April

6, 2000 GOVERNMENT

SERVICES COMMITTEE

The Committee met at approximately 9:00 a.m. in Room

CHAIR (Hodder): Order, please!

We will proceed. The Chairman, Mr. Joyce, will be

along shortly, I assume, then he can take the Chair.

I want to welcome the minister and his staff and my

colleagues from the House. We have assigned three hours for this but we do not

anticipate it will take that long. The recent turn of events will probably

change that because I tend to have shorter meetings.

I am wondering if the minister could introduce his

staff and give us some preliminary comments on the Estimates for his department?

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members

of the Committee.

To my right is my deputy, Barbara Wakeham. I'm sure

everybody knows her. To my far right is Keith White, Executive Director of

Baker is the Executive Director of Marine Services in our department.

That pretty well tells you that. I'm not going to go

into any long outline of what we do. You realize (inaudible) -

CHAIR: Perhaps before you go any further we could

introduce the members of the Committee.

I'm Harvey Hodder, Vice-Chairman, MHA Waterford

Valley.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Ralph Wiseman, MHA Topsail, a

wonderful district.

MR. LUSH: Tom Lush, MHA Terra Nova.

MR. ANDERSEN: Wally Anderson, MHA Torngat

Mountains. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add that I know that you obviously

(inaudible) think about it but I never thought (inaudible) would lead me to

forget people's names.

MR. SHELLEY: Paul Shelley, MHA Baie Verte.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Mr. Minister.

MR. WOODFORD: I would just like to give a little

overview, that is all, of mainly what we are responsible for. If I miss out

anything, you or the staff can set me straight. It is mainly looking after the

roads in this Province, especially now as it pertains to the Trans-Labrador

Highway and what is after happening there the last number of years, and still

happening for the next two or three.

The Marine Services Division is the second largest

marine services division in Canada outside of BC. A small province of

560,000-odd people with the second largest marine division, well, to get the

monies to keep that sustained and keep it going is not an easy task and one that

presents challenges every day of the week.

(Inaudible) responsible for all the leasing of public

buildings in the Province, all maintenance of public buildings in the Province,

as well as air services - especially as it pertains to the Coast of Labrador -

air ambulance - I know the Department of Health is a client department but we

are responsible for all air ambulance services in the Province, and dispatching

and so on - the water bomber fleet in the Province - although Forest Resources

and Agrifoods is the main client department - mail services, security, all those

things. Really the name itself states it all: Works, Services and

Transportation. Really than going into any details on any of it, I would just

let the Committee go ahead with their questioning.

MR. H. HODDER: Thanks very much, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Shelley.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible). I was going to start

with a couple of specifics from the Estimates, but I'm just going to start with

some general questions. They are questions I continue to ask, so I guess for the

record here and everything else I will talk about them. There are some minor

ones to start with just to clarify. I've picked them out (inaudible).

Snow clearing for cabins along highways was brought up

this year, and I think we have worked it out and I've worked it out with the

deputy minister. I just want to clarify and make sure it is a straight

understanding again. Because it wasn't just my district, I received calls from

other places. When there are areas along the highways that cabin owners go to -

is the understanding right now that, basically, when there is scheduling for

maintenance along that particular road, that they would clear those lots and

they would be charged for the time they did the clearing? So if they can clear

them five times in an hour, to make up for that hour then they would be just

charged for that hour, not an hour for a ten-minute clearing.

MR. WOODFORD: Where are we doing that?

MR. SHELLEY: Anywhere.

MR. WOODFORD: As far as I am concerned, we are not

doing it anywhere.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: There is more to it than that,

though. That is why I am asking that, because I am still confused about it.

MR. WOODFORD : We are only doing it in certainly

districts.

MR. WHITE: The policy we have is that cabin areas,

parking areas for parking vehicles associated with cabin owners, is a private

issue. We don't consider it a part of our mandate to clear these areas. We

prefer that the people involved would make arrangements with private snow

clearing operators to have the service carried out, but if in any areas they are

unable to do

that we will do it on a cost-recovery basis.

MR. SHELLEY: Cost recovery, okay, that is clear.

That is why I wanted to make it clear, that is why I asked it here, because we

are still confused about it at the end of the year.

MR. WHITE: I would like to add that it is only

done when equipment is free from performing the services that we are mandated to

perform.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes. Two points on it, minister, that

I would just like to make. One, the seriousness of the safety part of it is that

there was an accident, and it happens, I guess, where fellows are parked

alongside the road as opposed to in off the road. There was a death a year ago

about it, so that is why it is serious. I guess the way it was said was that

they totally understand. I have said it to them too, that is their

responsibility and so on, but if your equipment is going by and it is going to

be paid for - nobody is looking for a free ride on it, for it to be done freely

or anything. The second point is that it is done at the convenience of the

people who are doing the road work, not for them to make a special trip up to do

it and not for them to come up to do it to get it done for free. So the two

points, I guess, are that it is done at the convenience of the road clearing

that is going on anyway, and that they pay for it.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, and only in areas where there

is no other equipment available.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes. I guess those are the three

points. I even argued with them myself to a point when it came up, but I do know

the seriousness of it. I have seen it. It is usually a five minute job, really,

to come down and push it to the side of the road so they can move in off the

highway. Because we had an accident on the Baie Verte Peninsula like I said -

that is two years ago now - where that situation happened, where the snow built

up and the vehicles were on the side of the road and there was an accident

there.

I just wanted to clarify that right off the top

because it was always one that bothered me and I wasn't clear on it. Am I right

now, that it would be done only at the time they are doing their work and if

there is not equipment in that -

MR. WOODFORD: If there is not a private operator

within that area, that was my understanding when you couldn't get (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, and they pay for it,

cost-recover.

MR. WOODFORD: Cost recover.

MR. SHELLEY: You might seem that is a strange one

to start with but I have always been muddled with it so I thought I would clear

it off the top.

Another one I want to talk about is road maintenance

for winter road maintenance. It is more, like you say, clarifying these things

than anything else because you talk to different people in departments and

everything else, and I figure the best time to ask it is here.

When you are classifying the roads for winter

maintenance, there is a certain classification of road between Grand Falls and

Clarenville - if I remember the area - and then it is different from Grand Falls

to Deer Lake and so on. Could somebody clarify that and explain that? When it

comes to spreading the salt and clearing the roads and so on they are

classified.

MR. WOODFORD: Classified with regards to whether

we put just salt between a different area -

MR. SHELLEY: What you put on the road?

MR. WOODFORD: - or when we put a combination of

salt and sand.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: I think there are two areas in the

Province: I think Grand Falls and Gander is one, I believe, Whitbourne and St.

John's, and Corner Brook and Deer Lake. Anyway, Keith will give us an update.

MR. WHITE: Up till, I guess, a year or so ago we

used to use 100 per cent salt between St. John's and Gander, and in the area

between Pasadena and Corner Brook, the four-lane area that we built between

Pasadena and Corner Brook. We base it on - I guess first of all it was budgets,

but also on the traffic volumes in the areas. Also, we used 100 per cent salt

between Bishop's Falls and Grand Falls, again for the same reason, because of

the traffic volumes.

What we have been trying to do is extend the usage of

salt at least as far as Grand Falls. It means having to purchase extra salt, and

we have been trying to endeavour to do that, but between Grand Falls and Deer

Lake it is a combination of salt and sand, and between Corner Brook and Port aux

Basques it is a combination of salt and sand.

MR. SHELLEY: There is a class on them, right?

Isn't it A, B, or something like that?

MR. WOODFORD: On the Trans-Canada?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MR. WHITE: No, the Trans-Canada is all Class 1.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: No, Class 1, 2, 3 and 4 are for the

Province roads, but not on the Trans-Canada.

MR. SHELLEY: No?

MR. WOODFORD: No.

MR. SHELLEY: When it comes to salt distribution,

and how much salt you usually buy? What is the other ratio you use? You use all

salt and then it is 50/50?

MR. WOODFORD: No, 75/25 isn't it?

MR. WHITE: Yes, 75/25.

MR. SHELLEY: Is there anywhere that you use 50/50?

MR. WHITE: If there is heavy ice buildup it will

be switched to50/50, 25/75. It depends on the needs to clear the road.

MR. WOODFORD: And the temperature. Temperature is

a big factor here -

MR. WHITE: Temperature is a big factor as well.

MR. WOODFORD: - with regards to the use of salt or

sand, especially salt.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, where it is cut off at Grand

Falls, but you said the main reason was the amount of traffic.

MR. WHITE: Traffic - and temperatures do impact.

Below -10 Celsius, salt is ineffective.

MR. SHELLEY: In 2.1.04., Snow And Ice Control,

page 70.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes. Which one is that, 2.1.04.,

what?

MR. SHELLEY: Supplies, 04.

MR. WOODFORD: That is what that is. It increased

for the requirement for extra salt.

MR. SHELLEY: That was the increase for salt this

year?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay.

MR. WOODFORD: That went up over last year and it

looks like we are going to have to go up again this year, next year.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay.

I will just keep moving along in the Estimates, and

just touch here and there. In 2.2.01. -

MR. WOODFORD: In 2.2.01., yes.

MR. SHELLEY: Under Salaries, there is almost

$300,000 in salaries in that particular section.

MR. WOODFORD: That is where we have so much of a

building program, a capital works program, which is a large part of it, and the

Labrador regional office - there were some extra staff into that - but we have a

very large building program in the Province now, as you know, with regard to

school renovations, new hospital buildings and clinics and so on. We added extra

staff to the department - not enough, by the way - we did add extra to do that,

to try to cope with the program.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay.

Back again to a couple of - federal funding this year;

can I get that explained, to a point anyway, for the record here more than

anything else, Minister?

MR. WOODFORD: As far as I am concerned, under

federal funding - and my officials can correct me after, if I am wrong - as far

as I am concerned, we have nothing, absolutely nothing. Even if it is $100

million right across the country, we have nothing. What I would have to do with

our share is find out which pothole I am going to use it in.

As far as I am concerned, in talking to some of the

federal people on it, there is $100 million this year to be allocated right

across the country for administration primarily, absolutely no work, and the

figures are something like $300 million for next year. Those are things we have

to get clarified. We can't seem to get it nailed down, to get answers on it, but

we have meetings scheduled, I think, for this week, I think this Friday, so I

will get the deputy to expand on it.

MS WAKEHAM: The meeting with the federal officials

is going to be held on Monday.

MR. SHELLEY: Monday.

MS WAKEHAM: It was scheduled for Wednesday but

they changed it, so it is going to be Monday. It is a very preliminary meeting.

There are four people from, quote, the infrastructure committee of the federal

government coming in. My understanding right now is that we will not even have

program details until probably December of 2000, which means we have about three

months to use the $100 million that is there. Our portion of the $100 million is

probably $3 million to $4 million, which doesn't do anything, like the minister

said, just pick out which pothole you would like to put it in.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MS WAKEHAM: Up until this point in time, unless I

get different clarification on Monday, we are not even talking about using any

of that funding under the infrastructure program until 2003 for road work.

Basically, at this point in time, the discussion will be with respect to

environmental projects, tourism projects, municipal water and sewer projects,

but no money in terms of discussion for 2000-2001 with respect to road work.

Unless there is a major shift in the direction, the

approach, and they have a whole bunch of homework that they have done since the

Budget at the federal level, we haven't been informed about it. I will find out

what is going on Monday, when we have the meeting.

MR. SHELLEY: I would like to get into (inaudible)

MR. WOODFORD: To add to that, Paul, at the

minister's meeting last August in Fredericton, that was the prime concern that

came out of those meetings, a new national transportation strategy. Obviously

they didn't take it seriously enough because most of the infrastructure program,

as far as I am concerned, is geared to municipal work, whether it be

environmental, water and sewer, roads in the communities or what have you. As

far as I am concerned, the federal program in non-existent.

MR. SHELLEY: The truth is, at these Estimates this

morning, I have nothing else on my mind as much as that because - I have said it

and we have spoken about it - there is really a conflicting message coming

across. The finance minister - I want to say it here so that it is on record

here today in these Estimates - and a Newfoundland MP, just a few weeks ago in

this Province, told groups of people in the public that there was federal

funding available for road work in this Province, it was there and it was only a

matter of the Province signing off on it, and all this stuff. Now they have

everybody hyped to think that there is a big program coming. Of course I know,

and I have known it before this meeting too, that in fact that is not true. To

add to that, to add to my frustration - not just in my district either, because

I do get calls from all over because I am the critic for transportation - we

have a situation in this Province that is building quicker and faster all the

time, and that is to be able to do a good provincial roads program.

As I look down through the Estimates, you look at

improvement in road construction, basically, and just to see if you can

re-confirm this because I have already heard it, we were talking about the $16

million or $17 million, whatever it is again. Really we are going to come down

with the cost and everything - and I would like for you to elaborate on that

also here today, with the rising cost of fuel being an issue - we are looking

somewhere around $12 million to $13 million in provincial road work for this

entire Province this year. Those are the numbers that I keep coming back with

and I just want to get them reconfirmed here today, I guess, of what we are

looking at this year.

MR. WOODFORD: You are not going to be much out

because we look at the expenditures for last year as it pertains to just fuel,

for instance, in our department. I was told, a couple of weeks ago, around

mid-March, that we would be about $2.3 million. Yesterday I was told we are

probably going to go between $3 million and $4 million over on fuel for last

year, up to the end of March. I will know in another couple of weeks, I guess,

Alex, for sure. Just imagine.

Granted, it is starting to go down a bit; but, by the

time we feel it, probably the summer is going to be over and that means our

construction season will be over.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: To add to that this year, to

compound the thing, we have a fairly large increase in liquid asphalt which is

going to take, we estimate, about 20 per cent, Keith? knocked right off the top

altogether for liquid asphalt and fuel. That is barring any other unforeseen

circumstances that you may run into.

To add to that, our bridges have to come out of that.

The bridges are identified to be changed. We must change them. We have our

calcium to take out of that, so you know what we have left for road work, actual

construction, this summer. To be up front and honest with you, that is what is

there. There is no good beating around the bush with it.

We have contractors coming back now, for instance,

from last year with cash flow jobs. They are looking for extra money because

they bid on last year's prices. Here you are now into a season with the cash

flow job where they have to buy the fuel at this year's prices. We have that to

contend with as well. Anyway, that is the bottom line. You are not much out.

MR. SHELLEY: That is the situation for this year,

by the look of it, so it looks like we are not going to go near addressing that

situation again.

I would just like to ask, too, this question. With

this situation brewing, as I see it - I don't know a nicer word to describe it

because it is getting worse, not getting better. From my research on it, we have

somewhere near 1,300 to 1,400 kilometres of unpaved roads still in the Province

- 1,400?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: There are 1,400 kilometres of unpaved

roads. Here is my next question: I am wondering if anything is being done in the

department to really get a handle on the real situation, on the aging of the

pavement in this Province and the roads that are going to be done? I know, for

example, La Scie road is what, twenty-five years old? How many more are like

that? Luckily they have maintained it to this point but pavement, with the

weather we have had - and I am not an engineer or an expert on this but I know

that when it gets that old, especially if you have a winter like we just had

where you have the freezing, the mild, then the thawing out and so on, La Scie

road just came up. It is gone. It is going to be impassable by the time the real

spring hits. It is not spring out there yet, not as much as in here. That is

just an example.

What kind of analysis is being done, and which I

believe needs to be done, of the real situation in this Province? If all this is

building, by next year or the year after we are going to have twenty roads like

that. It is just going to be coming to a head and I am afraid, if I am screaming

for my district this year and some other members are doing the same thing - I

was down in a few districts lately and the roads are starting to go like this,

so I wonder by next year.... I really think that is important. What kind of

analysis is being done on the paved roads, and the aging, and what you see

coming?

MR. WOODFORD: Well, you might have seen a press

release that I put out. No, it was not a press release. It was an interview with

one of the media here a couple of weeks ago. We had identified then around $250

million to $300 million would be needed between the next five and ten years for

our roads in the Province.

Our officials have just put together a package and

identified some needs in case there was a new federal-provincial agreement. Like

Barb was just saying, we want about $350 million just for the Trans-Canada and

trunk roads. Now, if anybody is driving across the Trans-Canada today it looks

pretty good. It is one of the better roads, as far as I am concerned, anywhere

in Canada today to drive on. Yet, you can see they want $350 million for the

Trans-Canada and the trunk roads, which would probably include the La Scies of

the world, the Burin Peninsulas of the world, the Bonavistas, those kinds of

areas.

MS WAKEHAM: Then local roads (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: For local roads we will want another

$150 million. So we want $500 million, half a billion dollars, in this Province

over the next five to ten years just to maintain what we have today.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: As you can see, our Roads for Rail

Agreement will be up probably in another couple of years. We may go into the

third year a little bit for some carryover but, other than that, that is it. So,

we are back to square one with a $16 million or $17 million provincial budget to

try and do that.

MR. SHELLEY: I will just stop there with this

comment and somebody else can ask something more specific because the truth is,

I have been looking through the Estimates and it is all I have on my mind right

now, and you know why. It is not just in my district, like I told you. I just

see it and I have been following it so closely for the last two years

especially. There is a crisis in it and it has to be addressed, either by the

federal-provincial collaboration of really what the problem is, or - it is not

just the safety, because it is a safety problem.

I went down on the La Scie Highway the other day and

lost the front end of the car - just came behind a bus. I don't even have to

explain it. Everybody knows. The kids are on those buses. So, there is a safety

factor but now I have a situation and I want to state it here today, that we

have some good news in our district as far as a gold mine. I am just using this

as an example, another gold mine about to be announced, and those trucks are not

going over that road. In other words, we are going to have to stop production of

a gold mine because the infrastructure is not there. It is as simple as the nose

- that is not dramatizing it. That is not out there at all. They are the simple

facts. I am fearful now that, besides the safety factor, we are going to lose

out on economic development because of a basic infrastructure. I'm not talking

about it being a little bit bad, I'm talking about deplorable. That road is.

Obviously you focus in on your own district. I'm just wondering where else it is

going to happen. In Bonavista next year, when there is a plant going to open up,

or somewhere else, when you have those roads out there that are just at a stage

now where they have to be done? Like it was suggested on La Scie road: If they

are not going to pave it, tell them to come down and tear up the pavement and we

will go back to a gravel road. We are going to go back to a gravel road

(inaudible) for a major trunk road in the Province. That is pretty serious

stuff.

I will leave it. I just don't know. It has to be

addressed sooner rather than later, and addressed in a big way, and I have

always said it. This is constructive criticism as far as I am concerned. Not

only would a major infusion into that budget help out with what we are talking

about here, but economically in this Province if you start increasing the budget

on road construction - I know that is what the minister wants, and I know that

is what we all want. I'm just stating it like it is, because I'm really

concerned about it, and it has really preoccupied everything I have been

thinking about lately. Everybody thinks it is because I am staying up talking

about the roads in my own district, but I sense it.

I was driving in two districts the other day and

people said: Somebody has to do something with this road pretty soon. I won't

say where it is at this point. It is happening.

Provincial Roads Construction, I don't know if there

is anything else this year that can be added to it. I know there has been things

done with budgets in the past. I really think over the next couple of weeks,

three weeks, four weeks, that there is going to be another hard look at the

budget for provincial roads. I will leave it there for now and (inaudible), Mr.

Chairman.

MR. WOODFORD: I would like to make a comment here

before you leave that subject as it pertains to the federal members talking

about this particular program. I'm after hearing that. I'm after having phone

calls on it: Where is the money? How come you are not announcing this federal

infrastructure program?

I was in Deer Lake and spoke to the Humber joint

council meeting on Saturday, and the question was put to me. I told them at that

time to contact their federal members. I said: If they can bring a deal to me

with an 80 per cent - because that is what they are talking about - infusion of

federal funding, put it on the table at 11:00 and I will have my 20 per cent on

the table at noon. I haven't hear a sound. I haven't been called by the federal

minister, and I haven't been called by the federal members saying that they have

a deal on the table.

As far as I am concerned, it is misleading. It is not

making it very easy for me in this position, or our officials, because people

are expecting an announcement on roads, and it is just not there. I've had other

Members of the House of Assembly who have approached me on the same subject,

where federal members have said that the monies are there, the provincial

government is not taking advantage of it. I want to make it quite clear, and I

hope the press carried it out there that week. Anyway, it is on the record here

now.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you.

MR. WOODFORD: Barbara.

MS. WAKEHAM: I just wanted to follow up on what

the minister said, because I've been taking phone calls for the last two weeks

basically on the same thing. There are two stories: one, that Minister Martin

and Mr. Byrne indicated on the 80-20 in terms of a new infrastructure agreement,

which is totally erroneous; two, that there was potential within the existing

agreement, the 1988 agreement, that would allow us to take some of the money

that was there and apply it to new projects, which is again totally erroneous.

It is not true. We have no flexibility at all to change the eighteen programs

that are already listed under the 1988 agreement. In fact, we will probably just

scrape enough money to finish off those projects if we actually finish them off.

So there is no flexibility within that.

I talked to the mayors in Mr. Shelley's district. I

have talked to Bill Brown three or four times, Steve McAlpine, Gus Roberts. I

basically told them that the information they have received, however they have

received it, is not true information, and if there is something then we, the

department, have not received anything from the federal members to indicate what

that is.

MR. SHELLEY: Just for the record, they received it

one-on-one with the Minister of Finance for the country.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, they were there in Corner

Brook.

MR. SHELLEY: They were there. I didn't go there.

MS WAKEHAM: The department has not received any

information, either verbally or in writing, from either Minister Martin or Mr.

Byrne, or any other person at the federal level with respect to infrastructure

monies being available for this year.

MR. SHELLEY: You can see where the problem is

growing from.

MS WAKEHAM: I want it on record (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: That is why I asked it here today.

You have the federal minister for the country speaking to ten people in a room

telling them: We have our money here. Go find it. It has really caused a lot of

confusion and there are a lot of problems out there, and it is about to explode,

I think. I wanted to make sure it was on the record here today.

Thank you.

CHAIR (Joyce): Thank you, Paul.

Mr. Wiseman.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I hadn't intended, but I was just curious to get back

to the snow clearing for cottages. Have we ever derived any revenue from that

particular operation?

MR. WOODFORD: Charging for -

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Snow clearing.

MR. WOODFORD: In the cases that we had stated

earlier?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Yes.

MS WAKEHAM: First of all, let me make it clear, we

are not snow clearing cottage roads. What we are doing is we are making a

turnaround for the cars to get off the road, off the main highway, so that they

are not in the way when people take their Ski-Doos and go in the roads. What we

have done in the past is that we have a cap of $5,000 per kilometre that we use

for the equipment rental. What we will do, if there are no private contractors

in a particular area, is we will go and make that turnaround space so that

people are not in an unsafe situation. We will charge the percentage for the

time and the equipment that is actually used to do that.

MR. WOODFORD: To a group.

MS WAKEHAM: To a group, yes.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Have we derived any revenues

from that type of operation?

MR. WHITE: Yes, there have been revenues. I don't

have the exact figures but there are revenues ongoing on an annual basis. This

is not a big operation. I don't know the exact number of locations but I would

think you could count them on your fingers. Across the Island it is not a big

operation. We generally try to discourage them, and try to encourage them to get

the private sector to perform the service rather than rely on us.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Okay.

CHAIR: Mr. Lush.

MR. LUSH: I live in a cottage area and my house is

on a cottage area road. We have an association, and over the past number of

years, since the Province brought in that policy of not doing those roads and

charging, we used to assess all the cabin owners a fee. We would give that to

the council and left it to the council to do our road because we didn't want the

road cleared like a highway. We only wanted it so we could get over it. We gave

them our money and they would take care of the road. I am just wondering, when

you say revenues coming in, they would come in, in that case, from a council,

not from a cabin.

WITNESS: For the record, Mr. Lush, this is.

MR. LUSH: Yes.

MS WAKEHAM: For the record, there is a revenue

associated with snow clearing operations. If you look at 2.1.04 you will see

that there is $1,990,000 that is collected that -

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: What page is that?

MS WAKEHAM: That is on page 70, and that relates

to revenue that we get where we clean roads for councils or we do local service

districts and the Gros Morne Park. That is through there. That is where the

revenue is in, that figure there, under 2.1.04.02.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Okay. You understand, deputy,

that this is just for the record?

MS WAKEHAM: Yes.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Minister, if my understanding

is correct, we have some 1,400 kilometres of unpaved roads. Is that statement -

MR. WOODFORD: There are approximately

900-and-some-odd kilometres I think on the Island, and 400 kilometres off the

Island.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Is it realistic then to expect

that we, as a province, could afford to pave that 900 kilometres and maintain

not only that 900 kilometres, but the existing roads that we already have in

service now? Has any consideration been given to an estimate cost of what it

takes to maintain the existing paved roads?

MR. WOODFORD: The totals that we gave you earlier

would include those that are (inaudible). That doesn't necessarily say that all

those dirt roads would be paved, because for some of them, as far as I'm

concerned, it just doesn't make sense. Some of them are just used for cabin

roads or probably 18 kilometres or 20 kilometres in a community where there is

very little economic impact or so on. A good dirt road, people in a lot of cases

would be satisfied with that. So it is not necessarily just for pavement.

Your question was with regards to the maintenance of

all of those roads and so on. All this total figure would, especially if you do

it new, look after maintenance for a while. This is five to ten years, is it? It

is a five to ten year figure. Maintenance on highways, it is on page 70, the

same place.

MS WAKEHAM: We are spending $41 million.

MR. WOODFORD: Forty-one million dollars a year on

- where is it?

MS WAKEHAM: It is under Road Maintenance, page 70.

MR. WOODFORD: Right here, below 2.1.04, it says

Road Maintenance, $41,628,400, to maintain what we have there today, and that is

not enough, by the way.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: How many kilometres is that,

approximately?

MS WAKEHAM: Approximately -

MR. WOODFORD: Nine thousand, isn't it, a little

over 9,000?

MS WAKEHAM: Approximately 9,000 kilometres.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Alright.

That is it for me, Mr. Chairman, for now.

CHAIR: Mr. Lush.

MR. LUSH: There are a number of items I want to

comment on, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to make a further comment again on that

cottage snow clearing because people have all kinds of views about this and I

run into it all the time. People in one area will complain that it is being done

in another area. I find that they do not check out the facts to find out what is

going on. I have people in Gambo, in a cottage area, complain that they heard

that the roads in Terra Nova were being cleared in the winter; but the ones in

Terra Nova were being done exactly the way I said. We have a cottage association

of about 200 cottages in Terra Nova and we assess - we have no right to but we

just do it - $100 a year. We have a nice bank account every year, and also we

are into cooperation with Newfoundland Power. Newfoundland Power have a

substation there and they used to have to come and clear the road; but with

them, they only cleared the road whenever they came up to do a check, so they

had their own private operation do that, contract it out, so we entered into a

deal with them and said: Why not enter into a deal with us and we will see that

we get the road done.

There are all kinds of arrangements that people should

check into before they - they know this is being done and they think that the

government is doing it. We have a marvelous arrangement there now. We have gold

there, too, Paul. We have gold up on that road. It is called forestry, and this

year we had to stop the trucks for I don't know how long because the road from

the Trans-Canada to the community of Terra Nova was in worse condition than the

forest road, which goes beyond me. We had to close down the road. It was a

beehive of activity, twenty-four hours of tractor trailers moving out pulp wood

because the Terra Nova road was in such bad condition that they had to take the

trucks off. I do not know if they are back on yet or not, Keith. I am not sure

either. These operations had to stop because the Terra Nova road is in such bad

condition. It is a terrible situation to come to. I agree as well that we have

to have a major initiative with respect to road work in the Province. To hear

the minister talk about the half a million dollars that we need, that is -

MR. WOODFORD: Half a billion.

MR. LUSH: Half a billion, rather. That is a

massive, enormous amount of money for this Province. There is no question that

we have to have federal participation to help us do this. I keep saying that

there has to be a major emphasis. There is no way the Province can afford that

kind of massive task simply by provincial revenues. It cannot be done.

Otherwise, health services are going to suffer and education is going to suffer.

It is a tremendous task; yet, roads are important.

Mr. Hamm, the Premier of Nova Scotia - and generally

we think the roads in Nova Scotia are probably up to a fairly good standard -

made the paving of secondary roads a major initiative of his platform in the

election in which he got elected. Along with that was the caveat that you have

to have federal participation. This was his campaign, that he was going after

the federal government to participate in secondary roads because these roads

were important to the provincial economy of Nova Scotia and, by extension, to

the provincial economy of Atlantic Canada.

When you think of 1,400 kilometres not paved, and then

the aging roads, it is a big task. I know that we have a lot of roads that are

deteriorating throughout the Province so it has to be a major initiative, but

the kind of money that is needed means we cannot go it alone. I just ask the

officials to keep after the federal government to see what contribution we can

get, what programs can be made available, so that we have the infrastructure to

be able to develop the Province, to develop the forestry, to develop whatever

minerals we have - and fisheries, because we still have plants located in areas

where roads are deteriorating, and all of that is very, very important.

I wanted to mention air services. The minister

mentioned that his department is responsible for air services. I know this is

outside of your jurisdiction, what I am going to say, but not outside of our

ability to lobby, to do something to ensure two things: one, that air safety or

that air aviation, air services, are as safe as they can be for the public; and,

two, that they are safe for pilots.

I want to first of all make the point that our

training for pilots, in my view, coming mainly from my son, is inadequate right

across the country. I wonder what we do, as a department, when we hear of a

training school being set up, because it seems to me that just about anybody can

set up a training school for pilots in Newfoundland. It has been done. What they

have to do I don't know, but this is serious business. A lot of times these

pilots learn by trial and error, as they have in the past, but this is too

important for trial and error. People's lives are at stake.

I would ask the minister and his officials, if they

have any influence in this area, to certainly do all they can to ensure that any

training school set up in this Province is a bona fide, safe and efficient

training school. I won't go any more on that because I realize that it is a

federal matter, but I ask for your support, in the interest of safety for young

pilots, to push for more and better - not more, but better - training programs

for pilots to ensure, if we can, that our airports, particularly our medivac

aircraft, emergency aircraft that they use, are equipped as much as possible and

inasmuch as money will allow us. I am not sure that money has to govern us here

because we are talking about safety.

I am just wondering about our airports that we use,

many of them in Labrador and in rural Newfoundland, and how they measure up, and

how our aircraft itself measures up. I will say this: When I was in Manitoba,

and bringing my son home by air ambulance, the air ambulance in Manitoba turned

down the Newfoundland ambulance. Naturally, I tried to get whatever ambulance I

could to bring my son home. I contacted the people here to see if that was a

possibility, to fly my son home by the Newfoundland air ambulance, which I was

prepared to pay for naturally. The Manitoba people turned down our air

ambulance, saying it didn't meet their standards.

I understand we have a new air ambulance, and I expect

that is an improved one. Even though the air ambulance in Manitoba - I just

don't know who it was now, what group of people was taking care of this. I think

it was hospital people. I knew at the time. Even though they turned it down, my

son would have given his life to have had a job flying the air ambulance here in

Newfoundland.

I just ask you to lobby where you can to make sure

that the air services in Newfoundland are as safe as we can get them, and all of

the activity related to the training of pilots as well.

Very generally, I want to talk about roads and

interprovincial ferries. I have a community with a ferry and very bad roads -

St. Brendan's - and it has to be reckoned with. That is a community with about

500 people living there, and from time to time they complain to me about the

ferry costs, how it is strange about our ferry costs.

Last year I met a couple on the ferry and I knew that

they were not from St. Brendan's, or that they were not from Newfoundland, so I

made it a point to talk to them. I found out they were from New Brunswick and

they were just returning. They had spent the day on St. Brendan's. I asked them

how they enjoyed it. Absolutely fantastic, they said, one of the best days we

have ever had in our lives. They said two things about it: The trip to St.

Brendan's itself, the marvelous scenery, they just loved it; and, they said, it

was the cheapest ferry ride ever we had in our lives. I said, I wish the people

from St. Brendan's would realize that. People from St. Brendan's think it is the

most expensive operation there is in the world.

When you think about it - I don't have the prices this

morning and maybe the officials can tell me exactly what they are, but just for

general calculation - a family of four and a car can go and come, make a return

trip, for about $25, to travel approximately nine miles. Twenty-five dollars,

approximately, for a family of four.

WITNESS: Nine miles one way?

MR. LUSH: Yes, nine miles on way. Doing that once

a week, it costs a family of four $100 to leave the island to get nowhere. We

talk about, when we are traveling to North Sydney, what that means to us. Well,

here is a family in St. Brendan's, nine miles away from the mainland, Burnside,

and it costs them approximately, if they just left the island once a week, which

is not very much, it would cost them approximately $100 a month. When you look

at it in that light, it becomes very expensive to a family in St. Brendan's.

I don't know what we can do about that. I know the

ferry is not making money for the department by a long shot. I know it is a

losing proposition, but again we are faced with the same dilemma, the same

argument that many of us advance provincially, that we should treat it as a

highway and have to pay no more to travel over that distance than we do the

equivalent in miles. As I said, I could be - I think for me, when I go with my

car, it costs me around $16 return, just one. The figure that I have used, and

the officials can comment on that as to whether I am way out but I cannot be way

out because I know for me, a single passenger, is $16 return. Again, that

becomes a very complex issue to deal with, but I think about those people who

are there and it becomes a very expensive proposition, living on St. Brendan's.

That, along with their road conditions, combine to make life difficult.

I will just conclude by saying that I realize the

tremendous demands put on the Department of Works, Services and Transportation -

tremendous - to keep the road infrastructure up to scratch in this Province. It

is a tremendous challenge, but I do believe that we have to plead with the

federal government to see that this is vital to our infrastructure, it is vital

to our development, and we have to have, I believe, a major roads initiative in

this Province with a major input from the federal government.

Thank you.

MR. WOODFORD: Tom, with regards to training, I

think primarily the training aspect of those programs are all through the

Department of Education, and it is probably done in conjunction with some of the

other departments, but primarily the licenses come from the Department of

Education. I can understand where you are coming from with regards to that. You

talk about the Labrador Coast over the years, you talk about different airlines

in the Province over the years and what has happened to some of them. For

whatever reason - they just gave it out last week - that plane that crashed out

here a little while ago, last (inaudible), was pilot error. For what reasons?

Why it lack of training? You don't know. Anyway, your point is well taken.

On the ferry operations, we are subsidizing ferry

operations in the Province now at about 80 per cent. Our provincial operations

are costing us around approximately $16 million a year. That is not counting

Labrador. Labrador is another $15 million or $16 million a year. So it is over

$30 million a year just for ferry operations in the Province. We are taking in,

in revenue, approximately $2 million. They are very heavily subsidized. It

doesn't take away from the point you make with regards to the importance and

relevancy of a place like St. Brendan's. It just gives you an example of what,

again - it is almost like going back to the roads - it is costing us. Eighty per

cent plus is what we are subsidizing rates. However, there are different areas

of the Province now where we are in the process of looking at the report that

was done this year for our ferry operations around the Province. Hopefully, when

that is done we will take another look at it, but your point is well taken.

CHAIR: Barbara.

MS. WAKEHAM: Just a follow-up on the safety of the

air services operation. Yes, we are improving our fleet, and it is all regulated

by the federal government under CAR, the Canadian Aviation Regulations. The

thing that we have been doing over the last number of years is that we have been

sending our pilots down to the United States and doing additional training,

making sure that our pilots have the best training, the latest technology, and

that they are more than up to scratch in terms of the operation.

I'm not sure what your situation was in terms of

Manitoba, except for maybe the distance. It was probably a judgment call by the

doctor because Manitoba's operation is exactly the same as the operation we have

here in Newfoundland. Both are operated by the government in terms of our air

ambulance operations. It may very well have been that because of the condition

of your son they might have wanted to have a quicker flight or use a different

type of plane or something, I'm not sure. I don't really think it had anything

to do with the nature of the plane itself or the air ambulance service.

MR. LUSH: No, it had nothing to (inaudible)

safety. It was an inadequacy (inaudible).

MS WAKEHAM: Yes, and it might have been

maintenance also.

MR. LUSH: I just wanted to add that I was a bit

disappointed, being a Newfoundlander, that they had said no to what was my air

ambulance. Right? I just wanted to make that point.

If I may ask another question. The Bell Island ferry

service offers reductions to people who have to commute on a regular basis,

don't they? Like people who work in St. John's deserve a reduction? The people

of St. Brendan's, I suppose because of the uniqueness of the situation - and

maybe for other ferry services - to my knowledge get no reductions, none

whatsoever, it is just a straight fare right across the board. Now the

suggestion to me has been: Why don't they give a reduction to seniors and to

students? That would be fair. Our population is aging and all we have are

seniors, practically. I say to seniors: That is all the people who would use it.

It is a point they make. Should we not give a

reduction to seniors and students in view of the fact - and we do have people

who commute to work on St. Brendan's. Why not offer them the same benefits as we

do to Bell Island? It is a point I thought I would raise with you, minister, in

this forum.

MR. WOODFORD: All this will be addressed in that

report, or should be addressed in that report, because we didn't do it just on

ferry rates, although it was a rate review. We tied it in with the other part of

the services as well. All that should be addressed. You are right. On Bell

Island there are approximately 400 commuters. They pay $2 a day to commute

between St. John's and Bell Island.

John, you can elaborate.

MR. BAKER: Yes, we do have a commuter's rate on

Bell Island. I would say we have over 400,000 a year of people moving back and

forth on the island there; the majority of those people are doing that for work

purposes, traveling twice a day. We do have a commuter's rate there, and yes,

this has been brought up before from other areas. This is one of the reasons why

this consultation has taken place with all of the services that we have around

the Island. Only some sickness of the consultation team delayed us in the report

but that will be forthcoming very shortly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Andersen.

MR. ANDERSEN: The first question is under 4.1.01

Air Subsidies, $390,000. What parts of the Island does that refer to?

WITNESS: Labrador.

MR. WOODFORD: That is mostly Labrador. The only

one exception this year, I think, was something to do with Harbour Deep because

of the ice conditions there. Most of it is in Labrador, and there is one

section

there, Williams Harbour, in Southern Labrador, but most of it I think is in your

area, Wally.

MR. ANDERSEN: Okay. Just a bit of confusion,

because it does read here: "...subsidization of air service to remote areas of

the island." I thought it might be different.

MR. WOODFORD: No. That is what it is. Harbour Deep

is the only one outside of that because last winter there was ice conditions and

so on.

MR. ANDERSEN: Okay. In 1999, $390,000 was

budgeted, and $570,000 spent. Again there is $390,000 budgeted for this coming

year.

MR. WOODFORD: That $570,000, I have been told by I

believe Alex, that now you can knock another $90,000 off of that, so it brings

it down to $480,000 since this was revised. So if you bring it down to $480,000

and there was $390,000 budgeted, the revised would have been $480,000, so this

year if in Harbour Deep, Williams Harbour or any other area we do not have that

kind of a situation this year, we may meet the budget. If not, we will just have

to revise it.

MR. ANDERSEN: Okay.

MS WAKEHAM: I just want to add that what happened

last year was that we had a normal scheduled food lift, and last year we had to

do an extra one into Normans Bay and an extra one into Williams Harbour. We had

two extra trips last year, plus we had some additional trips into Harbour Deep

itself. So that increased the actual (inaudible).

MR. ANDERSEN: The second question is a question

asked by my constituents. Quite often there are people from Postville who seek

employment at the fish plant in Makkovik. They have a vehicle, so they probably

go out to Makkovik for a possibility of six to eight weeks, thirty miles. It

costs pretty well close to $400 to ship a vehicle from Postville out to Makkovik

so the person can use his vehicle while he is in Makkovik, and again pretty well

close to $400 to ship it back. Basically you look at $800 for a person who takes

his family and goes to Makkovik for employment because of the fish plant there,

and it is the same thing from Rigolet. Rigolet is a bit further. It is about one

hundred miles. They want to take their vehicles for the five or six week period

that they are in these communities, yet it costs pretty well $400 to ship a

vehicle, John, from Postville to Makkovik, and the same to ship it back.

I am not sure if it can be changed, but you can ship a

vehicle from Port aux Basques, or better yet from Lewisporte, to Nain, about

2,000 miles, but it costs the same to ship a vehicle thirty miles. Again, I know

it is difficult, but it is just a point that was raised by some people in my

community as lately as Monday. They are going back out to Makkovik and they have

been accepted to work in the fish plant.

MR. WOODFORD: Do you want to comment on that,

John?

MR. BAKER: I wasn't aware, Wally, of any of those

concerns. I don't know if they actually did it or if they just inquired about

the rate, but I would like to be able to take that and check into it because I

want to just make sure.

MR. ANDERSEN: Sure.

MR. BAKER: It sounds kind of expensive because,

when we formatted the tariff, it was done up in zones. This is one of the

reasons why it was done up, so that you would be able to isolate some of those

problems and deal with them. I would like to be able to take that and check into

it.

MR. ANDERSEN: Sure, because the gentleman, Mr.

Gear, told me that he is going to ship in the shipping bill, where he shipped

his vehicle from Postville to Makkovik in mid-July and in September shipped it

back again. I have asked him for copies of his -

MR. BAKER: Yes, okay.

MR. ANDERSEN: The other thing, very quickly,

because my questions are on the Budget and that is our purpose here today,

probably to you, Mr. Baker, is the

schedule for the coastal boats for Labrador

this year again. Just briefly, what boats are we using again and when do they

plan to leave either St. Anthony or Lewisporte for Coastal Labrador?

MR. BAKER: The

schedule is the same for this year

as was last year. We expect the Sir Robert Bond , ice permitting, to

depart Lewisporte around June 9. Also the Northern Ranger will depart St.

Anthony on July 1. The freighters will depart Lewisporte, I would say, if the

Bond gets away around June 9, the first freighter will leave somewhere around

June 12 or June 13, right behind the Bond for Southern Labrador. Then we will

move into Northern Labrador, again, as ice permits. We don't see any change in

the

schedule there.

MR. ANDERSEN: Will the M.V. Nada be going

to Northern Labrador?

MR. BAKER: The vessels this year will be the same

as last year. We will have the Sir Robert Bond operating at Lewisporte,

Cartwright and Goose Bay. The Northern Ranger will depart St. Anthony to

Nain, calling all ports, and return, and the M.V. Nada will operate from

Lewisporte, a little different from last year.

Last year what was tried was that, due to the

different areas and anchorage ports and two different types of vessels that we

had operating there, the M.V. Nada , with the over-the-side crane, we kept

focused on Southern Labrador because of the anchorage ports. She could deliver

to those. Also, with the Astron and the number of containers the

Astron can handle, and through the stern loading and off-loading, and

because of the fish plants on the North, we concentrated between Goose Bay and

Nain.

We had calls. I guess, depending on where the vessels

are at the time and if there is any delay, that is fine as long as everything is

going well. If you get some interruptions because of wind or other conditions,

then we start getting complaints. Also, that was done for another reason as

well. The traffic patterns because of the road, I guess, as well, the

Trans-Labrador Highway, on the Sir Robert Bond kind of changed a little

bit and we were getting more towards the freight instead of the passenger

vehicles. Therefore, that allowed us to put more containers on the Sir Robert

Bond every four days out of Lewisporte into Goose Bay to connect with the

Astron for North. That is okay, like I said, while everything is going fine.

We did have some complaints and some concerns, so this year it is hoped that we

would revert to our original

schedule and have both vessels departing

Lewisporte. They would be on a fifteen day cycle from Lewisporte to Nain and

return, and we hope to have the M.V. Nada and the Astron operate

opposite each other so that one is leaving Nain while the other is leaving

Lewisporte so that we get probably one ever eight to ten days leaving

Lewisporte.

MS WAKEHAM: Wally, I just wanted to let you know,

too, that we will be going up around the first week of May and setting up

appointments again with each of the community councils so that we can review the

service again this year.

MR. ANDERSEN: And the schedule.

MS WAKEHAM: Yes, and the schedule.

MR. ANDERSEN: Other than that, John, I want to

thank you for your cooperation last year. I am sure we can deal with ourselves

that we may have to look at probably a few extra trips with the anticipated work

to be done up there this year, in the short season we have with housing and the

roads. We may have to look at putting on an extra boat to be able to get the

equipment in there, but we can certainly deal with that as time unfolds.

MR. BAKER: I had a call from Goose Bay yesterday,

from Dean Osmond, the regional director there. He informed me that he has been

asked to sit on the committee. I asked him to keep me apprized as to what the

requests and what the requirements are so that we can start planning it instead

of waiting for the eleventh hour to start trying to get something on the move.

MR. WOODFORD: There is a fairly big demand on the

North Coast now, as Wally knows, in Makkovik, with regards to the fish plant in

Nain. The fish plant has a lot of product going out there, especially last year

in the Makkovik area.

Anyway, our officials will talk and we should be able

to work something out with the added construction work going on in Nain and

Makkovik this year. We might have to do something different there, Wally, so

that will be looked after.

MR. ANDERSEN: I flew up the coast a week ago. The

ice runs about 5 miles or 6 miles off and, outside of there, there is nothing.

You hear reports where all the ice in down in Newfoundland.

John, with a good head wind and a big sea, the ice

could be gone as early as the middle of May or even before. Again, is your

opening of the season carved in stone for, I think you said July 1? Or will ice

conditions dictate if it can be opened sooner rather than later?

MR. BAKER: The schedule, I guess, has been set

with the contractor operating the Labrador service on behalf of the department.

We have no problem with Southern Labrador, or even as far as Goose Bay, but

normally, Wally, we have been looking at seasons like this previously and for

some reason, I don't know why, it seems like in the month of May we get an extra

amount of easterly winds and it drives the ice right back on shore again. It

changed from the time we departed Lewisporte until we got to Groswater Bay,

whereby we had to battle our way to get into Rigolet and those places. We will

be monitoring it. Where, in previous years, on the first runs with the freight

boats we have only gotten to Cartwright and Goose Bay, if the ice permits there

is no reason why we can't

schedule the first runs of the freighters right

straight through to Nain, or even as far as Hopedale, Makkovik, wherever the ice

will permit.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, John.

CHAIR: Okay, Mr. Andersen?

MR. ANDERSEN: Yes.

CHAIR: Mr. Hodder.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you.

I don't have a great number of questions, and I am

sure they are all happy with that. I did want to say, first of all, that I have

enjoyed the discussion. It is very open, very frank, and that is the kind of

thing we should have at the Estimates Committee meetings at all times.

I wanted to mention the roads that are within

municipalities. As you know, the department has been transferring these over

some time and for many, many years. How many roads do we have left? I know you

have records on that. What is the status of that particular transfer policy at

the moment?

MR. WOODFORD: From my understanding it is pretty

well dead. I don't think we transferred anything last year - probably the last

two years - where there has been -

MS WAKEHAM: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Pardon me?

MS WAKEHAM: It depends, at the end of the year, if

we have money there.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, but I don't think there was

anything done last year, to my knowledge. The year before that there was

probably a little bit, but it depends on the money. There was never any specific

allocation for that. At the end of the year, if there was any monies left in the

budget, then we would look at some of the requests that were in and probably

write a cheque to that municipality and let them do it with their own municipal

engineers, whatever they have to do in their capital program. I don't think

there was anything last year. Was there anything last year or the year before?

WITNESS: (Inaudible) a little bit of money to pay

and bring up to a standard if the municipality was willing to accept it, but

nothing substantial.

MR. WOODFORD: No, because I think there used to be

$5 million, $6 million, or $7 million to that sometimes.

MS WAKEHAM: The policy is still there.

MR. WOODFORD: The policy is still there.

MS WAKEHAM: The policy is still the same, and the

policy basically is that we will upgrade the road to a good standard before the

municipality has to take it over. We will also work out a deal with the

municipality, if they want to take the money as a grant and do the work

themselves if they can get a better cost. Normally we do the upgrading because

we can get a better unit cost than the municipality, but we have been doing

that.

The other thing, too, is that we will work out a deal

if we only have a certain amount of money to do it over a two- or three-year

period; if, say, it is going to take $4 million or $5 million to upgrade the

road. The big problem we have had is that there has not been any additional

monies left over at the end of the year to be able to enter into these

agreements. We have approximately fifteen municipalities that have indicated to

us that they are prepared to take over roads right now but we don't have the

money to upgrade the roads in order for that to happen. In total, I would say

maybe 5 per cent of the roads we have turned over to the municipalities so far.

MR. H. HODDER: Is it, in the long term,

cost-effective to the department to do that? In other words, over time, would

the money saved from having to maintain them on an annual basis, would that be a

cost-effective thing for the department in terms of the transfer, if the

municipality took them over as opposed to the department keeping on the

maintenance, operating and snow clearing and all the other costs?

MS WAKEHAM: It is not a matter of the

cost-effectiveness. What it is, is that we have so many roads on our

Trans-Canada and on our collector roads that we can use larger equipment and it

would be more cost-effective and more efficient in terms of our operations. If

we can concentrate that instead of taking the equipment - because then you have

to downsize the equipment for the municipalities in order to go through and you

are talking about a completely different set-up in terms of your overall

operation.

Our intent is that we, at the end of five or ten years

from now - if we ever get enough money - will concentrate on the primary and

secondary roads and leave the local roads to the municipality who are best able

to take care of them.

MR. H. HODDER: Last spring in the Legislature -

and it opened again just last week - I got another call and it was concerning

the Hodgewater Line Road. I get those calls because of the fact that: (

a) I know

some of the people who live up there full time; and (

b) also because some of the

people are like my good friend from Terra Nova; they have cottages on that road.

There is a combination. It used to be used years ago as a secondary road to get

in from Bay Roberts and these areas, and it is still used in that way.

An argument has always been put forward that this

indeed is a department of highways responsibility and therefore they should be

maintaining it. As you know, when equipment is available in the summertime you

will grade it. There is nothing left for you to grade, obviously, because it has

been done over time. Is the department going to be divesting itself of that

responsibility and saying, no, we will not continue to maintain that road; or

are you going to do something with it in terms of upgrading it?

MR. WOODFORD: I know what my answer would be; but,

Keith, you can give one.

MR. WHITE: No, we continue to maintain Hodgewater

Line to the best of our ability. I get complaints from time to time about heavy

trucks traveling over it, and my answer to that one is that the majority of them

are using the Hodgewater Line as a shortcut. There is a fine, paved - in fact, a

portion of it is a divided highway. It is a little longer, no question, but it

is in excellent condition. I don't see why heavy tractor trailers and trucks of

the like don't use it.

I just add the point that over the last few weeks I

have received numerous phone calls from residents of Hodgewater Line, some of

them with cabins. I think some of them are livyers out there. We put equipment

there last week and I am glad to say that on Tuesday of this week a gentleman

phoned me and said: Mr. White, I have to give you some - this is a phone call

that you probably don't get very often. He said: Thank you for the work that was

done on Hodgewater Line. It is in much better condition.

MR. H. HODDER: What is happening there, just so

everybody can - it is not purely a cottage road. There are a growing number of

full-time people living there, and what has been happening is that there is also

a fair number of cottage dwellers there too. I get some of the calls. I also

know that you have done the best you could. There is an argument to be made for

the department to divest itself, and then to put it so that these heavy trucks

that are using it for short cuts don't use it. There are two sides to this story

here. It is not a simple answer, because I understand there are probably fifty

or sixty people who have permanent homes now living there. These are retirees

from wherever.

I would like to report that the maintenance on the

public wharf in the Waterford River is still a hot topic of mine, and that there

has been no more work done on maintaining the public wharf on the Waterford

River in this year's Budget than there was in last year's Budget. I am

disappointed that it got left out again.

MR. WOODFORD: Left out again.

MR. LUSH: If I (inaudible) make a comment

(inaudible). Some of my real wealthy friends (inaudible) both places

(inaudible).

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) wealthy friends, Tom?

MR. LUSH: Well, acquaintances (inaudible).

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Hodder.

Mr. Shelley.

MR. SHELLEY: I just have a couple more questions.

You could really have questions all day, but I use the Estimates for

(inaudible). I have a couple of specifics here, just for explanation more than

anything. Back to Provincial Roads again, 3.2.03, for an explanation

(inaudible). Obviously in Purchased Services (inaudible) road construction

(inaudible) in .06. It was budgeted last year at $13,919,600. Just for

clarification, because I always get mixed up (inaudible) the budget and

(inaudible).

MS. WAKEHAM: In 3.2.03.06?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes. It was budgeted at $13,919,600,

then we went to $15,419,600, and this year it is budgeted at $17,769,600.

MR. WOODFORD: That is for the addition, I believe,

of the money for the transfer to Northern Labrador, isn't it? We have $3 million

put in for Makkovik, Nain and - well, the roads in Wally's district.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, yes. I remember. That is $7

million, is it?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, in the Budget. Yes, $3 million

for this year. That was included in it, and that is why it is driving it up.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay, all right. The second thing,

3.2.03.10, Grants and Subsidies, could you explain that?

MR. WOODFORD: That is the brush cutting.

MR. SHELLEY: The $2 million?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: In the Grants and Subsidies?

MR. WOODFORD: That was the brush cutting last

year.

MR. SHELLEY: It is so tight on the money. I want

to know exactly where everything is going to. I agree with that one. That is not

a problem.

MR. WOODFORD: We have $300,000 in there for this

year, but I don't know what is going to happen there. That may be expanded.

MS WAKEHAM: That is our normal brush cutting

program -

MR. SHELLEY: Then you try to increase it.

MS WAKEHAM: - (inaudible) during the year. Some

years we get $1 million, some years we get $2 million. It depends on the

(inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I can see why it is so tough, because

you want to help out with that. It seems like you are trying not to haul it back

from the road construction. It is a real dilemma as far as I look at it all the

time.

MR. WOODFORD: It is, because this particular

program, a very successful program, by the way - in all my years in politics, it

is one of the things you get people to see. They come in and say: That is a

great job you have done there. All members are telling me that. I am not getting

any flack whatsoever. Not only that, doing that is a safety thing. It provides a

service and helps people to get topped up and so on and help (inaudible) might

only want two weeks, three weeks, four weeks, but it really helps them.

AN HON. WITNESS: (Inaudible) me, minister.

(Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well, the only brush - I won't

comment on that.

MR. SHELLEY: I will make a comment on that. As a

matter of fact, I have heard it said too many times when you get these

"make-work projects," or projects, a lot of times people say they are not

beneficial and whatever. That is one that always gets full support because it

makes sense. You see it. It is safety. It is a good one. I support it all the

time. I just wish you didn't have to drag it back from roads construction

because we certainly need that.

Just to follow again on page 76, I will just lead into

another question again. I have asked it before but I still want to clarify it, I

guess, or reconfirm it. On The Highways-Transportation Initiative and the

Regional Roads-Transportation Initiative money, I know since 1988 it has been,

basically, allotted and so on, and it has been kept tight. I have a two part

question as I look at the Estimates, because you see some numbers changing

again. In 3.2.04.06, Purchased Services, you see $28,442,600, and then all of a

sudden you have $31,442,600. Could you explain that one for us why that changed?

Then I will go into the main question on it.

MR. WOODFORD: We can apply every year for what you

call accelerated funding under -

MR. SHELLEY: That is the same amount of funding

but it is just pushed ahead?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, that is right. We got approval

later in the fall but it was no good, we couldn't use it.

MR. SHELLEY: Is that the same thing in Purchased

Services with the Regional Roads, 3.2.05.06?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: It is accelerated funding. So, really

it the same funding just speeded up.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, the same thing.

MR. SHELLEY: I guess the second part of the

question again is: From any of that regional money, or from that 1988 deal, is

there any being moved into the provincial? This is a two part question. Has

there ever been, since 1988? If it is no to that, then it is no to the other

one, I guess.

MR. WOODFORD: Has there ever been what?

MR. SHELLEY: Money transferred from that into our

own provincial roads?

MR. WOODFORD: No, not for me to know, I don't

think. I have been only there for the last little while but I do not think.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible) back further.

MS WAKEHAM: They are the same projects that were

identified in 1988. The only thing is the federal government says $56 million a

year. They allow for us to do some accelerated funding if we can push the road

through and get it done a bit quicker, and every year we apply for accelerated

funding. This year we got $4 million and that was it. We ask for -

MR. WOODFORD: The same money.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, same money.

MS WAKEHAM: The same money. We asked for it in

September and did not get it until January, so you cannot do anything more then

except for what you have there.

MR. SHELLEY: It is the same money, though.

MS WAKEHAM: The same money.

MR. SHELLEY: The same money in the same place.

MR. WOODFORD: The same money in the same pot.

MS WAKEHAM: Never applied to anything other than

the projects that were identified under the federal agreement in 1988.

MR. SHELLEY: To the second question then. I do not

know the technicalities of all of this about moving that. Can it be? Let me give

you an overview first. If you have this money in these regional trunk roads and

highways, I am sure if you go down through the list it is not as urgent as some

situations we have with provincial roads. Could an argument be put forward by

the Province, especially with the circumstances now? If you take that list of

money that was allocated - I know there is only two years left of it, is it? -

is there something left there that is not a real priority, and can it be shifted

to something that is a priority now in the provincial? I guess that is a

question for the minister to answer.

MR. WOODFORD: I have not seen anything there yet

that I would be able to justify taking it out of what is committed. A project

would have to be committed and started.

MR. SHELLEY: I do not (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Because a lot of trunk roads in this

case - if you are talking about the Northern Peninsula Highway, you are talking

about the Burin Peninsula Highway - are not collector roads as such. You are

talking about a main trunk from, say, Deer Lake to St. Anthony. From the

Trans-Canada to Baie Verte, there is a collector road for instance. La Scie

could be considered a collector road if I am not mistaken, like other roads in

the Province.

That is the problem you have with a lot of this

transfer out of the program that was already identified. With the limited time

left in this particular program now and the ongoing projects that have been

started, I do not see anything in there worth really fooling with, to be honest

with you.

MR. SHELLEY: Nothing to be shifted.

I have just a couple of other quick things because I

am not going to go on with questions today. We will save those questions for the

right time anyway.

WITNESS: (Inaudible) better in the House, Paul,

more publicity.

CHAIR: Go ahead, Mr. Shelley. Big questions.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes. There are gravel roads that are

left ungraded. By the way I understand, too, that there are some roads - as a

matter of fact I have pretty reasonable people in my district most of the time.

They know they are not going to get the road paved and they have actually said

it to me: I do not expect to ever get my road paved. We are losing population.

There are things falling (inaudible), for different reasons. I think what is

reasonable, and what they have said is reasonable, is that the grading and the

maintenance of a gravel road - and by the way, when you haven't got a road paved

there is more maintenance because you have those graders going out there all the

time beating up equipment, and you have to grade it pretty often, especially in

the spring and so on because it is changing and so on.

I guess what I am requesting is maintenance and

grading. We had a grader that broke down for five weeks and could not get

anything out of Grand Falls. It was pathetic. There were not asking for a paved

road. They were asking: Can you come down and grade it? Has there been a report

lately on the problems with the actual grading of gravel roads? That is what I

am getting to. I think that is not too much to ask for in my district, as well

as other districts, that if there are gravel roads there that at least we can

get the graders there and the maintenance done on the roads.

MR. WOODFORD: Grading and maintenance like that

has always been an ongoing thing. Now, weather conditions can have an affect on

that, too. If it is a real dry summer and so on, the boys up my way tell me that

they find it really hard to grade it. Then they get a heavy rain after they do

grade it and it is washed out. As to the regular maintenance program, I have not

known it to be cut back or anything. The situation that you describe with

regards to a grader down for five weeks, I don't understand that situation this

day and age.

MR. SHELLEY: Probably an exception, I guess.

MR. WOODFORD: It is probably the exception rather

than the rule. Do you know the situation there, Keith?

MR. WHITE: No, I do not know of any specifics but

if we have a need and there is a piece of equipment broke down, then we have

others in the system. I would expect that our managers in the regions would look

at those aspects and call on the resources that are needed. If the need is there

we will certainly react to it.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay, that is why I asked that

question today.

MR. WHITE: If we have to rent a piece of

equipment, so be it.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MR. WHITE: It is just standard operating

procedures with our regional people.

MR. SHELLEY: In a funny sort of way, if the

grading is done well and kept up at least that keeps everything down. Because I

will tell you, as one member here, and I have said it publicly anyway, I am not

into this blocking off roads and protesting and stuff like that. I never did

support it. It was all right if you are in the middle of an election when I got

taken hostage down on Brent's Cove Road, but, you know, really, the situation

right now I don't like. I don't support it, I don't like them doing it, but when

you are the member there and you have 500 people out blocking the road, then

what do you do? What I am saying is that helps. If the road is graded and is in

good shape at least you have some people settled down for a while and so on.

That is why I will lead into the last thing I will

mention today - it might sound like they are minor things, but they are not

minor to these communities - the grading, and the other one is calcium in the

summertime. I don't even want you to take the money and use it towards calcium

because I know the situation in your department.

At the same time, I have been there. I mean when

people want to go out for a walk or have their clothes are out on the line, it

is just nothing but a dust bowl if you have five days of sunshine. I know your

policy now is within the communities and you are trying to save that bit of

money: you haven't got to go further; you cannot do the whole highway. I

understand. I am even suggesting that you even extend it to a kilometre radius

outside of the community, maybe. I have thought about that. Something to just

settle down a little bit. I have seen one community where you say you go to the

last house. That is what the policy is, isn't it, the last house? It is a simple

silly example, but here is this missus with the load of clothes out. It sounds

good for everybody down on the other end of it, the harbour that goes around

like this, but she is stuck right on the dust bowl.

Even if you gave a little bit of leverage on it, may

be even a half kilometre. I am not trying to break your policy, but it is a

simple example that here are people down in these dirt road places that haven't

complained a lot who have said: For God's sake, come down - I won't say what she

said to put on the road - and do something with the road. Consider that extended

on the calcium, if it would not be too much into the budget because I don't want

to take nothing away from the road construction again. It is something

reasonable I think to ask for, and I have seen that in a number of communities,

(inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: In this situation now that is

exactly what I would have to do. Because it is in that budget, in that $60

million. Whatever I put back on the calcium side I would have to take off on the

road side. That is the thing, I have got nothing in maintenance.

MR. SHELLEY: I'm going to end my questions there,

just using that as an example to say that there is another situation to the

Budget. I'm going to continue to say that I think it is absolutely a tragedy now

when we can't say we can add a half kilometre of calcium because we are so tight

on road construction. I know it is so tight. I suppose I am a critic to a point

that something has to be done with this budget in provincial roads. I know you

all agree with that. You cannot nod your head there now, but you will. Because I

am telling you from the calcium to the grading of roads, to what we have to do

with road construction in this Province, if you put all that in one bucket, I

tell you what, it has to come to a head, one way or the other. I know, like Mr.

Lush has said, that it has to be done with a combination of federal funding but

at the same time the provincial budget has to raise on it too.

I know there are all kinds of arguments. I heard the

Premier talk about: Always looking for money for roads when they are looking for

money for health care. I guess that is the act of being government, you have to

balance those things out. All I can say is that more money has to go into this

provincial roads program one way or the other. I will finish with that.

MR. WOODFORD: You think you're frustrated. You are

looking after a district. Imagine sitting here as the minister with forty-seven

districts coming at you with a lousy $16 million to try to deal with. It is not

easy. There is no question we need money there but that is the name of the game

today.

MR. SHELLEY: That is it for me.

CHAIR: Just in closing, before we call for the

heads, minister and Barbara, as you know, I am probably one of the worst critics

for saying that we need more money for roads and pushing it. I would just like

to pass on that with what the staff got - I know who I deal with in Western

Newfoundland - they do a great job. I know they are there to help out at any

time they can. They are always very cooperative and always willing to sit down.

For any council that I know of that ever requested a meeting, they are there.

Just name the time, they are there. I would just like for you to pass on to the

staff that I deal with in Western Newfoundland that they are doing a great job

with the resources that they do have, and they are very cooperative and very

helpful with a lot of situations that could be worse without their direct

involvement.

I personally thank you very much, because I know that

they do help a lot, over and above what their resources allow them at times.

MR. SHELLEY: Not to interrupt you but to add on to

that, I never said anything about the depots. The same thing, the depots

(inaudible) with the fellows that have the (inaudible). I have no complaints

with them whatsoever. They are right there with everything they have, above and

beyond many times. It is certainly not a slight on any of them, the criticisms

we have. It is true, they have been (inaudible).

CHAIR: You do have a good staff that I deal with

out in Western Newfoundland, very cooperative, and I know the staff in St.

John's that I hammer at sometimes. Thank you for putting up with me, and thank

the staff out around who are very cooperative and do a good job.

I had one complaint in the last two years on the

highways on the north shore, one complaint for the whole North Shore, which is

about forty kilometres. That was from one person who, instead of the tractor

leaving Cox's Cove coming up, he wanted to leave to come down because he had to

get over to work a bit early. That is the only complaint in two years for a full

forty kilometres of road. That is a compliment to your staff and to the

department itself.

Thank you very much.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Mr. Chairman, just one quick

comment. From that my perspective I certainly want to congratulate the minister

on the superb job that he is doing and especially the staff. I must say you are

pretty prompt, you get back to us. You don't always solve the problem but in

most cases where it can be done it is done. For such a large department, from my

particular area certainly there are few complaints. You are doing a great job. I

want the record to show that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WOODFORD: I would like to say, Mr. Chairman,

on behalf of everyone, for the record, that I have been around now for some

fifteen years in provincial politics, and it is some of the best staff I have

ever worked with. We are working with a demanding department, the only working

department of government which have challenges presented to you every day and

every where you step. You get on a ferry, you get on an aircraft, you walk into

a building, you get on a road, you see it all, and it is right there in front of

everybody. I must say that the staff I have - not only the people around the

table here today, but other staff in the department - are excellent. As far as I

am concerned they are some of the best people I have every worked with, so I

would like to put that on the record.

CHAIR: Thank you.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 5.1.04 carried.

On motion, Department of Works, Services and

Transportation, total heads, carried.

The Committee adjourned.