. With the length of the bridge and the tides in the area, building the new bridge will be a challenge, so I encourage you all to tune in. The Web cam is easily accessible on the department's Web site.

 

We're also replacing the Sydney River Bridge. The new bridge will include a four-metre wide active transportation lane for pedestrians and cyclists when it opens in 2014. The Shubenacadie River bridges are being replaced in Hants, as well as the Heatherton Bridge in Antigonish and the Bay St. Lawrence Bridge in Victoria.

 

While we are moving forward with projects and initiatives we still have a significant amount of work ahead of us as we address our infrastructure deficit. A lot of our roads are in bad shape and have been in need of work for years. However, I am confident that with the introduction of our 5-Year Highway Improvement Plan and other approaches that I have mentioned, we'll get it done. As an example, we completed and/or started more than 94 per cent of the projects planned for 2012-13.

 

As part of our highway work, we identify a budget each year that generates many inquiries; it's called RIM funding. When I first learned of it back in the early summer, I thought it was about fixing the edges of the road. I've since come to learn that it is funding set aside for road improvements like bush cutting and brush clearing. I'm pleased to advise that this year our budget is the same as last - that is that we'll have $15 million to spend on RIM work this coming year.

 

I want to talk a little bit about work-zone safety. I'd like to take this opportunity, as we gear up for the paving season, to remind all members of the Legislature of the importance to slow down, to keep our crews safe while they're working on the roads. We will soon be experiencing another busy highway construction season. The chip seal crew will have projects in Guysborough, Richmond, Inverness, Victoria, and Cape Breton Counties. I urge all members to help us spread the word to drivers to please slow down and be on the alert when travelling through these areas.

 

Road construction sites are the workplace for hundreds of men and women and we, as drivers, have a responsibility to do everything we can to protect them. We'll be working together again this year with the Nova Scotia road builders to initiate a work-zone safety campaign reminding motorists how important it is to slow down in construction-zone areas. This work will get underway next month.

 

We will be reminding people to pay attention to construction-zone signs: use caution in construction zones, reduce their driving speed, obey traffic control people, and always remember to do their part to keep construction zones safe. I want to add, as well, that we should also be reminding people that fines for speeding and such are doubled in work areas. Safety for our crews is essential.

A little bit about the Englishtown ferry; as many of you know and are aware, we had a tragic incident on the Englishtown ferry earlier this month and my condolences certainly go out to the deceased man's family. It has been a difficult time for the crew as well. The RCMP investigation is still ongoing and our staff has co-operated fully.

 

The Englishtown ferry was out of service for some time, due to concerns around the ice in the channel. I want to thank the residents in the area for their patience. We appreciate that it might have been an inconvenience. Having said that, we need to keep your safety and the safety of our crew at the forefront of any and all decisions we make. I want to take this moment to acknowledge the crew and how well they have managed through such a difficult time.

 

I want to talk, as well, a bit this afternoon about our snowplow operators. As the warmer weather is finally starting to arrive, it's easy to forget about the long winter we just had. I would be remiss if I didn't take a moment to acknowledge the many employees across the province who have one of the hardest jobs in the department, and that is the job of the snowplow operator. While most of us are at home in our bed, they are out plowing and salting our roads to keep us safe. They are at the ready 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They work hard and do a great job. Unfortunately, they don't always get the accolades they deserve as we never seem to get the roads cleared fast enough for some people.

 

We have strict snow-clearing standards; the operators work very hard to adhere to the standards as they do their job. The majority live in the community they plow so they want the roads cleared for safe travel, not only because that's their job but for the safety of their own families and friends.

 

As a reminder, I want to talk a little bit about our standards. Our standards can easily be found on the department's Web site. Road clearing and salting is scheduled according to the kind of road and traffic levels, and this is what it is: the 100-Series and trunk highways and other high-traffic roads are the first priority. They are cleared within eight hours after the snow stops. Secondary roads and other medium-volume roads are cleared within 12 hours after the snow stops. The local paved roads, most subdivisions, residential streets, and gravel roads are cleared within 24 hours after the snow stops.

 

When severe winter storms hit, we urge people to stay at home. It's critical for their safety; it also allows winter maintenance operators to safely and effectively clear the roads. If cars are out there, it's hard for the operators to plow. If there is an accident, the plow will be tied up in traffic just like everyone else.

 

When I first started at the department I was briefed on road safety. It quickly became apparent that the majority of what we do at TIR is all about road safety; how we design the roads, highways, roundabouts, the regular bridge inspections - road safety is the top priority.

 

Our work to address safety concerns from residents in the Kytes Hill Drive area just outside of Sydney is a good example of our commitment to road safety. We're working with a consultant and others to determine how we could enhance public safety on this busy section of road. A steering committee of representatives from CBRM, police, and the department has been established. There is a public meeting this coming Thursday for the many residents who travel Grand Lake Road to talk about the concerns and possible solutions. I'm looking forward to hearing the outcome of that meeting.

 

Our road safety staff works very hard with our community and government partners to help keep us safe. Road safety is a key mandate of the department. There are a number of initiatives underway. For example, in September, we introduced new rules requiring drivers to reduce speeds to 30 kilometres in some school zones, when children are present, to help make the school zones safer. It was interesting to learn how many calls the department received asking what "when children are present" meant. Even more remarkable is that this caveat is not new. It has always been the case.

 

For those still wondering, here is the definition. The reduced speed limit applies at all times when children are present in the school area. "When children are present" is defined as being (1) on the highway in the school area, or (2) outdoors, within 30 metres of the highway, in the school area. This reduced speed limit is in effect 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year when children are present in the school area.

 

Also about safety, I want to mention about the distracted drivers and how this continues to be a challenge for us. People continue to ignore the rules thinking nothing will happen to them. All too often we hear on the news that something can happen and happen fast and with tragic consequences. We're also learning that wearing seatbelts is becoming an issue again, particularly among our youth. It is incredibly surprising and very worrisome. We're working with youth to try to find out more and see what can be done to generate awareness of how critically important it is to wear a seatbelt.

 

This is really significant to me because my wife's brother was killed at the age of 29, hit by a drunk driver in Mississippi. He wasn't wearing a seatbelt. If he had his seatbelt on, his head wouldn't have hit the windshield and he would have been okay. So I know personally and first-hand how important it is to wear seatbelts and I encourage everyone to do that.

 

Speeding and impaired driving are other areas we continue to try to address by working with our many partners, including the RCMP, municipal police, Safety Services Nova Scotia, Injury Free Nova Scotia, and Child Safety Link. Our Road Safety staff is always very quick to remind their colleagues that there's no such thing as an accident. It's a good reminder for all of us to drive safe and set an example for our families, friends, and constituents. I urge everyone to respect all road users, to slow down, drive sober, and leave your cellphones in the back seat.

 

While I believe our initiatives are making a difference, there is still a great deal of work for us to do. Road crashes are preventable and every Nova Scotian has a role to make our roads safer.

 

I've talked a lot about roads and I now want to talk about public works or infrastructure. Our Public Works Division is just as busy as the highway side of our business. They're a much quieter group, though not always generating as much interest as highways. I have to point out, though, that they're not quiet because they're not doing great work, but because they are the silent partner behind many successful infrastructure projects they manage for other departments. They work hard to ensure buildings are constructed on time and on budget and are environmentally friendly.

 

Our Public Works team has many diverse responsibilities. They include building design and construction. The Building Services group manages, operates and maintains government buildings, infrastructure, and properties, as well as providing trades and contract services.

 

Public Works staff also provide environmental services; they provide support for public safety and field communications. This is the province's trunk mobile radio system that many depend on to keep Nova Scotians safe, including many provincial departments and agencies, the RCMP, and the volunteer public safety community including volunteer fire, ground search and rescue, municipal emergency management, and related organizations.

 

Real Property Services also falls under Public Works. These are the folks who manage the leases, office moves, among many other critical tasks. Here are some examples of the excellent work from the Public Works Division. The new provincial medical examiner's facility, the Dr. William D. Finn Centre for Forensic Medicine, was opened in the Fall of 2012. This is a modern, world-class facility located in the Burnside Business Park. Construction of the new Northeast Nova Scotia Correctional Facility, located in Pictou County, is progressing well. This 100-cell, 200-bed, state-of-the-art facility is scheduled to open in 2014.

 

Extensive mechanical and electrical upgrades are underway at the Halifax Law Courts. This is a multi-year project aimed at improving the servicability and functionality of this building for many years to come. Construction of the new Bedford C.P. Allen High School on Innovation Drive in Bedford is nearing completion. This impressive new facility, complete with a community centre and an artificial turf, all-weather sports field, will open this Fall.

 

Where possible we maximize space to generate cost savings for Nova Scotians. For example, instead of continuing with four existing lease arrangements in Sydney, we took a positive, proactive approach to make use of government-owned space in the form of the Children's Training Centre building in Sydney on Prince Street. We consolidated existing government services in Sydney into one building.

Through the use of shared services and energy efficiencies, along with reduced dependency on leased space, the moves are expected to result in cost savings for Nova Scotians. Co-located departments can share resources, meetings rooms, kitchens, reception, et cetera, which reduces the overall square footage required and create efficiencies in service. We are also expecting the many energy-saving features including heat pumps, LED lighting, lighting motion sensors, and improved installation to result in savings.

 

Our Public Works team has achieved numerous energy-efficient upgrades in provincially owned and operated buildings across the province. Energy audits on public buildings help to identify energy retrofits that help to reduce our impact on the environment while saving money for the taxpayers.

 

Where applicable all the buildings constructed under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal are designed and constructed for certification under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LEED program. LEED-constructed buildings are more energy efficient and environmentally sustainable than standard buildings. I am pleased to advise you that there are three buildings certified in the province: Sir John A. Macdonald High School in Upper Tantallon is LEED silver; Rankin School of the Narrows, Iona, is LEED certified; and Winding River Elementary in Stewiacke is LEED certified.

 

LEED gold is the current certification target for many major projects. Three of our projects targeted LEED gold were recently completed. They are the Yarmouth Memorial Consolidated High School; the Lunenburg P to 9, Bluenose Academy; and the Dr. William D. Finn Centre for Forensic Medicine. These projects, plus 18 other LEED projects, are in various stages of the Canada Green Building Council certificate process. They include L.C. Skerry Elementary, Waverley Memorial Elementary School, the Lunenburg County Justice Centre, and the Yarmouth Justice Centre.

 

BOMA BESt is an environmental rating system for existing commercial and institutional buildings. Approximately 31 buildings owned and directly operated by the province have been certified under the BOMA BESt program. Some examples of these include the Johnston Building - my own building, of course; the Central Services Building on Young Street; the Sydney Provincial Building; and the Yarmouth Provincial Building.

 

Whether we are constructing a new road or building, we want to make sure we are doing all we can to be environmentally sustainable. Some of the initiatives underway include today's release of the provincial Sustainable Transportation Strategy called Choose how you move. I'm sure some of you will know that was announced this morning in Chester by Minister Peterson-Rafuse for Minister Parker.

 

As I'm sure you will appreciate, sustainable transportation has many benefits: making transportation more affordable as energy prices rise; contributing to healthier, more active lifestyles; providing access to essential services and employment; reducing our greenhouse gas emissions; and contributing more to vibrant communities. TIR is very pleased to do its part and will work to look at how provincial infrastructure initiatives, including roads, buildings, schools, and sport facilities can be planned, located, and designed in a way that supports the core goals of sustainable transportation.

 

I want to talk a little bit now about trucking and the trucking industry in Nova Scotia. Appreciating the pivotal role of the trucking industry, there are some initiatives I would like to take a few moments now to highlight, to show our support for this important business. We're pleased to support the continued use and expansion of long combination vehicles on our highways. The decision was made after considering the environmental, interprovincial, harmonization, and productivity benefits. We have seen great benefits in the years that companies have been operating long combination vehicles, or LCVs.

 

LCV use is in its relative infancy in eastern Canada, and as the provinces adopt their own programs, differences arise. Last Spring a new working group started moving towards harmonization conditions in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Ontario. Equipment requirements, operating conditions, and even driver training and licensing were all being reviewed. Thanks to their good work, a driver can now haul LCVs in Ontario and Quebec, and haul the same truck in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

 

We're also working to make it easier and more efficient for overweight and oversized trucks to travel between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. In 2007 the conditions surrounding over-dimensional moves were harmonized among the four Atlantic Provinces. Last summer Cabinet approved a joint project with New Brunswick that will pave the way for a single, integrated on-line program that will allow a carrier to get permits for both provinces in one stop.

 

A business needs assessment was recently completed working with New Brunswick. The department is currently working on the next steps. During the last several years there have been many regulatory changes and we look forward to working with the industry on continued improvements.

 

On the near horizon we will be investigating regulations that will improve the efficiency of the trucking industry, and new trip inspection regulations will bring us in line with national standards. These changes were approved to go forward last September. They will improve the efficiency of trucking in Nova Scotia and improve the safety of our roads and infrastructure. It is expected that new regulations will be in effect in June 2013.

 

I want to talk a little bit now about some of the new legislation and policy that we have initiated. Another initiative to highlight is the work our policy team did, along with our Motor Carrier Division, to help support reliable bus services across the province for students, seniors, and others who rely on scheduled bus travel. The work was in response to the many concerns we heard from bus travellers and operators after Acadian Lines announced in August it would discontinue its bus services. The news took everyone by surprise. We acted quickly to prevent a disruption in service. Staff worked hard to ensure that we were in a position to successfully and effectively transition to a new operator.

 

On November 16^th, I introduced the Inter-city Bus Service Act to help improve efficiency for bus operators and ease financial pressures which can sometimes lead to increased fares. The changes also give operators the flexibility to meet the unique needs of rural parts of the province.

 

The bus industry in Nova Scotia, like many industries, has struggled with economic challenges for years. They have had to apply to the Utility and Review Board and attend public hearings for all applications, including requests to change tariffs, schedules, and roads. This could be both time-consuming and costly.

 

The Act means bus operators will be able to make timely, reasonable changes to tariffs, schedules, and roads without the cost of hiring a lawyer and attending a hearing. The responsibility for inter-city bus service will transfer from the Utility and Review Board to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal. The board is still responsible for charter and commercial vehicles and school buses.

 

Our policy shop continues to work with the bus industry, particularly the charter buses, to see what other issues might need to be addressed. Our consultations with the charter industry are enabling us to assess their needs in the ever-changing economic and business climate. A significant step was taken in February 2013, through an amendment to the Motor Carrier Act.

 

The notice requirement for scheduled and charter bus applications or amendments has been changed from two publications in the Royal Gazette to one publication, and the waiting period for other parties to advise of their intention to intervene in the application was reduced from 21 days to seven days. I can tell you that the feedback on those two changes has been incredibly positive; the industry is thankful for these changes and appreciates the improvement that they brought to them.

 

We have continuing consultations with the charter bus industry and they are providing us with additional comments and suggestions. We will be giving careful consideration to all of this input and to determine what else government might be able to do to support this important part of the transportation sector.

 

Earlier this month I introduced the Innovative Transportation Act to make Nova Scotians more flexible and responsive when it comes to testing and evaluating modern transportation initiatives on highways. The department is open to trying out new ideas, but the safety of all road users will remain the top priority. This is an important piece of legislation because the current Motor Vehicle Act doesn't allow some pilot projects. Legislation has to be changed for each new initiative, which can take several months.

 

The new legislation makes testing highway activities and technologies much more efficient, while keeping Nova Scotia drivers safe. I think it's important to point out that under the Act, highways are defined as a public highway, a street, a lane, a road, an alley, a park, a bridge, a beach, or a place that is available to the general public for the operation of a motor vehicle, which could include parking lots as well as private property.

 

As Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal, one of the other responsibilities I have is the Sydney tar ponds, so I want to talk a little bit about that. I actually visited the tar ponds myself on several occasions now, and having been from Sydney and my dad worked at the steel plant, I used to be there when it was a very active industry and plant. Going back now one wouldn't recognize that there was ever a plant on the site; it's just an incredible feat that has occurred there in transformation and remediation of a site that was really probably one of the worst in Canada.

 

I do want to spend a few minutes talking about the great work that the Nova Scotia Lands staff did and are doing in Cape Breton on that project. I'm very pleased to advise you that the tar ponds remediation project is on schedule and is within budget. The whole project is scheduled to be finished at the end of March 2014. It's a tremendous accomplishment not only locally, but on the national stage as well.

 

The community can stand proud on how hard they, along with many others, have worked to reshape this industrial land into a park that will bring families and visitors together to play, walk, and enjoy music. Sydney area residents and visitors can look forward to sports fields, an outdoor stage, a playground area, a dog park, a skating area, and pedestrian bridges, trails, and more when the park opens to the public this Fall.

 

The tar ponds project launched a campaign last month to name the new park. Cape Breton students from Primary to Grade 12 have been invited to show the country how creative they are by naming the park. The top name submitted by Cape Breton elementary, junior high, and high school students will be posted on the campaign Web site in May. The community initiative has been a great success, so much so that just last week we extended the deadline to ensure that as many students as possible have a chance to have their voices heard and to participate in this process.

 

What is really noteworthy and validates the interest and support of the area is Canadians from coast to coast can vote for the winning name. Stay tuned for the community announcement in June when the park name will be officially announced.

 

I'm coming up to the first-year anniversary of my time as Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal. I started at the end of last May. That summer I don't know how many hours or days I spent with Deputy Minister LaFleche on the road, in his car, driving across the province. It was many days and many long hours, but it was a very positive thing for me because I had virtually no experience in that kind of situation. We visited as many depots and local departmental offices as we could. We met as many of our workers as we could. I can tell you that across the province we are blessed with the dedication and the service that our workers in TIR are putting forth.

 

When the news came out that there was going to be an asphalt plant operating last summer, starting up last summer, from across the province from various depots, we had people applying, getting in touch, saying I want to work on that project, I want to be someone chosen to go wherever the asphalt plant is going and to work there. That meant that these people would be travelling away from their homes to the community where the asphalt plant was going to be but they were keen to do it. They wanted to have the experience of doing something different. They were keen to learn and they wanted to participate in having this project a success.

 

I think part of that was the challenge, perhaps, that was put out to us by those who were critical of us getting involved in the asphalt plant. The TIR staff, some of the comments were, well, they couldn't get it done before and they won't be able to get it done this time and it's going to be a fizzle and a failure. Our staff responded to that by actually taking on the challenge and they accepted it as a challenge. They went forward and they said, I want to get on that plant and I want to make it work.

 

I can tell you that when I actually went to the asphalt plant myself, saw the men working on the road, it's tremendous - it actually was a huge morale builder for the department. They were actually out there building roads again and were quite excited and happy to do it. So that was a very positive part of the experience I had going around last summer.

 

I did find that we didn't get to every department or every depot and the calls have been coming, when are you coming to see us? So I guess this summer, Paul, we'll probably be back on the road for a bit and making some more stops.

 

Also when we were on the road, of course, we had a chance to look at the various needs that exist across the province, particularly in terms of the roadwork that needs to be done. Many of the MLAs asked us to come to their area and took us out on road trips. I think, Mr. Chairman, you certainly were one of those and I think they thought there was going to be a prize or something at the end, for whoever could show the worst road, because they certainly made sure that I saw every road that needed work. If I could give out gold stars, I don't know, there would be a huge number, I guess, given out.

 

Again, that just harkens back to what I said earlier: we inherited a huge deficit in road infrastructure and we needed to do something about that. Really, that's where the impetus for the five-year plan came about. The five-year plan was something that was brought into play to deal with this huge infrastructure deficit that we had. I have copies of the plan here. I'm sure you all might have received them, but anyone who wants to have one is certainly welcome to have it. You can look at that plan and you can know everything that's going to happen in your area for the next five years on the major projects.

 

As each year the plan comes out, we also talk about what we did in the previous year, so it's a way of making sure that the taxpayers and the voters in the province and Nova Scotians know how their tax dollars are being spent on roadwork and where the work is going to be done and then an accountability by saying what we did get done. I think it's a very positive improvement in terms of trying to deal with this deficit in infrastructure that we've had.

 

I guess that basically is how I want to introduce this session. I just want to say, from highway improvements to supporting the remediation of the tar ponds, from building schools and correctional facilities, to supporting the trucking industry, buses, innovative transportation, and road safety, the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal is vast in its work and its critical role to support government's core priorities. I'm now pleased to take questions and hopefully be able to answer them.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will now have the Liberal caucus for one hour of questioning.

 

The honourable member for Clare.

 

HON. WAYNE GAUDET: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess before I start asking questions, I want to take this opportunity to thank the minister and thank his staff, especially here in the department, for their help, their co-operation, for responding to many of my calls, letters, and questions that I have forwarded throughout this past year to his office, and others. I know Mr. Fitzner is accompanying you and certainly has been helpful as well. As I pointed out, many of the concerns that I have forwarded to your department were on behalf of constituents and I want to acknowledge the response that I got back, so thank you very much.

 

I also want to take a minute to acknowledge and thank our local staff with TIR: Mr. Greg Newell, the area manager in Yarmouth; Mr. Tony Hall, the operational supervisor in Clare; and their staff. I don't think one week goes by without me calling them up or providing them with concerns. I know as a rural MLA, highways and roads are definitely on the minds of a lot of constituents, so I certainly want to acknowledge their dedication and professionalism in helping out.

 

I want to maybe begin looking at the overall budget of the department. We see that the department for this year is looking at $425 million. We all know, we all recognize that the minister will not be spending his entire budget on roads and bridges. The minister has a department to run. A big chunk of this budget is spent on salaries, employee benefits, vehicles, heavy machinery and, of course, running the department.

 

In the Budget Address on Page 15, it says that the budget includes $248 million to build and maintain roads and other Transportation infrastructure. I'm looking at $248 million that the department is looking at spending on roads, bridges, and other infrastructure, so I guess my first question to the minister would be, how much is the department planning to spend on roads? How much is the department planning to spend on bridges? Thirdly, how much is the department planning to spend in other areas on infrastructure? I'll leave it with the minister.

 

MR. SMITH: I want to thank you first for your kind and gracious remarks to the members who work for us at TIR. I'll make sure your comments are conveyed to them because I know they don't get a lot of accolades, as I said, and their jobs are - they hear more from people who complain than they do from people who are grateful for the work they do, so your comments are certainly well received and will be delivered.

 

I understand perhaps, as well, that you have a relative working for TIR in your area of the province. You failed to mention him. (Interruption) Two relatives, okay. I'm sure they're doing very good work as well.

 

Our overall budget, as you said, is $425 million and a bit but for roads, our budget for this fiscal will be $245.8 million. Of that $245.8 million, roads and bridges certainly will be the primary expenditure of those funds. My helpers here are going to work out the exact figures that you asked, just so we can be accurate.

 

The total amount, the operating side, is $360 million in addition, on top of the capital, the $245.8 million. That operating, of course, includes the winter work, as well, the snow and ice removal, and the work in the summer. Of the $245.8 million, roads and bridges - just so I'm sure of the question, you're asking how much of that $245.8 million is for roads and bridges, and then you had another element you wanted to . . .

 

MR. GAUDET: I'm just looking at the budget that the Minister of Finance tabled in the House. On Page 15 it mentioned, "This budget includes $248.4 million to build and maintain roads and other transportation infrastructure . . ." I was just curious as to the breakdown, if it's available.

 

MR. SMITH: Well, again, the $245.8 million is for roads and bridges. I think when other infrastructure, the total budget for the department, in addition to the capital and the operating would come up to - all right, on Page 6 of the five-year plan you can see how the capital funding is invested. It has major construction, new highways, and bridges, $80 million; asphalt and resurfacing, $121 million; bridge replacement, $25 million; land purchase, $7.5 million; equipment, machinery, and ferries, $9.5 million; and highway design survey studies, $2.8 million - for a total of $245.8 million.

 

MR. GAUDET: Okay, thank you. I guess I want to move to try to get a handle on federal highway funding that we are receiving. Now I know that back in November 2007 our province had signed off on the Building Canada Fund agreement. That agreement is running out this year. Part of that agreement indicated that the province would be receiving $25 million annually in base funding.

 

Now, on Page 6 in your five-year highway plan, you identify that we will be receiving $20 million. I guess my first question is, is that $20 million part of that base funding that Nova Scotia is going to be receiving this year or is that $20 million coming out of the - technically, as you're aware, the agreement was for a total of $634 million. The Building Canada Fund had $235 million; there was base funding of $25 million annually that started in 2007, which is running out this year, for a total of $175 million; and then there was approximately $223 million from municipalities. I guess my question simply is, this $20 million that you have identified on Page 6, where is that $20 million coming from?

 

MR. SMITH: I think the best I can do with this one is on Page 6, you're referring to the $20 million where it says "federal."

 

MR. GAUDET: Yes.

 

MR. SMITH: The base funding is $25 million. All of that doesn't go to highways so this would be a portion of it going to highways. This would be - it says provided by the Building Canada Fund so it would be part of that $25 million base.

 

MR. GAUDET: That $20 million that your department will be receiving from the federal government, are there any restrictions on where that funding can be spent or how it can be spent?

 

MR. SMITH: It's somewhat tied, but not totally tied. There is the National Highway System - that's where they like us to spend the money, but it's not like if we had a cost-shared project necessarily, so we have a little bit more flexibility in how that base funding is allocated. But basically it's meant to go on highway work.

 

MR. GAUDET: I'm just looking at the Trans-Canada, Highway No. 104; is that highway partly owned by the federal government or is it totally - do we own it and maintain it?

 

MR. SMITH: We own it and maintain it.

 

MR. GAUDET: Do we receive any federal funding to help us with maintenance or with building?

 

MR. SMITH: No, we - if you're thinking of the twinning project that's going on there, there's a set amount of money, and unfortunately this is the way it works. When the federal government wants to initiate a project, they'll get in touch with us and say they want this project to go ahead. We get to indicate our willingness to go because it's federal money that they want to give us, and if we're not ready to go when they want to go, they'll find somewhere else to spend it.

 

On a project like that, when we're initially told that this is what the project is going to be, we'll look at it and give it our best estimate of what it's going to cost. I'm just going to make these figures up, but let's say we say it's going to cost $50 million at that stage of the project, that's our best guess of going forward. They'll say, okay, we'll put in $25 million and you put in $25 million, but that might be three years before there's a shovel in the ground. By the time you get the project planned and the specifications and everything done, it might be a $75 million project, but effectively we can't go back to them and say, well, it's really a $75 million project so give us half of $75 million. The $25 million is all we get and we have to come up with the other $50 million. I don't know if that's really the kind of thing you're looking for.

 

So when there's a specific project like the twinning on Highway No. 104, we often get caught in that situation where we end up paying a lot more than the feds do for the project. Even though when it's announced it looks like it's a 50-50 cost, at the end of the day it never is.

 

MR. GAUDET: I just want to talk a little bit about the Gas Tax Fund. Under the Building Canada Fund there's another program called the Gas Tax Fund. Does your department receive any federal funding from this gas fund program or is that strictly reserved for municipalities?

 

MR. SMITH: A Gas Tax Fund comes to us, but effectively what happens is, again, we end up spending more money on projects than what the gas tax covers so it doesn't go exclusively to municipalities.

 

MR. GAUDET: So this year the total amount of federal funding that we're going to receive to help us with our roads, bridges, and infrastructure is $20 million and there's no more to be expected to get from the feds, is that correct?

 

MR. SMITH: If I understand, do you mean just earmarked specifically for general highway work, as it were, as opposed to specific projects?

 

MR. GAUDET: Yes.

 

MR. SMITH: There will be funding for specific projects that have already been - like Highway No. 104, the twinning project, that's separate and apart.

 

MR. GAUDET: I guess what I'm trying to find out is how much is the province going to be receiving from the federal government this year to help us with our infrastructure? I looked at Page 6 of your five-year highway plan and you've identified $20 million. My question simply is, are we going to get more than $20 million or is that rock bottom, that's all we're getting from the federal government this year?

 

MR. SMITH: For highway work over and above, as I said, what might be coming for particular projects that are getting paid as they go along kind of thing, yes, the $20 million would be what their contribution to highways will be.

 

MR. GAUDET: As I pointed out we know that the Building Canada Fund is running out this year. Is your department in the process of trying to - maybe we haven't started yet, I don't know - are we in the process of trying to negotiate a new agreement with the federal government to help us with our highways? I guess, are we; if not, why not?

 

MR. SMITH: Very much so. I became minister the end of May last year, and since then I've had two meetings with the federal minister and there have been some joint meetings with other Transportation Ministers from across the country. Very much on the agenda is the new Building Canada Fund and they're asking for input and suggestions that we have. Yes, it's at a very early stage, but we're in the negotiation stage of looking forward to what will be replaced in the existing Building Canada Fund.

 

MR. GAUDET: So is this a national agreement or a specific highway agreement for Nova Scotia with the federal government?

 

MR. SMITH: The federal government will be dealing with all of the provinces, and each of the provinces will have input as to what they're looking for and how they want to spend their portion of the money. There will be a national program and provinces basically receive proportional amounts based on population. We might have an interest in doing just major highway work with our funds; maybe Quebec might be interested in doing subways, that sort of thing. Their negotiations will be for that purpose and they might be successful in those, and ours would be for something else.

 

MR. GAUDET: So there is some flexibility built in to allow each province to concentrate or focus on certain areas?

 

MR. SMITH: Well, there has been in the past and we're hoping for the same thing going forward.

 

MR. GAUDET: Good luck.

 

MR. SMITH: Yes.

 

MR. GAUDET: Before we leave that, we were talking about the Trans-Canada Highway; there's some work that has been identified. This $20 million that the federal government will be providing your department with this year, is some of that funding earmarked for the Trans-Canada Highway? I'm just trying to find out - are there restrictions on that $20 million?

 

MR. SMITH: It's a little complicated, but as I understand it, the agreements have already been made for the projects that exist across the province now, like the Highway No. 104 twinning and the Highway No. 125 Sydney-Glace Bay highway improvement. This would be monies that would - actually, the $20 million that's indicated on Page 6 of the five-year plan would be monies that would be used on 100-Series Highway projects. So I guess the answer is yes.

MR. GAUDET: Technically the department can't use the $20 million as you wish, there are restrictions attached to it. The federal government submitted, I presume, a list of projects, and they've agreed to invest in those projects. So there are or there are no restrictions on how that $20 million is spent?

 

MR. SMITH: That money will be spent on projects that have already been approved. The commitment we've made to them is that it will be spent on those projects so it can't be spent on - we couldn't go off and pave some gravel roads, for instance, with that.

 

MR. GAUDET: Okay. I want to move on to Highway No. 101. Let me begin by - the department has been working at twinning Highway No. 101 for many years now. As you're probably aware, between Windsor and Falmouth there has been no construction proceeding at this time to twin that section because of the causeway in Windsor. There have been substantial concerns raised on this section. In recent years environmental assessments have taken place.

 

I guess my first question on the twinning of that section is, has the department reached a position yet on an environmental assessment for this section of Highway No. 101? Is that environmental assessment completed?

 

MR. SMITH: We're going to have to take a rain check for the answer on that one. We're not absolutely sure if it has been completed so we will find that answer and get it to you.

 

MR. GAUDET: I guess looking at the department it seems that project, especially in that area for twinning Highway No. 101, has been stalled for quite a few years now. Does the department have any plans in moving forward? Does the department have a time frame they're looking at in the next year, in the next two years, or in the next five years, for getting some tenders out to move?

 

I know there has been a big debate whether we should be leaving the causeway where it's at or putting the causeway further out and building a new one. I guess I'm just trying to sort of get a sense because many people have been asking these questions. It seems the whole project has been stalled.

 

I guess my question is, is the department planning to move on twinning that section between Windsor and Falmouth soon, and how soon?

 

MR. SMITH: I'm going to refer to the 5-Year Highway Improvement Plan and if you look at Page 16, Projects Planned for 2014-15, for Highway No. 101, it's Granite Drive Interchange and Connector - it doesn't say the distance. It's called the Granite Drive Interchange and Connector, that's the next phase that will be worked on for the Highway No. 101 project.

 

MR. GAUDET: Coming back to the causeway, has the department decided where they're going - if they're looking at building a new causeway, or more or less using the existing causeway in the next phase, or is that still yet to be decided?

 

MR. SMITH: Not necessarily the next phase but in a phase. As much as possible - again, looking forward to the Building Canada Fund - we have to be careful to utilize our assets as best we can, so as best we can we would be using as much of that existing causeway in any plan going forward to do the twinning there.

 

I'm hopeful that project would be one that we would be able to persuade the next federal funding program that's going to take the place of the Building Canada Fund - which we could put that on the list of projects that we would ask to have approved.

 

MR. GAUDET: That was my next question. Once the final plan has been decided by the department staff - we're talking about a big chunk of cash here to try to get that missing link completed, as far as it's the department's plan to sit down with the feds to try to get help out of them.

 

Moving maybe a little further down the road, just outside of Falmouth - the department opened a twinned section a number of years ago. I want to talk about the speed limit, because I've been asked and I know some of my colleagues have been asked as well. I want to talk about the speed limit on that twinned section between Falmouth and Avonport.

 

I guess all of us presume - when the twinned section was built between Falmouth and Avonport on Highway No. 101, the section was built to allow traffic to travel 110 kilometres. The reason I ask is - when you start driving on this divided section, just after the Grand-Pré exit heading towards Halifax, for approximately two kilometres on this divided highway the speed limit is 100 kilometres. I'm trying to understand or trying to get some answers, so basically when I'm asked I can tell them why there's a difference there.

 

I guess my first question is, is there a reason why the speed limit on that section as you're just passing the Grand-Pré exit heading towards Halifax, you're on the divided twinned section, the speed limit is about 100 kilometres for about two kilometres; further up, the speed limit changes. I guess my first question is, is there a reason why the speed limit is set up like that?

 

MR. SMITH: I'm going to get some advice on that, but before I ask for the advice - I, as you know, live in Antigonish, and of course I drive to Halifax on a regular basis as you do. I come to Sutherlands River - a brand-new twinning project that goes all the way to picking up with the double highway just the other side of New Glasgow. It's 100 kilometres from Sutherlands River for probably 10 kilometres until you get to just past New Glasgow and then it goes up to 110, so it's a good question and I'm going to find out the answer.

 

MR. GAUDET: The reason I raise this is when you actually approach and you get on that divided section, I would say half the traffic is moving at 100 kilometres, following the speed limit, and the other half is driving at 110. I don't know how many speed traps I've seen since that section has been open. I'm sure among motorists they're confused. How come they built this divided highway, everyone expected it was built to certain standards to allow the traffic to travel at that speed? But unfortunately, for whatever reason, they've changed the speed limit sign two kilometres further up. I appreciate that you will certainly, when you have a chance to review that, look into it.

 

MR. SMITH: Could I just ask for clarification? On that Falmouth and Avonport twinning project, is it just the early portion of it, the first couple of kilometres that are 100, then that same goes up to 110 and then back down to 100 before you're off the twinning section again?

 

MR. GAUDET: Exactly, yes.

 

MR. SMITH: So the beginning and the end of the twinned section is 100 . . .

 

MR. GAUDET: Basically at the end you're just getting off the divided highway onto that piece that runs between Falmouth and Windsor where the causeway is.

 

MR. SMITH: So that's 100 anyway.

 

MR. GAUDET: Right, and it goes down to 90 just before you get to the causeway. Why for two kilometres on that divided highway are you only allowed to speed up at 100 kilometers? Then I wanted to add, on the other end, when you're coming down from Halifax - and that was changed, I believe, maybe last year because I remember all kinds of speed traps on the other side of that twinned highway - just when you enter that twinned section of that highway between Falmouth and Avonport, within a few hundred kilometres the speed limit is 110. So it's good for one side but not good for the other side.

 

MR. SMITH: I think certainly there must be a good reason for it, I don't have that answer now, but I'll try to get that to you. This is surmise as much as anything, I know that when you're coming off 100 and going into 110, it might well be that the first two kilometres is just kind of, almost a time to change kind of thing and it might be as simple as that. Of course, that doesn't explain it coming the other way.

 

MR. GAUDET: Exactly.

 

MR. SMITH: So we'll try to find that answer for you.

 

MR. GAUDET: Great. Heading further down I want to talk about Grand-Pré to Coldbrook. Previous governments said in the past their priority was to twin Highway No. 101 from Grand-Pré to Coldbrook; it's approximately a 26-kilometre section. I believe that the section was supposed to be completed by 2010. Well, there hasn't been any work done on that section up to now. I understand there's planning and surveying work that has been carried out by department staff so I guess my question to you is, is the department planning to do any work on this project in this current year, or hopefully soon - I won't say in the next couple of years. So I guess my question to you is, is the department planning to do any work between the Grand-Pré and Coldbrook exit?

 

MR. SMITH: My understanding is that particular piece is part of the plan for the 2014-15 Highway No. 101, that's referenced on Page 16, where it says "Major Construction Projects," the Granite Drive Interchange and Connector, the piece that you're talking about will be part of that project.

 

MR. GAUDET: So next year we can expect something to be carried out, or started?

 

MR. SMITH: In 2014, yes.

 

MR. GAUDET: Great. I want to move on to passing lanes. Back in 2007 the government had then announced that planning was underway to construct passing lanes from Coldbrook to Kingston. So far the department has built five passing lanes; there are two between Berwick and Coldbrook, there are two between Kingston and Aylesford, and there's one between Aylesford and Berwick. Is the department planning to construct any more passing lanes in the Valley, specifically between Kingston and Bridgetown? There are no passing lanes between Bridgetown and Kingston. Is the department planning to do any more passing lanes?

 

MR. SMITH: At this time there is no current plan to do additional passing lanes in that particular area. If it became something of an issue, in terms of you know we saw that there were increased accidents or something of that nature in a particular area, then we could look at it at that time to see if there was a need to move in that direction.

 

MR. GAUDET: Has the department undertaken any study, I guess, to determine if more passing lanes are needed, especially through the section from Kingston to Bridgetown?

 

MR. SMITH: There was a corridor study done on that area but it's dated, it was about 10 years ago. There's nothing more current than that in terms of looking at that particular area.

 

Again, I can say that if there are some concerns about it, certainly we could look at traffic flow and that kind of thing to see if there was merit but, as far as I know, we haven't had any direct request for any particular assessment of a particular area for that purpose.

 

MR. GAUDET: I've raised this with my colleagues from the Valley and they've heard the same concerns that I've heard. Is the government planning to build any passing lanes, and very specifically, the last passing lane right before Kingston? There are no passing lanes between Kingston and Bridgetown.

Anyway, I'm just going to leave it with you. Maybe at some time down the road you could probably have staff examine the flow, maybe meet with the municipal councils, the towns, especially running through that area, to find out, get feedback from people from those communities.

 

I want to just go a little further down, between Digby and Weymouth North. I know, minister, you're aware that this is the only unfinished section of Highway No. 101. It's approximately 26 kilometres. This debate has been ongoing for years; it was there with previous governments. Safety is a big concern, especially for people living on the old Route 1 highway that runs from Digby to Weymouth North. I know the question has been asked many times and that question is simply, when is the section of Highway No. 101 between Weymouth North and Digby going to be built?

 

I know and I hope that the government will consider including it in our next highway agreement with the federal government. There's no doubt we're looking at a big chunk of money here to finish this unfinished section. I know people living on this stretch of road, as I've said on this Route 1 section, they've been asking themselves - they've been asking people, elected officials from municipal, provincial, federal - I guess the important question is, when can we expect to see or begin to see? We could all probably come up hopefully in the next 10 years that whole section will be finished, but let's maybe begin by - when can the people living between Digby and Weymouth North expect to see some work getting underway? At some point hopefully that section will be finished.

 

I guess my question to you is - and I'm sure staff have briefed you on this unfinished section - is there work going on inside the department as we speak? Does the department have a plan to look at when they expect to maybe start to do some work on this section?

 

MR. SMITH: My understanding is that there has been actually some - I guess I'll call it preliminary work done, some survey work done. It hasn't gone as far as design work at this stage, but some survey work has been done, and when properties become available in the area - when people offer their properties for sale - we've actually been buying properties with the intention of doing additional roadwork, doing work on that stretch.

 

I can't give you any definite sort of timeline. I can say that, again, with the new Building Canada Fund, that would be a project that - because of the size of it - you said 26 kilometres?

 

MR. GAUDET: Yes.

 

MR. SMITH: It would have to be something that would fit in that kind of package to be able to do it certainly in one fell swoop, as it were. That's as much as I think I can offer at this stage. Some survey work has been done. It's certainly on the horizon in terms of thinking because we have been buying properties and it would be a project that we could discuss with the federal government in the next Building Canada Fund.

MR. GAUDET: You're absolutely right. I think the people along that stretch of highway don't expect the province to go in and do the work by themselves. I know the federal Member of Parliament, the current one and previous ones have been approached by people along that stretch of highway. They've been lobbying, I guess, on behalf of the province as well. They recognize that with all the infrastructure that needs to be brought up to standard in our province, there is no way that we're going to find $2 billion or $3 billion dollars at the rate that we're going, spending $300 million or $400 million per year, you have to start fixing roads that were done five or 10 years out.

 

I'm encouraged to hear that hopefully in future negotiations with the federal government that this will be included; hopefully the federal government will come to the table and will certainly show their interest in starting at least to show the people living on that section that there is a need to get some work done.

 

MR. SMITH: If I may, on that - I think it's true that it certainly would have to be a partnership deal, but I can also say that very much, when we're doing these negotiations, the federal government comes to the table with their list of things they want done as well, asking us to partner with them on these things. So any influence that the good folks in that area can bring to the table for their ask is important.

 

MR. GAUDET: I want to talk a little bit about rumble strips. Back in 2007 your department undertook the first pilot program - I think it was around 2007. I've noticed rumble strips along some shoulders along Highway No. 101 in certain places. I've also noticed some rumble strips on the centre line, on the yellow line. I guess I'm trying to find out because along Highway No. 101 there are places where there's none. Is the department planning on putting rumble strips on all provincial highways? Do we have a plan to cover the entire Highway No. 101? Let's start off with that one.

 

MR. SMITH: You're correct in saying that rumble strips are fairly new in the province, I think you said 2007. What we've been doing is sort of earmarking areas where there has been a proven need. In my own area, I can think very tragically of a woman I know who was going home from work at the hospital after a night shift; she was five kilometres away from her home. She fell asleep and veered across the centre line and ran into an 18-wheeler and was killed instantly. There's now a rumble strip there.

 

We do have a program for rumble strips. Our aim is to get as much done as possible, both on the centre line and on the shoulders, as quickly as we can kind of thing. Really what we've been doing, you can't get it all done at once so we've been kind of - so that's why you'll see on a road that it's kind of piecemeal, where something has happened before, we put them there. Each year you'll see more and more getting done.

 

MR. GAUDET: So how much in this year's budget is earmarked for rumble strips? Do we have a number?

 

MR. SMITH: I'm told that this year there will be $100,000 earmarked for just rumble strips.

 

MR. GAUDET: How expensive is it to do one kilometre of rumble strips?

 

MR. SMITH: These are, I guess, tendered projects as well and . . .

 

MR. GAUDET: Approximately.

 

MR. SMITH: . . . we've been getting them between $3,000 and $5,000 per kilometre, the cost for that.

 

MR. GAUDET: So the cost to do one kilometre of rumble strips is . . .

 

MR. SMITH: Between $3,000 and $5,000.

 

MR. GAUDET: I know my hour is coming to a close here shortly. I want to touch base on brush-cutting. Safety on our highways should always be a priority. I've heard that the minister in his opening comments touched on safety. There are a number of areas along Highway No. 101 where brushes and alders need to be cut down. I know this past winter I saw some brush-cutting getting done in different areas along Highway No. 101; some was done by department staff and some was done by private contractors.

 

My first question is how much is the department planning to spend on brush-cutting this year?

 

MR. SMITH: For in-house brush-cutting, we have $387,000 and I guess for what I'll call contract brush-cutting, $242,400. So you total those - it's about $625,000, and then there's also kind of discretionary funding that each area would have if they had a need they would get that work done. That would come out of the operations budget for the area.

 

MR. GAUDET: I presume it is less expensive to do brush-cutting over the winter months than it is in the summer. I think back in maybe December or January, I noticed just outside of Yarmouth your department staff had actually two heavy machines alongside the highway doing brush-cutting back then, and in the last month I would say in different areas along Highway No. 101 throughout the Valley they were doing brush-cutting. This was a private contractor. I guess I'm trying to find out - is it less expensive, more expensive? I presume it would be.

 

MR. SMITH: I'll try to answer that as best I can. I know that some people don't like us doing it in the winter; you don't get as good a cut because there's snow or whatever and so you end up with stumps, and they're not happy with that. Some other people don't like the fact that you leave branches behind and it's unsightly for a while until the new growth comes and covers things over. I find it difficult to please people on both sides of this one.

 

In your area, in that district, a new piece of equipment was just purchased for a location in that area. I travelled through there last summer, the deputy minister and I, and I remember Steve MacIsaac was indicating that he was quite excited about the fact that they were getting this new piece of equipment to do that kind of work. I guess it's there now and they were using it over the winter. Whether it's more expensive to do it in winter or summer I can . . .

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: While the minister takes a pause, there's a little less than 10 minutes remaining in the time for the Liberal caucus.

 

MR. SMITH: I guess optimally, the cheapest times would be Fall and Spring because we don't have the leaves on the trees and in the summertime there's more cutting, I guess, basically.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: So is that a new practice the department has adopted, to do most of their brush-cutting in the Fall or winter or Spring?

 

MR. SMITH: I think my understanding of trying to get it done throughout the season was because of the need and getting an early start, getting at it as quickly as you can and having the machinery there able to do it. I don't think there has been a regular policy on that. I think if the local operator seems to think that we've got to get that done then they'll do it.

 

MR. GAUDET: It appears with all the brush-cutting that has been taking place, especially in the last four months, I can't say I recall having seen brush-cutting done, especially over the winter months. You go by and you see they've covered a long area within three or four days when you come up to Halifax or when you go back home. Then I'm thinking, well, especially in the summer, they're definitely not going as fast with their brush-cutting so there must be some savings here. Does the department have an idea about how expensive it is to do brush-cutting in prime time, when everything is grown, compared to the winter months for example?

 

MR. SMITH: One of the things, first of all, is the cost is approximately $5,000 per hectare to do the brush-cutting. Sometimes what we found, I guess just now, is that if you've got snowplow operators or workers who are hired for a winter season and there isn't a storm that they're working on kind of thing, or after a storm that they were working on, this is a time that we can send them out to do this other work. They're being paid anyway, so there's an advantage there of using what otherwise might be idle time for that work.

 

MR. GAUDET: You mentioned earlier, and I don't know if it's the western zone that has just been provided with a piece of heavy machinery, but is that to serve the western zone or is that specifically for - what part of the western end of the province?

 

MR. SMITH: I know, as I said, we were with Steve MacIsaac and this was something that he was trying to get for that area. He's got it and he's using it, so I don't know - I guess as much as he can in that area. It's going to be there until he's finished with it, at least.

 

MR. GAUDET: I guess my last question on brush-cutting - I suspect there's a schedule and there are areas that have been identified. I know just after you leave the Bridgetown area, heading towards the South Mountain, there's a section - it's a broken line on both sides of the highway, and there's a big curve. I'm thinking that with this growth that's on the side of the road when you're - I don't attempt to pass any vehicles in that area because it's dangerous. The growth is right next to the shoulder so I would ask maybe if department staff could maybe look at that area.

 

I don't know how the department decides what area we're going to go into next to do some brush-cutting. That's one area I would just like to leave with you, minister.

 

MR. SMITH: I guess just a little bit of an answer to that - I always say the squeaky wheel gets the grease - if local people are complaining, those are the ones that are going to get the job done. But we will take your advice about that particular section - again, specifically the area that you were concerned about?

 

MR. GAUDET: It's on the South Mountain, after you leave Bridgetown, heading towards Annapolis. I would say it is approximately four kilometres past the second Bridgetown exit, heading towards Annapolis.

 

MR. SMITH: Okay, we've noted it.

 

MR. GAUDET: I want to come back to - it's a question that I raised in the past, your department staff was involved with public meetings in the Yarmouth area. The department was looking at building this connector road in Yarmouth a few years back, between Highway No. 101 and Highway No. 103. I remember your department staff held a public meeting and tried, first of all, to present the idea and naturally to get some feedback.

 

I guess my question is, is the department still planning to go forward with such a plan to connect Highway No. 101 and Highway No. 103?

 

MR. SMITH: I missed the time of that meeting - when was that meeting?

 

MR. GAUDET: I'm not sure, several years back. I remember seeing an article in the Yarmouth Vanguard where your staff held a public meeting to look at the possibility of building a connector road between Highway No. 101, which finishes in Yarmouth, and Highway No. 103, which is probably within maybe a kilometre and a half or maybe - it's very close - where Highway No. 101 finishes and Highway No. 103 starts.

 

MR. SMITH: It is a project that hasn't been abandoned; it's something we would like to do. Although it's not in any particular plan at this particular stage, it's again depending on resources and finances that will be available; it's a project that we would consider worthwhile.

 

MR. GAUDET: I want to stop and talk a little bit about interchanges or exits. I know last year or the year before we had seen the interchange opened up in Lower Sackville, some work was done last year on the Cornwallis exit that I think was an off-ramp when you were driving from Yarmouth towards Annapolis, and then coming back from Annapolis there was an off-ramp to go into Cornwallis. Last year your department actually added two more ramps, so that exit is now serviced by four ramps. So my question is, is the department planning or considering constructing any new interchanges on Highway No. 101 in the near future?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: This, Mr. Minister, will be the last question for this round from the Liberal caucus.

 

MR. SMITH: Again, when I referenced earlier on Page 16 of the five-year plan for 2014-15, Highway No. 101, the Granite Drive Interchange and Connector, that would be part of that project.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will now turn to the Progressive Conservative caucus for the remaining 48 minutes of questioning for tonight and then we will pick up again tomorrow.

 

The honourable member for Inverness.

 

MR. ALLAN MACMASTER: Mr. Chairman, my first question - and I'm sure you can appreciate I brought this one to you - is about Crowdis Bridge. I know it's slated for replacement in 2014-15. There was some melting of snow on the weekend and I can appreciate you receive many, many e-mails, but I happened to notice one today from a gentleman from the Margaree area, John Hart; he actually was with us that day we met with you. I guess I'm not necessarily expecting any change in the answer, but I thought I would raise it here in estimates. Is there any hope of getting that bridge replaced this summer?

 

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for the question because, again, I think it's an important one that we get sort of publicly on the record, what our intention is there. I should just say that with reference to the flooding that happened on the weekend, basically because of the melt and the higher waters, I've been kept apprised of that. My understanding is there was no risk or difficulty, and traffic was able to continue flowing as well as the water this weekend.

 

As the member will remember we did meet not that long ago - last month, perhaps - on this issue. You brought with you a constituent and a councillor from the area. I explained then that our plan for the Crowdis Bridge, we actually moved it ahead at your intervention and your request, so it got on next year's plan. What we said to the folks and yourself that came to us, if there is any possibility of moving it up for this year's work we would consider that if some other project that has been slated doesn't go ahead and we're able to accommodate that.

 

As I said at the beginning, in Nova Scotia we have 4,100 bridges; those bridges are assessed on an annual basis and we prioritize the need for each particular bridge. The Crowdis Bridge was looked at and we determined that we were able to - you know, the timeline; otherwise, we would have to take the money that is earmarked for somebody else's project and say no, we're not going to give it to you - we're going to give it to the folks for Crowdis Bridge. I'm not prepared to have people jump the line or get ahead of somebody else.

 

This bridge work is on the plan; we're going to go forward with it. There are two other bridges in that community that are in use, so people might be a little bit inconvenienced but they're not in any way prevented from getting about their business.

 

The Crowdis Bridge, I recognize it is an important bridge for that community, and as I said, we're doing the design work now on the bridge so it will be ready to go as scheduled, and if there is any way we can move it ahead, we will. But at this stage I can tell you that it's not planned to be done this year, it is planned to be done next year, but sometimes things do change for the better.

 

I know last year we were able to get several projects moved into last year that were planned for this year so keep your fingers crossed, and if we can do it, we will.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, minister, that's a positive answer and we'll keep our fingers crossed.

 

The next question I have is, we have a lot of roads in Inverness County and I know one of the budgets that the department has is one for maintenance paving. I think for what we usually get in the Inverness County area would be about $300,000 per year. I want to commend you for the size of the budget of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal, and I understand that it can't be as big as we'd like it to be. All that said, I guess I just want to raise the point that maintenance paving is one of the only ways we can get some of these roads that are less travelled paved, because I don't think they have to fit quite as stringent rules around traffic counts.

 

We have roads that are not travelled a lot and they don't meet the traffic counts, but they are still pretty-well-used thoroughfares. I think of one area, Marble Mountain in particular, it's very rough there. Somebody sent me some photos recently - I've driven it myself a number of times - and it's in very bad shape. However, the only way we can pave that is probably through maintenance paving and the budget is small for that particular type of paving. I guess I'm not really expecting a lot here, but is there anything you could say about that or would the department consider maybe, if there was a project brought to the department, say the Marble Mountain area, would the department consider maybe increasing the budget a little bit in the next year, or something like that, to try to get that area complete?

 

MR. SMITH: Basically, when you're talking about maintenance paving, you're talking about money that is part of the RIM budget. This year the RIM budget is $15 million; last year the RIM budget was $15 million - I had to fight very hard to maintain the $15 million this year because of the budget cuts that were happening in all departments, so I was pleased at the end of the day to maintain that $15 million.

 

I can say to you that very little of what you call pavement patching is coming out of the capital, some little bit, but mostly it is from this RIM money. As you've said, $15 million across the province isn't a lot of money because part of that is ditching, of course, and part of it is brush-cutting and that kind of thing, so it isn't a lot of money. But in terms of Marble Mountain - I'm from Cape Breton, I know the area - what I would suggest to you is, again, I use this adage about the squeaky wheel: bring it forward, bring your pictures, and we can have it assessed for work in the next year's project - not this year, but for next year we're looking for input for that kind of work.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, minister; I'll do that for sure.

 

My next question - and I didn't realize that the maintenance paving comes from within the RIM budgets. This is something I brought to the department before and I know there's a move to try to put more dollars towards paving projects and that, and that's certainly appreciated. I know that once again we're dealing with a set amount, a finite amount of resources.

 

Just one point, and please offer some comment. A lot of the gravel roads, the back roads - my worry is that with less money being available, we could see some deficits in those roads over time, where you could have a lot of brush growing up, which is maybe causing problems with the ditching and then causing problems with the surface of the road. I guess I just bring it up as a cautionary point, and I don't know if the department is kind of looking at that and maybe looking in a couple of years' time at putting a little push on for a little extra money to maybe address some of those issues. I'll let you comment.

 

MR. SMITH: I guess we have 23,000 kilometres of roads in Nova Scotia to maintain and obviously the higher-used roads are the ones that get the most attention, as of necessity. I don't want to see any roads deteriorate past their ability to be properly maintained. Again, if there's a particular area that needs attention, then it behooves you and the people concerned to bring it forward. We'll look at it and assess it and do what we can.

 

Gravel roads are as important to the people who live on them as a paved road to anyone else, so I consider those things to be important considerations. We won't be paving gravel roads. The best that somebody could hope for, if the volume merited it, would be to have it chip sealed. Again, that's just because there are no assets available to do more than that. We have been chip sealing some gravel roads, so it's happening.

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, minister, and actually that's funny - this was rolling into my next question too. You mentioned that Inverness was one of the counties that has been highlighted for chip sealing this year. Has the department made any decisions about specific areas that would be chip sealed in Inverness County?

 

MR. SMITH: We do have a road list prepared. It hasn't yet been publicized. We're working on tenders and that sort of thing, so when those come through, you'll hear. I guess that's the way it operates, we have to do it that way, so as quickly as we can we'll let you know. I guess the good news is it's going to be there, you're getting some work done.

 

MR. MACMASTER: That's great news, kind of an important year to get a little extra work done, too, maybe.

 

MR. SMITH: Indeed.

 

MR. MACMASTER: My next question - and this is kind of a tough question but I'm going to ask it anyway - it's as tough for me to ask as perhaps for you to answer. When the legislation went forth to create the speed limits in school zones and drop them down to 30 kilometres, I know I wasn't really expecting any areas in Inverness County - except for perhaps Tamarac, the school there, because it's in a very residential area - I was picturing more areas in the cities where that legislation would take effect.

 

On Reeves Street in Port Hawkesbury, the school is actually a fair distance off Reeves Street. Reeves Street is a busy route, as you know - I know you know it very well. There's a lot of truck traffic and you have to go up a hill to get to it. In the wintertime trucks need to carry a pretty good head of steam to get up the hill without worrying about losing traction if there's snowy conditions.

 

Anyway, my first call came from the school board with a concern about it, which I thought was kind of ironic because I know the purpose of the speed zone was to protect students. In fairness to the school board, I think it has recognized that the school is a fair distance from Reeves Street.

 

The next concern I had - well, actually I brought it to the local RCMP detachment and I asked them about it, and said, what are your thoughts on this because we're getting complaints that the speed limit is too slow? They told me that in our eyes we have difficulty enforcing it anyway, and if the government decided to put it back to 50 kilometres per hour, we'd be happy with that. Then I decided I should call the mayor's office, so I spoke with the mayor and he told me he would be happy to see it go back to 50 kilometres. I, as the local representative, will go here on the record right now and say that I think it should go back to 50 kilometres. I know the intent of the legislation is for safety, but I don't think there has been much safety added into the mix.

 

All the parties involved are not seeing a great value in it and I know residents - there is a lot of activity in that area and to slow down to 30 kilometres amongst all the business signage and truck traffic - and 50 kilometres is not really that fast anyway, especially when you look at Reeves Street and it's four lanes. Can you offer some comment on that? Would there be any chance that particular location could be reviewed to see if it's really necessary for the legislation to apply to Reeves Street?

 

MR. SMITH: I don't really think it's a difficult question because I don't think I have any difficulty with it at all. For me, the most important consideration is the safety of the children going to that school. Those children are now particularly walking around with earphones and they're texting and they're chatting with their friends and they're really not paying enough attention for their own safety, and we have to look after them. I'm going to say to you that the speed limit of 30 kilometres an hour, if it saves one child's life or a child being injured, it's worth it.

 

The school zone isn't that long. It's not like we're talking a kilometre here. We're not talking a great distance. People have to realize that there's a good and valid reason for having the speed limit the way it is. No, we're not going to change that.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Okay, you have a firm position on that. That's fine. I don't know what I would say in response other than that's what I'm hearing anyway, locally. I can almost run 20 kilometres an hour so if somebody has difficulty stopping their car at 50 kilometres, they probably shouldn't be driving. In any case, if that's the position, that's the way it's going to stay, I'll leave it at that.

 

My next question is, and you had mentioned in your presentation about the amounts and I should have caught this - I caught one of them - to twin a highway it is $3 million per kilometre. There were a couple of other amounts there - would you mind repeating those?

 

MR. SMITH: I think I said it was $500,000 to $750,000 for paving a trunk road - the upgrade. To repave a kilometre, it's $300,000 per kilometre. To do a kilometre, an upgrading on a trunk highway, it's between $500,000 and $750,000 per kilometre. To do a twinned highway, $3 million per kilometre.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you. I'll just ask a couple of ones that I noticed in the budget book here - on Page 21.2, Public Works and Special Projects.

 

MR. SMITH: Which book were you looking at?

 

MR. MACMASTER: I think it's the book you have there, the Estimates and Supplementary Detail, Page 21.2, Public Works and Special Projects. I notice there was an expected budget of the previous year of over $30 million; it came in at almost $27 million; and this year it's down to $24 million. There's just one that showed kind of a variance there and I was curious to know what's behind those numbers and why they're varying - what's the activity there that's causing the variance?

 

MR. SMITH: So the estimate, which would have been the budget for 2012-13, was $30.876 million; the actual amount, the forecast, was $26.791 million; and going forward, this year's budget is $24 million. So the question is, Public Works and Special Projects, why is it down $6 million?

 

MR. MACMASTER: Yes.

 

MR. SMITH: I'm told that this is energy refits that will be incorporated into regular jobs, rather than kind of being particular money spent on that.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So it's energy refits, okay. Are the energy refits saving money? Is that why it's going down or are they just doing fewer of them than expected?

 

MR. SMITH: I think the intent is that - okay, it is certainly a cost saving, and rather than doing a special project, when we're doing a project, they're incorporated in that rather than going out and doing an individual energy refit on a building. So when we're doing a building, initially, that's the kind of thing - that's my understanding.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I am going to share the rest of my time with the member for Victoria-The Lakes.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Victoria-The Lakes.

 

MR. KEITH BAIN: Thank you very much, minister, and thank you to the staff for being here. I'm going to probably pick up on some of the questioning that the member for Inverness talked about. The first one is about double chip sealing. I know that determination for double chip sealing is done on volume and that's part of the equation. There are four provincial roads on the reserve in Wagmatcook. I know it's the desire of the reservation to have those roads paved and they are being double chip sealed. I guess the question is, are they being double chip sealed because of the low volume - what would be the reason?

 

MR. SMITH: These are gravel roads now?

 

MR. BAIN: Yes, they are gravel.

 

MR. SMITH: We do have a policy across the province that we don't asphalt-pave gravel roads. We do, when they merit having work done on them that would improve them, because of traffic volume and that sort of thing, it's the double chip seal process we use. So obviously if we're working on those - you say we are working on those four roads - they obviously merit that kind of increased upkeep or increased improvement because, indeed, there is an increase in the usage or the volume on it.

 

MR. BAIN: Thank you. I'm sure the double chip seal is going to be a lot better than the existing gravel, because especially on those roads - and the other one that's being done is the New Dominion Road which leads to the Dalem Lake Provincial Park. I'm sure there will be savings for the department down the road because you're not grading on a constant basis. But my question is, now that they're double chip sealed and are no longer classified as gravel roads, is there a chance that in the future those roads could now be paved?

 

MR. SMITH: Again, it's much the same as if they'd gone from gravel to double chip; obviously there was a need in terms of volume to merit that. If the volume ever increased to such a level that it had to be or ought to be asphalt then that would happen. But in this, you'd be looking at over 500 cars a day to merit that so we would look at that down the road, but that's kind of the cut-off; less than 500 you wouldn't asphalt.

 

MR. BAIN: Thank you for that. Now to get back to RIM funding; $15 million is not a lot of money, we all realize it's not a lot of money to do the requirements that are out there. I know the constituency of Victoria-The Lakes probably has, if not the most, I believe the second-highest number of kilometres of paved roads of all the 52 constituencies in the province.

 

MR. SMITH: More than Pictou?

 

MR. BAIN: Yes, I believe so. Now, we're talking constituencies here, not Pictou County. He's not even listening. (Laughter) I guess when you look at the condition of a lot of the roads - there are a number in my constituency and everybody else's, the number of dips that have occurred over time because some of those roads have been neglected or not high enough on the radar at that time. Because of those dips and the work not being done, it affects snow removal. I'm sure your department gets lots of complaints: well, the plow went down here and there's still ice on the road. That's because the blade is going on top of the dips that are there and logically you're going to get ice, which in turn is going to cost you more in salt. I guess what's saved in the summertime, if I can call it "saved" and it's not a fair - you know, the lack of spending in the summertime ends up being an additional cost in the wintertime, I guess. Is that a fair assumption to make?

 

MR. SMITH: Because you've premised your question with a comment on the condition of the road to start, you talked about the road being neglected for years. That's exactly what the situation is. When we came to power in 2009 we were faced with - across the province - a huge deficit in road infrastructure. We've come forward with a plan to deal with that. As you said, for many years nothing was done, we are now left with these problems and we are going to be working towards fixing them. It's going to take us a considerable amount of time and money, and in the meantime we will do the best we can to keep all of our roads safe.

 

One of the things we did this year which is new, we've started a process where we actually put like a brine on the road when we know snow is coming. When the snow falls, it actually melts and that makes it easier for the plowing when that happens. That might help eliminate some of the problem you're talking about. But I'm going to challenge anyone to say to me that any of our roads in Nova Scotia are not safe, we won't let that happen. If there's a problem on a particular road that needs extra attention because of the neglect for years and years, we will make sure that road is safe. If it means putting more salt on it or sanding it, or whatever we have to do to make it safe, it will be safe.

 

I'm not going to agree that there's any kind of situation that our drivers are going to be on any roads in our province that we're not going to make it as safe as we possibly can.

 

MR. BAIN: This is not questioning the operators whatsoever. The operators do what they can with what's in front of them and they do an excellent job doing it. You mentioned the brine; yes, I've seen the brine, where it's being used, and it works. But I think - and correct me if I'm wrong - at this point it's only being used on 100-Series Highways.

 

MR. SMITH: As a pilot project we started it in Antigonish the first time it was used but we are expanding it, and again, I'm just suggesting that this could well be a solution to that problem that you're suggesting. We will look at any road that you bring to us and suggest that it's not safe and make sure it's not going to be a situation that you're going to have to worry about or that the drivers in Nova Scotia are going to have to worry about, because it's not going to happen.

 

Yes, how can I disagree with you that when governments for years don't do anything on roads and they deteriorate, there's going to be a problem. That's what we're facing and that's what we're trying to fix.

 

MR. BAIN: If we get into the capital projects - and I think you might know where I'm going on this one - we have the five-year plan for 2013-14. The five-year plan for 2012-13 included a 6.2-kilometre stretch of the Cabot Trail from Little River - this is in the Victoria County part - and in the 2013-14 plan it's not there. It is in the 2014-15, I guess.

 

MR. SMITH: A year out.

 

MR. BAIN: Yes. So I guess you can appreciate the disappointment in the residents when they see it's in the five-year plan, we know it's going to be done, everything is planned, and then all of a sudden it's delayed for a year. I'm sure you can appreciate the frustration of the residents.

 

MR. SMITH: I do. Let me just explain to you about that. As I said, when we talked about the cost per kilometre of doing work, as you know there has been a lot of work done on the Cabot Trail in your area over the last couple of years. This next particular piece that's going to be done next year is one that has to be done from the ground up. It's got to be one of these rebuilt sections because of the need, as you described, as neglect for years. That is - what we talked about - the very expensive bit that I think is going to cost a considerable amount of money to do that.

 

Our budget for this year is down some, we've opted to do work on the Cabot Trail but on the western side this year. So there is going to be work done on the Cabot Trail; Mr. MacMaster has left, but it's going to be on his side this year. There was work done on the other side. To me, it was a bit of a fairness issue, there was lots of work done in your particular riding for the last couple of years and there's going to be more work done in your riding this season of other work. So we determined that doing additional work - it's still work on the Cabot Trail, it's just not where - because of the cost this particular year.

 

I can assure you and your constituents that we haven't - and you know, when we put a five-year plan out, it's a plan, but last year we were able to actually move some stuff ahead of schedule into last year, and sometimes that happens. There was a part of Trunk 4 that we didn't get done, as well, last year that we had hoped to get done, there are good reasons for that. I guess I just want to make sure that your constituents and the people in that area understand that it will get done - it will get done next year - and I guess that's as much as I can say about it.

 

It is going to be a very expensive piece of work to get done, and because of the work that had been done in the general area there over the last couple of years, for me it was a bit of a fairness issue to do some work, again on the Cabot Trail but in another area.

 

MR. BAIN: I guess I'm not denying what my colleague, the member for Inverness gets but I think in fairness, what's being done in Inverness is to finish a job that wasn't finished last year. It's not actually a new section that's being done this year, at least that's my understanding and I stand to be corrected on that.

 

I want to talk about George's River Road in Cape Breton County. It's a road that is heavily travelled, I think your traffic counts might show that. I know that it has been high on a priority list for both the district director and the area manager. They are presently doing estimates on that road now, you can see the survey marks on it. It does not appear anywhere in the five-year plan and this is the second time there has been estimates done on that road.

 

I think your traffic counts - and again, minister, I stand to be corrected on this - it's a very heavily travelled road, it's not like a main artery, but people who work in North Sydney or Sydney will be travelling that road on a regular basis and it is terrible for the traffic that's on it.

 

Again, I bring it to your attention only because I've already had discussions with both Gerard Jessome and Roy MacDonald on it. It has been on their list the last few years and there's still nothing being done, so hopefully, when you say there might be some moving things ahead, maybe if there's some extra money you might be able to take a look at that, but again, I want to bring that one to your attention.

 

MR. SMITH: Just in response, that road would never appear in the five-year plan because it's a local road. We don't have local roads in there.

MR. BAIN: So there's hope yet.

 

MR. SMITH: Only in the year they're doing them. So if you're saying they're doing estimates on it again, then someone is looking pretty carefully at that road. And you said there are markings on the road, survey markings?

 

MR. BAIN: Yes, there were but they wore off, having been done a couple of years ago.

 

MR. SMITH: Okay, all right. Thank you for bringing that forward, and again, we'll look at it.

 

MR. BAIN: Okay, I appreciate that.

 

MR. SMITH: It would be because the plan for this year is already - the budget has been allocated, it would have to be something for next year. So again, I encourage you to bring it forward and if there are petitions, if people on the road indicate they want it done, all of these things are helpful in getting work done.

 

MR. BAIN: Thank you. This is one I'm sure Mr. Fitzner is very familiar with, too, the Washabuck Road, and I'm sure you're heard about the Washabuck Road yourself numerous times. I realize that the traffic volume on the Washabuck Road is not heavy because the majority of people use Route 223, and I also realize that a section that they call "The Mountain" on Washabuck Road would require capital work done to it, it's not just a resurfacing.

 

I guess I'm going to bring it up again because it's a connecting point from Iona to the Washabuck within the peninsula. The road is or has broken up in a lot of different places. I'm wondering if a road like this would fall under the chip sealing. I'm saying chip sealing if it's - you mention in the five-year plan about pulverizing and chip sealing over it. I wonder if that's something that the department is considering. If the road doesn't fall into the category volume-wise of getting resurfaced, is or will the department look at something like that?

 

MR. SMITH: I guess that's a bit of a two-edged sword for you because if we took a road that is a paved road and pulverized it and just put chip seal on it, then it has kind of lost its status as an asphalt road. The other thing is we wouldn't do that, put chip seal on it alone kind of thing, if it's a road that trucks use, that heavy trucks use at all, then there'd be no point in doing it because the chip seal wouldn't last, it wouldn't hold up.

 

I guess I can say again we would assess it. There are not many people who want to go from asphalt to chip seal. We use chip seal, the single layer, as a preservation, so that's one thing, but what you're talking about is something different, I think.

 

MR. BAIN: I know it does sound like a strange request but if you haven't, sometime you're in the area I invite you to travel the road. I'm not saying that this is what the residents might want but it would be a big improvement to what they have now, I guess is what I'm saying. I will certainly make it a point of contacting the residents in the area, to see if something like that happened, would that satisfy them, and maybe we could move from there.

 

MR. SMITH: That's certainly a possibility because I've had other members come to me and say, look, they would rather have a good gravel road than a bad paved road, so we're actually considering doing that. In some areas people - the volumes used to be there but they're gone now.

 

In common sense, you wouldn't put very expensive asphalt on a road that you know is not going to get used very much. So yes, that's probably the right solution you're suggesting and we would certainly consider that if we felt that people would prefer that, for sure.

 

MR. BAIN: Funny when you suggested some people say to make it a gravel road. There have actually been a few people who have said we're better off if it's a gravel road than the way it is now. That's contrary to the majority opinion at this point, I think, but I appreciate what you're saying.

 

I want to talk about the Englishtown Ferry. You already commended the crew and the staff on the ferry for the difficulties they encountered and the way everything went. I join you in that because the crew on the ferry system, especially the two that I'm familiar with, both in Englishtown and Little Narrows, are top-notch.

 

I did receive a response from you today, as a matter of fact, from a letter I had written concerning the possibility, especially after the tragedy that did take place on the Englishtown Ferry, of installing video cameras forward and aft on the ferry and also on the approaches. Would it have prevented what happened? We don't know but it probably would have gone a long way in the rescue mission, or even the identification because there was a long time that we didn't know exactly what had taken place.

 

Anyway, that's one reason I suggested it. The second reason is for the protection of the employees themselves. When you look - most times, except in the summertime when there's additional traffic, you're pretty much limited to a captain and a deckhand person. I guess for their protection, we don't know who is coming aboard that ferry, and if it's one person, it could pose a great deal of difficulty.

 

I know that you're looking at some of the safety features and I also want to thank you for the quick action of the department in getting lights working on the Jersey Cove side of the ferry. I wonder if you want to comment on the possibility of cameras.

 

MR. SMITH: I was going to remind you that you had a second request in your letter, about the lights, and I was glad that we were able to accommodate that, and as you said, as quickly as it happened.

 

Look, we have seven ferries operating in Nova Scotia and we are in compliance with the federal standards that the Canadian Government asks us to maintain in terms of the ferries. We are in compliance so the ferries are safe, there's no reason for anyone to suggest that they aren't safe.

 

So in terms of whether or not we would be putting cameras at the approaches to the ferries or on the ferries, following up on your letter that is something we are going to look at. Again, we have to consider cost on these issues and these cameras are quite pricey. So if it's not going to enhance the safety situation, you talked about the crew being there in the off-season and smaller in number and perhaps for their safety - I think your premise was along the line, well, there might be a robber or somebody could come and hold them up or something like that. I guess that could happen in the busy season as well as in the not-so-busy season.

 

My recollection of the usage of these ferries is pretty much, in the off-season it's the local people - mostly the local people use the tickets to go across. There's very little cash on those ferries in terms of worrying about a safety issue, in terms of someone coming and robbing them. Anybody who was in the area would know that.

 

Cameras, I suppose, are something we could look at and we are looking at it. We took your letter seriously, so it's going to be assessed and we'll decide what's best there.

 

MR. BAIN: Thank you. I appreciate that and I appreciate your prompt response to my letter too. I'm going to just keep on the Englishtown Ferry for a while longer.

 

One day last week a representative of the Northeast Highlands Chamber of Commerce met with your district director, we met here in Halifax along with Economic and Rural Development and Tourism. The length of time that the Englishtown Ferry is closed, we realize that it was closed, in part, because of the investigation, and you have to make allowances for that and the ice conditions.

 

I guess the concern that was brought up was the fact that residents buy the ferry pass and what this individual said - actually, he's the president of the chamber - the complaints they receive is the fact that along with buying the ferry pass to have access year-round, it's costing them extra money to have to go around the St. Ann's Loop. I think that if it hasn't been, I think it might be brought to your attention as a result of that meeting.

 

I don't know if anything can be done about that but I hope you can appreciate the extra cost that's involved as a result of the ferry not working. We hear so often, even during the summertime - and it'll be up for repairs and right now there are different excuses. One was the ice; one was that the Torquil MacLean, the existing ferry, is going on dry dock for repairs that are very necessary and the Scotian is coming in.

 

I'm jumping all over the place as far as the Englishtown Ferry goes but I wonder if you could comment on, first of all, the ferry passes and whether or not there might be something that residents could be looking for. It's an unlimited pass and I don't even know - I think it's $200 a year or something like that, I don't know. Some people get more than their $200 worth out of it, but for those people who have to spend a lot time in what they call "driving around" that the residents call it, it's an additional expense to them. The other one is, when is the Torquil MacLean - or has it gone on dry dock, because that again will result in another delay while they change ferries?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: That actually concludes the time allocated for the Progressive Conservative caucus for tonight. We will certainly give the minister an opportunity to respond to Mr. Bain.

 

MR. SMITH: You asked a lot there. First of all, there will not be any downtime in terms of the Torquil MacLean going into dry dock. We have a spare ferry that will be brought in so that there's not going to be any downtime.

 

MR. BAIN: I guess it was the changeover - how long is the changeover?

 

MR. SMITH: Well, I think we'll make arrangements so that there's no - my understanding is that there will be no delay. I guess as long as it takes to unhook the cable and hook it up to the new one, I'm not anticipating . . .

 

MR. BAIN: So it's hours and not days?

 

MR. SMITH: That's my understanding. In terms of the investigation, yes, we couldn't run the ferry while the police were doing their investigation until they had recovered the car and that kind of thing. That's an extraordinary circumstance that nobody can be faulted for. It's the same as if it had been a bridge and there had been an accident on the bridge, it would have been closed while that was sorted out.

 

We don't run the ferries when the ice comes in; when the ice floes come in, we can't have the ferry cutting through them. That's the natural - people who live in the area have known that for all their lives so that's not a change. The ice was coming in and out, as you know from just watching the television and the recovery of that automobile. It was in one hour, 12 hours later it was gone, and it was back in 12 hours again.

 

In terms of people having to drive around, again, I have to say these are extraordinary circumstances. I think the regular fare to take a car on that ferry is $5.75, and when you buy a pass for the year it's an unlimited pass for $250. So if they've lost, say, 10 crossings because they had to drive around, it's not significant. Yes, they're paying more in gas, but if they bought the pass and used it 10 less times for their own - you know, I don't think they're out anything in terms of not using the pass as much. I mean I don't see that they are. Where they're out is when they have to drive around because of the gas - again, we couldn't do anything about that.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll have to continue with this when we come back tomorrow. We'll begin with the Progressive Conservative caucus, with 12 minutes remaining, before we go to the Liberal caucus again.

 

We are adjourned.

 

[The subcommittee adjourned at 8:48 p.m.]