Government Services Committee — Department of this government — 21 May 1992

1992-05-21

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

May 21, 1992

GOVERNMENT SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to S.O. 87, Mr. William Ramsay, MHA,

LaPoile, substitutes for Mr. Paul Dicks, MHA, Humber West.

The Committee met at 7:00 p.m. in the House of

Assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Ramsay): I call the meeting of

the Government Services Estimates Committee to order. My name is Bill Ramsay and

I will be filling in for the Chair of this Committee, Paul Dicks, who is away on

government business.

We have with us tonight members of the government

and Opposition. The government members here on the Committee are Larry Short,

MHA for St. George's; Doug Oldford, MHA for Trinity North; and John Crane, MHA

for Harbour Grace. We also have Sam Winsor, MHA for Fogo district.

Prior to having the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation introduce his staff, I will entertain a motion from the Committee

with regard to the Minutes of May 19, moved by Doug Oldford and seconded by

Larry Short.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

With that, I welcome the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, Aubrey Gover, to the Committee this evening to

review the Estimates from his department.

Mr. Minister, I ask you to introduce the officials

you have with you this evening. As well, to the officials, I would ask if any of

you speak or are directed by the minister to speak, could you please identify

yourselves prior to speaking for the sake of our recording up here. It makes it

a lot easier for the transcribers who do the typing afterwards.

Mr. Minister.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, to my immediate left is Mr. John

O'Reilly, the Acting Deputy Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; to

my immediate right is Mr. Terry McCarthy, the Acting Assistant Deputy Minister

of Transportation; on the end, to my right is Mr. Jack Balram, who is with the

C.A. Pippy Park Commission, whose estimates I am also responsible for; next to

Mr. Balram is Mr. George Greenland, the Assistant Deputy Minister for Works; on

the far end is Mr. Harold Stone, the Assistant Deputy Minister for

Administration; next to Mr. Stone is Ramona Cole, the Director of Financial

Operations. These are the staff I have with me tonight to assist me in answering

the questions that you may have.

Mr. Chairman, if I am permitted, I have a brief

opening statement that I would like to make before we actually begin the

questioning with respect to the Estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is fine.

MR. GOVER: It is certainly a unique opportunity

for me. It was only last year that I was on that side asking the questions, so

it will be interesting to see how it is on this side tonight.

Mr. Chairman, and hon. colleagues from the House of

Assembly: The Department of Works, Services and Transportation is the largest

department of this government. We provide facilities and services to the other

departments of government and to the general public.

The permanent staff complement is approximately

2,000 people, and we employ many other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on a

seasonal basis. We operate seven regional offices across the Province. We are

involved in programs such as building maintenance and construction, road

maintenance and construction, ferry operation, air services, government

purchasing, motor vehicle licensing and inspections.

With respect to road construction, the department's

road construction program for 1992-1993 consists of three federal/ provincial

cost-shared funding arrangements in addition to the provincial roads program.

The expenditures under the ERDA agreement for this

year total $11.03 million and consist of the completion of the Petit Forte

access road, the Curling waterfront road, and the Water Street West project.

Thirty million dollars has been budgeted under the Trans-Canada Highway

initiative; however, my department will be tendering to a value of $37.75

million to ensure an expenditure of $30 million. Twenty million dollars has been

budgeted under the Regional Trunk Roads agreement, and again, as in the case

with the Trans-Canada Highway initiative, my department will be tendering

projects to a value of $25 million to ensure a $20 million expenditure.

Funding of $25.5 million is being provided for the

provincial roads program in 1992-1993. Projects will be carried out throughout

the Province and have been allocated by my department on the basis of priority

needs. Some of the more noteworthy projects under the provincial road program

include: the paving of Greenspond Road; repairs to the Gander Bay causeway

bridge, including the addition of a sidewalk to that structure; four-laning a

section of Route 70 through Bay Roberts; paving approximately seven kilometres

of Route 335 from Stoneville towards the ferry terminal at Farewell; completion

of the resurfacing of the Fox Harbour Road; completion of the paving of Reefs

Harbour access road; and paving Eastport to Burnside.

Other road projects include: resurfacing on the

Buchans Road; paving on the Burlington Road and Westport Road on the Baie Verte

Peninsula; resurfacing the Boat Harbour access road; resurfacing approximately

five kilometres on Route 70 from Salmon Cove towards Black Head; replacement of

an existing bridge on the Shore Road, Bay Bulls; and other resurfacing,

rehabilitation and new paving projects in the Province, as well as bridge

construction and rehabilitation.

In addition to these programs, my department has

allocated $7.5 million for a new federal-provincial highways initiative.

Discussions on this program are ongoing with the Federal Government. In all, my

department will be tendering contracts to the value of $106.78 million. This

represents a substantial investment in the highway infrastructure and this

figure will increase, as it does not include the federal contribution to the new

initiative.

Construction of buildings is another aspect of the

department. In 1992-1993, the department will again undertake $4.4 million in

alterations to its existing building inventory. We will also be expending $26.2

million for new facilities. The majority of this funding will be used to

continue work on major projects including the Centre for Engineering Technology,

the Cancer Research Facility, the Gander Courthouse, and completion of the

extension to the Fisher Institute in Corner Brook. Also, $1 million is being

provided for a new clinic and nursing station at Nain.

Another very important aspect of the department's

operation, as I am sure Mr. Winsor will appreciate, is the Marine's Operations

Division. There are eight provincially-operated ferry services which move over

701,000 passengers and 274,000 vehicles during fiscal 1991-1992. This represents

a 9 per cent increase in passengers and an 8 per cent increase in vehicle

traffic, compared to the previous year. Intra-provincial ferry services will see

several improvements in the level of service during 1992-1993. For example, a

dedicated year-round ferry service will be provided for Little Bay Islands and

Long Island using the Inch Arran and the Island Joiner respectively. During

1991-1992, service to both of these islands was combined for a six-month period

using a single vessel. This year we have decided to go back to the separate

service.

A new provincial ferry service was begun on April

1, 1992 to serve the area of South East Bight and Petit Forte in Placentia Bay.

Until April, 1992 these communities were serviced by a federal service from

Argentia. In 1988 there was a federal-provincial agreement which saw the

construction of the road to Petit Forte and the provincial takeover of a ferry

service between South East Bight and Petit Forte. The number of weekly scheduled

crossings increased from two to eight with the provincial operation.

The separate vessel service to Fogo and Change

Islands will be provided for six months this year: in the summer, from June 15

to September 15, and during the winter, it is anticipated at the present time,

from February 1 until April 30. Previously, the two vessels service was only

provided for three months.

Air Services. The responsibility for overseeing the

Grenfell Regional Health Service medical air transportation system has been

transferred to Works, Services and Transportation from the Department of Health.

The purpose of the transfer is to consolidate total provincial air

transportation requirements in one area for increased effectiveness.

Vehicle Fleet Management. Funding of $2.3 million

has been provided to replace old or light vehicles throughout the government. In

1991-1992 we reduced the vehicle fleet by removing those vehicles which were

considered surplus. We will now replace the oldest remaining vehicles, thereby

further reducing maintenance costs and providing a more effective and dependable

vehicle fleet. My department is continuing to assess the vehicle fleet in order

to achieve greater efficiency.

In Labrador, Trail Grooming, which are basically

the winter roads for Labrador: in the past several years, funding of $60,000 has

been provided to two development associations in Labrador. This year, that

amount of funding has been increased to $140,000 with the allocation to be

determined at a later date.

Motor Vehicle Registration. During the year 1991,

this Province experienced a dramatic decrease in the number of fatalities and

injuries resulting from motor vehicle accidents. In 1989 there were eighty-nine

fatalities; in 1990 there were sixty-nine; and in 1991 there were forty-eight.

It is increasing to note that this decrease in fatalities occurred while the

number of drivers and vehicles in the Province was increasing. This can be

attributed to an aggressive government advertising campaign with respect to

drinking and driving, the demerit point system, and the wearing of seat belts.

It is worth noting that this Province tied for second place at a 90.6 seat belt

wearing rate in Canada. This placed us as one of the world leaders in seat belt

usage.

Mr. Chairman, those brief remarks, will conclude my

opening statement to the Committee with respect to the Estimates. I am sure,

both myself and my staff will endeavour to answer the questions that Committee

members have as a result of the opening statement and as a result of the numbers

contained in the Estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your

statement. If the government members don't mind, I will turn it over to the

Opposition members, initially, and either - well, Mr. Winsor was here first, or

if he wants to allow Mr. Tobin to go first. It is up to you.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The

minister indicated that there is $25.5 million for provincial roads.

MR. GOVER: That is current, yes.

MR. WINSOR: Those are the ones that are

exclusively the jurisdiction of the Province. He highlighted some that were

being done. He said it is based on - and perhaps we will have an interchange

instead of asking a series of questions, just back and forth, if that is

permissible?

MR. GOVER: That is fine with me.

MR. WINSOR: He highlighted a number of things

that are being done on a priority basis. What criteria are used in establishing

priority as to what road is going to be done or not done? What exactly are the

criteria?

MR. GOVER: The criteria and the guiding

principles that have governed the administration of the provincial roads program

since this administration took power in May of 1989, have been the principles

which the Liberal Party campaigned on in the last election, which were the

principles of fairness and balance - which means that road projects should be

allocated on the basis of need, and solely on the basis of need. Any political

considerations should be excluded. Because a particular district or a particular

road happens to be an Opposition member's jurisdiction, it shouldn't be

automatically dismissed, merely because that member happens to be on the

Opposition side of the House.

So we try to set out a roads program on the basis

of fairness and balance and on the basis of need. In coming to that particular

list of projects, I guess I should first explain that the program is broken down

into segments. There are three segments in the program. One is bridge

construction and rehabilitation; one is the rehabilitation of existing paved

roads; and I guess the third component is the paving of new roads to be added to

the inventory, roads that are gravel roads at the present time. I guess, along

the same line, is the upgrading of gravel roads in preparation for paving.

As to the criteria used in how this comes about,

obviously, input is solicited from our employees dispersed throughout the

Province, it is received by the officials here in St. John's, and it is also

received from the Members of the House of Assembly who are asked to provide

their assessment of the priorities in their district. A recommended list is

compiled to go to Cabinet, and then Cabinet makes a decision as to the roads to

be done in the Province. I guess that is basically the process as to how the

list is established.

MR. WINSOR: The minister might say that is the

criteria, but that is obviously not the case. I want to go back - there are two

communities in the mainland

section of my district in Aspen Cove and Ladle Cove

that have been there since there has been a road. There has been no pavement in

the last three years and neither was there a number of years before, except that

back in the 1970s the roads through the communities were paved. The branch was

untouched. The road to Island Harbour and Deep Bay is in the same condition now

as it was a number of years ago. But when I look at the neighbouring district

that is adjacent to mine, the District of Bonavista North, I saw last year a

major expenditure on a road to Cape Freels. I don't deny that they need a road,

as well, but Cape Freels has a population of about 100 people at its maximum.

That road is brought up to a standard now ready to be paved, yet the communities

of Aspen Cove and Ladle Cove with a population of 500 don't get pavement.

In the last two or three years there has been a

major expenditure of money on the Greenspond Road - major. This year it will be

completely paved, yet the fact of the matter is this is a new road. It has only

been built in the last ten years. Prior to that it was serviced by a ferry. The

road was initially put in for a number of years and never, ever used. So the

minister can't explain it as being a need, a priority, because if you use the

population component and, on the other hand, have to travel seventeen miles to

the nearest school - and in the case of Fogo it is an equal distance. Yet, no

consideration has been given to doing either of these roads.

Another road in the Gander Bay area of my district,

for four years now, has required one mile of paving. A massive amount of heavy

equipment is going over this road on a daily basis. A large wood contractor in

this Province cuts most of their wood in this area along the Gander River, and

yet request after request has done nothing to alleviate the situation.

Now, surely, the minister is not telling me that

these areas have been treated with the fairness and balance that he seems to

indicate when I look at the adjacent district and see major expenditures of

money for far less population and in an area where traffic considerations are

not nearly as great as the areas that I have mentioned. Now, how can the

minister explain that?

MR. GOVER: My guess would be that over the

years there has been a considerable build-up of need in Fogo district, perhaps,

in large measure, because prior to this administration taking power in 1989, as

is my suspicion, the road program was allocated on a basis other than that of

fairness and balance.

But I think what the member points to is a very

real problem, and I think any member sitting on the Committee, in fact, any

member in the House of Assembly, could bring up arguments to the same effect

with respect to roads in their district. I am sure I could do so with respect to

roads in my district. Why are roads being done in Trinity North and roads not

being done in my district? I am sure Mr. Crane could say, Well, why are roads

being done in Carbonear district and not in Harbour Grace district? We all have

an unique perception of the problem, being members for that particular district.

And it is only right, as members for that particular district, that we advocate

the needs of our district above and beyond the needs of any other district. I

suppose that is why our constituents send us here - to advocate that their needs

be addressed.

The need in this Province for road work, for bridge

construction, for rehabilitation and for new roads is immense. And the need for

roads exceeds the budgeted amount by several times, by several orders, just as

in Municipal Affairs the need for 60-40 roads and the need for water and sewer

exceed the budgeted amount. I think in Municipal Affairs eight times the

requests come in for the amount that is budgeted. Also, with respect to this

particular program, the needs in the Province are several times the amount of

money in the program.

Therefore, unfortunately, each and every year roads

will not be done, because there are insufficient dollars to do them, not that

the department doesn't recognize that there is a need for these roads to be

done. The government, this year as in other years, I am sure, has found itself

in a position - in particular, in this year -

MR. WINSOR: Pork barrelling. It's called pork

barrelling.

MR. GOVER: No, it's not.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. GOVER: I think, if one looked at the list,

one could see that there has been a considerable expenditure of funds in

districts represented by Opposition members. I believe the Member for Burin -

Placentia West has three projects in his district. The point I want to make is

that -

MR. WINSOR: Federal?

MR. TOBIN: Five.

MR. GOVER: - we have - five, is it? - three, I

thought.

MR. WINSOR: Federal, most of them, are they?

MR. GOVER: We have three provincial ones, I

think.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GOVER: The point is that this Province has

an A- credit rating and we cannot jeopardize that credit rating on current or

capital account and slip into the B credit rating. Because if we slipped into

the B credit rating we could not raise sufficient capital dollars to undertake a

roads program of any kind; or if we could raise that kind of money, the interest

rates would be so exorbitant they would crowd out other expenditures on current

account, which would have a severe detrimental impact on the public

administration of this Province.

So we spend what we feel we can spend without

jeopardizing our credit rating, and unfortunately, that does not address all the

needs in the Province in any given year. In order to address all the needs in

the Province in any given year there would have to be an expenditure probably in

the hundreds of millions of dollars. I would note that the approved projects for

Burin - Placentia West are three.

MR. WINSOR: I want to get back to my question.

My initial question was: What criteria does the minister use? The minister has

gone on with a lot of rhetoric - that means nothing. The question is: What

criteria - or what determines if Community A, with a population of 400, is going

to get some consideration for road work, and Community B, with a population of

50, the same distance from the existing highway, gets funding? Now in the

Municipal Affairs one they have a rating sheet, whereby a certain number of

points are assessed for a number of things - health, environment, financial

considerations, and other circumstances, if you don't make the rating sheet, you

fall off the edge.

I don't see any such thing in Works, Services and

Transportation, with roads. I have to tell the minister, it seems to me when I

look at the list that was approved, it is being blatantly political to say that

the major road construction was done in districts represented by people on this

side. I have no choice but to think otherwise. In the district that I represent,

we had one little bit of funding in the Gander Bay area, an area where, for four

years I have been asking to have a light put on the causeway because it is

inherently dangerous there. Now I see finally, this year they are going to put a

sidewalk there to address the problem. I know the minister has found a little

work in Fogo that is our prior commitment. It has been ongoing for a number of

years because the road has been torn up through the entire town and you are just

replacing what was already there. But the areas that have gravel roads, the same

gravel roads now as they had three years ago - and the minister has not

satisfactorily explained the criteria. What determines if this

section is going

to get the work, or another

section of road?

MR. GOVER: I think that Mr. Winsor has pointed

out considerations which are taken into account: population, usage, volume of

traffic, potential economic development. Also, the condition of the roadbed

itself has to be a major, major factor. Obviously, we try to determine if one

road surface is more deteriorated than another, that ranks higher in need due to

its level of deterioration. If one bridge is in worse shape than another, then

obviously, the bridge that is in worse shape has to be repaired first.

I mean, you must realize that the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation has depots scattered throughout the Province.

MR. WINSOR: Yes.

MR. GOVER: We have employees throughout the

Province whose job it is to maintain these roads on a year-round basis.

MR. WINSOR: Yes.

MR. GOVER: So they do require some familiarity

with the conditions of the roads in the Province. That information is filtered

back through the department so that a decision can be made as to where the need

for road work is. For example, you say it is blatant pork barrelling, and that

is the motivating factor in determining the provincial roads program. But

looking at Fogo district, I see here for this year, out of a $25.5 million

program, Fogo district has three projects, and the estimated cost on those

projects would place Fogo district almost at the top of the districts that

received funding.

MR. WINSOR: What are the projects?

MR. GOVER: There are three projects listed:

repairs to the Gander Bay causeway, including the addition of the sidewalk to

the structure -

MR. WINSOR: Yes.

MR. GOVER: - replacement of culverts at Weir's

Brook -

MR. WINSOR: That is not in Fogo district.

MR. GOVER: - and Island Pond, Route 330, Gander

Bay Road with new arch culverts, and paving 1.4 kilometres of the main road

through the town of Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Yes.

MR. GOVER: Now, I am looking at the estimated

cost for those projects. I can certainly tell you, Sir, you are well up there in

the amount of funding that has been allocated to your district. For example, if

you say that it has been political patronage with respect to this program, let's

just look at what the former ministers and the current minister have for their

district. I would say that the amount of funding, the estimated cost for Fogo

district is at least three times the amount of funding for Gander district,

which had the Acting Minister of Transportation.

MR. WINSOR: Yes, and no road left in there to

pave. Don't be so silly, boy!

MR. TOBIN: Jim Morgan did it all for years.

MR. GOVER: The amount for Fogo is probably four

times the amount that I have received in Bonavista South district.

MR. WINSOR: Only because it is all done then.

MR. TOBIN: Jim Morgan did it all, boy!

MR. WINSOR: Compared to Gander (inaudible)

crazy.

MR. GOVER: I would say your funding exceeds

three times the estimated amount of funding for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. In fact,

it does. So I would say -

MR. WINSOR: How about the federal programs?

MR. GOVER: Well, I mean, federal programs - I

would say to the member, that he has received for Fogo district, by far and away

his fair share of the $25.5 million allocation of funds - when I can see just

flipping through this that he is probably in the top five, six, seven, eight

districts in the Province. So I must commend the member for doing so well for

Fogo district, and I must say that he should give us some credit for doing it on

the basis of need and not on the basis of politics.

MR. WINSOR: Surely goodness, the minister is

not suggesting that a culvert in the Weir's Brook area, that is not even in the

district - there is not one human being living within ten miles of Weir's Brook.

There is an access road from Gander Bay to Gander, if the minister doesn't know

where it is. It has no more to do with Fogo district than it has to do with the

moon - absolutely none. The sidewalk that he referred to, that he is going to

install, I don't know how many people are going to drive over that sidewalk. The

1.4 kilometres in Fogo is pavement that is presently being torn up as a result

of water and sewer construction. That has been an ongoing commitment - it has

been torn up for three years. You are only replacing what was there. There is

nothing new in that.

MR. GOVER: I would just like to say to the

member that again he illustrates the fact that fairness and balance is in

operation. Because if fairness and balance were not in place, there would be no

water and sewer put in there to tear up the road. If the member doesn't think

that these projects are valuable projects which will not assist his

constituents, if he feels these projects are not worthwhile, then, by all means,

let me know, and tell me they're not worthwhile, and tell me to cancel them, so

I can put them in the areas of the Province which do need them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyway -

MR. WINSOR: My time is up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is all for the Member for

Fogo at this time.

We have with us the MHA for Burin - Placentia West,

Mr. Glen Tobin. He is the critic for the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation, as I understand it, here in the House. Based on that, I ask the

Committee members to keep order here.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, if

he is interested, at the behest of the Committee, will be allowed to ask some

questions. Does the Committee mind? No problem?

MR. CRANE: No - no way, Sir, let him ask

questions, because (inaudible) he gets up and (inaudible) the minister.

MR. GOVER: Actually, he alleges I was one of

his best poll captains.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The hon. Member for Burin -

Placentia West, Mr. Tobin.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if I said

he was one of my best poll captains, but I did say he did a good job on the poll

that he was captain for when he ran - and as a matter of fact, he did a great

job at organizing my victory parties. And he was rather straightforward at that

point in time. There were none of these long-winded speeches that meant nothing.

Anyway, apart from his organizational skills in my election campaigns, I want to

very briefly ask the minister a few questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tobin, maybe if we could have

you go back and forth in some manner it would be more entertaining for those who

are just sitting.

MR. TOBIN: I would rather go back and forth

than have the minister make those long-winded speeches! Just a very few brief

comments, Mr. Chairman. I am wondering, can the minister can tell us if there

has been an assessment established of community roads around the Province?

MR. GOVER: What type?

MR. TOBIN: Has your department done a

re-assessment of community connector roads around the Province - assessment of

the needs of these community roads?

MR. GOVER: Roads within communities? Have we

done an assessment of the need?

MR. TOBIN: Has that been prioritized?

MR. GOVER: In the priorities? As I indicated to

Mr. Winsor, all roads in the inventory of the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation are initially considered under the provincial roads program. I

don't know exactly what the assessment is, of which the member speaks.

MR. TOBIN: What I am asking is if the

assessment of the community connector roads done around the Province to

basically establish and publish a paving and reconstruction priority program -

is something like that going on in your department so that all communities would

know when their projects are going to take place?

MR. GOVER: I believe the government is giving

consideration to bringing forward a five-year capital plan.

MR. TOBIN: At what stage is that right now?

MR. GOVER: With respect to developing a five-

year capital plan for the Department of Works, Services and Transportation as it

relates to road construction and road rehabilitation, it is in the process of

being worked on but it is not finalized at this point in time.

MR. TOBIN: When will all of the communities in

the Province know where the priorities are, and when the work will take place?

MR. GOVER: As of the present moment, the

programs will be continued to be administered. We are talking about the

provincial roads program now. At the present point in time, the provincial roads

program will continue to be administered on a year-to-year basis until such time

as the government sees fit to bring forward a five-year capital plan.

MR. TOBIN: Actually, I guess, the minister is

confused. I am reading from the Liberals' 1989 Campaign Policy Manual that

stated: A Liberal Government will do an immediate assessment of community

connector roads around the Province, establish and publish a paving and

reconstruction priority program on the basis of need and not on political

allegiance. Every part of the Province will know from the beginning when its

local roads will be done, and will have the satisfaction of knowing that its

timing is based on need.

That is what I am asking. It was promised three

years ago, and from what the minister is saying, it is another broken promise. I

can accept that among many.

MR. GOVER: May I just respond to that, Mr.

Chairman?

MR. TOBIN: Let me ask the minister, the fact

that he has acknowledged he has broken that promise -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let the minister respond to that,

Mr. Tobin.

MR. TOBIN: I never asked him the question. It

is a statement and he can respond to (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just let him respond.

MR. GOVER: Well, you know, with respect to that

particular campaign statement in the campaign manual, certainly, one aspect of

that has already been carried out - I would say, judging from the polls, to the

great delight of the people of the Province - which is that now they have the

assurance that the needs in this Province are being assessed on a priority

basis, on a basis that is fair and balanced, that they have an equal chance to

obtain funding regardless of where they live, regardless if their member is in

the government or in the Opposition. And, with respect to the publication of a

plan of road work in the Province, this matter is being worked on by the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation, but at the present time we

would not be prepared to bring forward a five-year capital plan, because it is

not complete at the present point in time. For the present time, we intend to

consider road work in the Province on a year-to-year basis, as we have been

doing in the past.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tobin.

MR. TOBIN: I am delighted that I have made the

minister aware of what is in the policy manual, because obviously, he wasn't

before. Based on the statement he just made that one aspect has been completed,

let me ask him this - I will ask him for a truthful answer: Were there any

projects that were submitted to Cabinet, recommended by your officials to be

approved, that were rejected, and any not recommended that were approved?

MR. GOVER: As the member is aware,

recommendations to Cabinet and discussions in Cabinet are a matter of the

strictest confidence, which I took an oath not to divulge, and I do not intend

here tonight to break my oath. What I can assure the member and the members of

the public is that the list that was announced by me for the provincial roads

program was based upon fairness and balance and the perceived needs in the

Province as they stood at that particular time.

MR. TOBIN: Let me ask the minister if there

were any roads approved? Were there any roads included in the MC that came down

from Cabinet that were not recommended by the officials of your department?

MR. GOVER: All roads announced under the $25.5

million program, as approved by Cabinet, were identified needs within the

Province - not only identified needs, but priority needs, needs that had to be

addressed with the $25.5 million before any other needs in the Province were

addressed.

MR. TOBIN: What I am asking you is: Were there

any roads included on the MC in transportation that were not included on the

Cabinet paper that went up?

MR. GOVER: The member, Mr. Chairman, is asking

me to divulge and to betray the confidence of Cabinet, which I am sworn to

uphold. I can assure the member that, unlike the situation prior to 1989, these,

in the department's opinion, and in government's opinion, are the needs that

have to be addressed. In my view and in the government's view, these were the

needs that had to be addressed with the $25.5 million - that is all I can say -

that as the MC came down and as the roads were announced, these were the

priority roads as the government saw them.

MR. TOBIN: Can the minister tell me if the road

from Little Bay to Beau Bois was included in the recommended list to Cabinet?

MR. GOVER: Mr. Chairman, again, the member

knows what he is asking me to do is impossible. If he were over here - and he

has been the Minister of Transportation - and I were over there asking the same

question of him, he could no more respond to it than I could.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tobin, I would ask that you

ask questions that the minister is able to answer. You are an intelligent

person, I think, and do understand the premise on which you ask these questions

and know that certain answers cannot be divulged. So, rather than ask redundant

questions maybe you could ask something that could be answered.

Mr. Tobin.

MR. TOBIN: I am intelligent enough, as a matter

of fact, to know that you cannot decide on the questions I want to ask, and I am

intelligent enough to know that the minister has the right to answer or not to

answer, and he has chosen not to answer. The reason why he has chosen not to

answer is because what I am saying is factual and what he is saying is not.

In any case, let me ask the minister a district

question, I guess. For some time in my own district we have had a couple of

ongoing projects. One project that started in my district, I say to the

minister, was the road from Creston Boulevard, which he is familiar with, going

up to Creston South to go to Little Bay. We started that some years ago and it

was done in stages. It was done in two or three different stages. The final

stage that was done in 1988 was the construction of the Little Bay bridge, and

then, the final stage of that would be the resurfacing of the road from Little

Bay Bridge to the community of Little Bay to Beau Bois. And I think, if my

memory serves me correctly, the funding is about $200,000 - what it cost. That

was a project that was ongoing, with so much being done every year. Another

project was the road from the Burin Peninsula Highway to Spanish Room, that was

completed to the Cow Head facility, with some resurfacing being done, I guess,

in the community of Spanish Room. The final phase of that was to do from Spanish

Room to Rock Harbour, and in the past three years, I say to the minister, we

have not received any funding for either of these projects that were considered

ongoing projects, with so much being done each year in those two communities. I

would like to ask him why this was not done and if he considers it a priority of

his department.

MR. GOVER: These are roads to be funded under

federal agreements.

MR. TOBIN: No, provincial.

MR. GOVER: Totally provincial.

MR. TOBIN: Yes. I am sure your officials are

aware of the road and I though you would be, too. You know what I am talking

about, Minister, it is the road from Creston Boulevard to Little Bay, going

right out Marine Drive.

MR. GOVER: Going out by the subdivision there?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, going on out past the E. P.

Reddy subdivision. That was all upgraded. There was so much done a year,

probably half-a-million dollars, or a million dollars, in some cases, done each

year for about six years, I guess, because it was done in sections. In 1988, I

guess, was the last phase that anything was done, when we built the bridge. I

think it was 1988. One of your officials would know, anyway.

Since then - since government changed, let me put

it that way, there has been no allocation of funding to complete that project,

which includes a very desperate paving situation - it is probably better up than

it is down; it needs to be resurfaced - and the road to Beau Bois, which is

approximately one kilometre, part of that entire program outlined by your

officials.

MR. GOVER: Yes, okay. With respect to that

particular matter, or those particular roads, roads being totally funded under

the provincial roads program, again my answer has to be the same as my previous

answers, which is, if no work has been commenced on those roads since 1988 - and

I take the member's word for it - that, in the government's view, these roads

were less of a priority nature than other roads in the Province, and less of a

priority than other roads in Burin - Placentia West, for example, this year,

less of a priority than the resurfacing of the Boat Harbour access road. That is

the reason I can give you as to why there has been no work commenced on these

particular roads - it is that when the priorities are determined, obviously,

these roads do not rank high enough, given a funding allocation of $25.5

million, to fund them, in the years since the last work on them was done.

MR. TOBIN: Would it be possible that that road

would be listed high on the priority list, probably even higher than some

projects that have been approved for my own district, in the submission to

Cabinet? If that is the case, why would it not have stayed -

MR. GOVER: I can indicate, as the member knows

full well, that the priority needs for Burin - Placentia West were: the

resurfacing of Boat Harbour; the upgrading and paving of Round Pond Hill, Baine

Harbour Road; and the construction of walkways through the community of South

East Bight. These were the priority needs as determined by the government in the

district of Burin - Placentia West. Those two roads were determined by the

government to be of lower priority than these three items in the district of

Burin - Placentia West, and of lower priority than the other roads included in

the $25.5 million.

MR. TOBIN: Just another question to the

minister. By the way, he knows where I'm coming from because I have already

discussed this with him. He knows what I know, put it that way. Anyway, having

said that - in the absence of any media, I make that comment. Because both of us

discussed this - not that he told me anything, I knew it.

I would just like to briefly ask the minister in a

very sincere way, what is the situation with the Winterland airstrip? I know -

we talked about that, and I don't want to get on with any politics or anything

else. The money is there to build the airstrip and there is a request to the

Province, as I understand it, to do the road, or whatever the case may be.

Again, I will just go a little further, if I may, in connection with that.

Mr. Crosbie was on the Burin Peninsula recently and

met with several groups down there, the joint councils, the Marystown council,

the Burin council, the Chamber of Commerce, and all these groups that have been

involved in lobbying for that. I guess the request that was made - he basically

said: Look, the money is there for the airstrip, which is a federal

responsibility. The roads are a provincial responsibility and they handle it. I

understand, as well, that probably in the initial stages, the Federal Government

was saying something to the effect that: 'In order for us to spend the money we

want the road upgraded.' I think the request now is for a commitment to upgrade

the road and they will spend the money? Also, I think that people in some of the

groups that met with you - and I think you were minister then, (inaudible) the

Chamber of Commerce; I'm not sure if you were. Probably I am being unfair.

In any case, what was being said and what has been

said, is make a commitment. If you can't do it all in one year make a commitment

to do it over two or three years, and at least bring it up to an acceptable

level right now. We are a bit concerned that we may lose that federal funding

for the upgrading of the airport if the Province doesn't in some way acknowledge

that they are going to make a commitment to do that. It is going to have a

negative effect, particularly on the commerce of the area.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Glenn. Sometimes, Glenn,

I wish I knew what you knew. I would be able to better anticipate the questions.

I just say that in a facetious manner.

Yes, when I met with, I believe it was

representation from the Town of Marystown, they raised the issue of the

Winterland airstrip. As you are aware, the Province has maintained that the

Federal Government should either upgrade the road or provide a new road to a

sufficient standard to that particular airstrip.

That is still the Province's position. I, as

minister, still want the Federal Government to make an acceptable access to the

airstrip. I want the federal Minister of Transportation to make that commitment

to the Province, to provide a suitable access so that the residents of the Burin

Peninsula can use that airstrip - and not only the residents of the Burin

Peninsula, but all the residents of the Province. As we both know - you more

than I, because you live there, but I, having lived there - there is no doubt

that these are difficult economic times on the Burin Peninsula, and in the

Marystown area. And there is no doubt that the expenditure of those funds would

provide some measure of relief - it wouldn't be the total answer by a long shot

- to the residents of the Burin Peninsula.

So, having considered that, I will advise the

member that I have signed the agreement. I want the federal minister to review

his position on road access. But, as for the expenditure of funds to upgrade the

Winterland airstrip, those items included in the agreement, I have signed the

agreement, Sir, in order to give the residents of the Burin Peninsula and of the

Province a better air service and to provide some economic stimulation to the

Burin Peninsula, in particular, the Marystown area. I would like the federal

minister to review his position on the access road, but, Sir, I have signed the

agreement.

MR. TOBIN: I was aware that you were certainly

considering signing the agreement. Let me ask the minister then: When he is

saying that he has signed the agreement - and I am delighted that it has finally

been signed, because it has been there now for almost a year - that means that

the work on the airport will go ahead now under federal guidelines. Does it also

mean that while you have asked the minister to review it, if he does, and his

decision then is as it is now, that the Province is responsible for provincial

roads to airports, if that position is maintained by the Federal Government,

will your department, over a period of a few years, be upgrading and making the

road accessible, or at an accessible level I guess, to the people of the area?

The road that is there needs to have some work carried out.

I guess what I am asking you is: Now that the

agreement is signed for the feds to go ahead and construct and make the

necessary repairs to the airport, which is federal responsibility, are you going

to accept the provincial responsibility and make the necessary improvements to

the provincial road?

MR. GOVER: At this point in time, it is

certainly my position that this access road should be undertaken by the Federal

Government. If the Federal Government refuses to do it, I suppose the Federal

Government will have to bear the responsibility for that. But I have signed the

agreement. Work can commence with respect to the projects in the agreement which

are projects for the improvement of the airport facilities themselves.

There is no point in building an airport in the

middle of a desert with no access road to the airport - just as the airport at

St. John's would be useless if there were no road in to the airport. At a

certain point in time, one has to logically conclude that an access road to

service an airport is as much a part of the airport as the hanger, the apron or

any other physical structure on the airport. Therefore, the access road, in my

opinion, is a federal responsibility and I am asking the federal minister to

assume that responsibility, just as he has assumed it for the apron and the

hanger. Building an airport without an access to it is useless. The access is

part and parcel of the airport.

In order to provide economic stimulation to the

residents of the Burin Peninsula, I decided not to prolong my battle with the

federal minister over that issue, in the sense of letting the work proceed.

Still, I maintain my position, it is his responsibility, and I urged him in my

correspondence to him to review his decision on the road and I hope he does so.

I hope he gives the people of the Burin Peninsula what they deserve, which is an

access to an airstrip. It is an aeronautical access and a federal

responsibility, and I hope he provides it to them. If he does not, he will have

to answer for that.

MR. TOBIN: Let me ask the minister: Who now

owns the road from the Winterlands Salt Pond Road through the community of

Winterland to the airport, and who snow-clears it, the Federal Government or the

Provincial Government?

MR. GOVER: Who owns it now is totally

immaterial.

MR. TOBIN: I don't think it is immaterial. I

asked you a question: Who owns it now? - for my benefit and the benefit of

others.

MR. GOVER: We do - the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation.

MR. TOBIN: But you are going to ask the feds to

take it over - that's what you are trying to do.

MR. GOVER: We can't let the Province be put in

a position where the Federal Government decides to construct an aeronautics

facility -

MR. TOBIN: But the airport is there.

MR. GOVER: - twenty miles off an access road

and then says: Province, you put in the access road. That is the principle

involved.

MR. TOBIN: The access road is there. The

airport is there. People have been using the airport for the past ten or fifteen

years. There are cars going back and forth there every day. Your department has

been snow-clearing it for the past ten or fifteen years in terms of getting

access to the airport. It is not out in a desert, like you said. I find it

insulting to the people of the Burin Peninsula, that someone who called it home

for a while would refer to the area as a desert. The Burin Peninsula is thriving

- or was thriving, until the last three years - and it is not a desert. The

communities are made up of hard-working men and women. Anyway, that's beside the

point.

The Province owns the road. The Province has

maintained the road. There is access to the airstrip by the Province. Forget all

that blarney. Whatever it costs to do it, you know the Federal Government are

not going to take over responsibility for provincial roads and start paving and

upgrading and everything else. I think that is just a red herring that you're

dragging into this.

Are you, Sir, and your department, going to accept

the responsibilities and make the necessary improvements to the airstrip so that

we, in Marystown, Burin, Grand Bank, Fortune and Winterland can drive to an

airstrip, on a paved highway, in time, hopefully, the same as the residents of

other parts of this Province enjoy - roads that are owned, operated and

maintained by your department, to airstrips?

MR. GOVER: Mr. Chairman, I fully realize that

the people of the Burin Peninsula are very hard-working, very industrious, and

very entrepreneurial. It was my privilege to, in fact, work on the Burin

Peninsula for a few years, and the member's comments are quite correct. The

people on the Burin Peninsula are very hard-working and very industrious.

I didn't characterize the Winterland airstrip as a

desert. What I sought to do was illustrate a principle, that at a certain point

in time and at a certain juncture, a road to an airport is part of the

infrastructure of the airport. For example, I'm sure if you drive into the

airport in St. John's there comes a certain point along that road where the

property is divided, where there is a sign erected by the Federal Government

delimiting the boundaries of the airport, and I am sure, a certain

section of

that road is within federal responsibility. The principle here is that an access

to an airport should be a federal responsibility. If the member wants to see

this road improved to the standard that is required to give an adequate level of

service to the residents of the Burin Peninsula and to the other residents of

the Province, I would ask him to urge his federal colleague to agree with my

recommendation to review his decision and reverse his position so that these

people can have the service they require. The member is quite right. Given the

fact that the Federal Government are withdrawing every year, not only in

relative terms but in absolute dollar terms, more and more support from this

Province, he may well not reverse his decision. But these trends must be

reversed and the Federal Government must assume responsibility for that which is

federal, so I urge him, to urge along with me, that the federal minister provide

the access that is appropriate for that particular airstrip.

MR. TOBIN: Personally, I couldn't care less who

provides the access, as long as it is done, but I can tell you, Minister, that I

do find it somewhat insulting and demeaning to the people of the Burin Peninsula

that you, Sir, want to shirk your responsibilities and treat them differently

from other people who have airports in this Province, and not provide a decent

road to the airport, even though they have one there now, yet you do it for

other areas of the Province. There are other areas today in rural Newfoundland

where you can drive to airstrips and I would suggest some of them are even paved

roads, yet you, Sir, are refusing to do the same thing, to accept your

responsibilities as the provincial Minister of Transportation with

responsibilities for that road that the Provincial Government has put there, has

maintained and operated over the past ten or twelve years; yet you want to be

demeaning to the people of the Burin Peninsula and treat them differently from

somebody else. Will you just look at yourself as a provincial minister of a

provincial legislature, with some responsibility other than blaming everything

on Ottawa. Accept your responsibilities, be a big man in the sense of

responsibility, get on with it, do what needs to be done and stop agonizing the

people of that area with the old childish, petty foolishness that was in the

letter that Winst Baker wrote John Crosbie because he made an announcement

without consulting him first.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think your question has been

answered repeatedly. I know you have asked the same question and it seems we

have sort of beat this one to death. If the minister wants to respond, fine, but

I wanted to allow you some time to get into another topic if you did want to do

so.

Mr. Minister, if you have nothing further on that

then I will ask Mr. Tobin to get into something else.

MR. GOVER: As I have indicated, Mr. Chairman,

it is not my intention to demean anybody, anywhere in this Province. In fact,

the motivating factor for my signature on the agreement, notwithstanding the

outstanding issue of the road, was to benefit the people of the Burin Peninsula.

If that is demeaning, to provide some benefit to the people of the Burin

Peninsula, well, that is the member's

interpretation of demeaning. I signed the

agreement, notwithstanding this outstanding issue, in order to provide some

economic stimulation which is much needed in that particular area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tobin, I would like for you

to be able to get into something else now. I have given you leave of the

Committee for this period of time, but I want to check with the Committee to see

if they are willing to let you proceed and, if so, we will let you go on for

another little while. Is the Committee willing to allow Mr. Tobin to proceed?

MR. TOBIN: Just one further question, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. TOBIN: Let me ask the minister this: Did he

sign the agreement in totality or is the agreement just signed pending the

approval of the road? Is the agreement signed, that the federal minister wanted

signed?

MR. GOVER: It is signed off totally. I have

signed off the agreement and work can commence. I have indicated to the federal

minister that I would like him to review his decision with respect to the road

and reverse it, but that will not hold up the work.

MR. TOBIN: Let me ask the minister this: In

terms of the Motor Registration Division -

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just want to check with the

Committee here. Does any other Committee member who hasn't spoken have anything

to say right now? Mr. Oldford, you indicated you wanted something.

MR. OLDFORD: No, you asked if we would let him

go on, and I said, give me a chance to think about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, okay. Well, Mr. Crane, you

also looked to be a bit anxious.

MR. CRANE: No, (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Tobin, your leave has

been withdrawn temporarily and pending Mr. Crane's questions, or any of the

others. So, Mr. Crane.

MR. CRANE: Well, I don't mind our giving Glenn

and his friend all the time in the world to ask questions and I don't mind them

drilling the minister. But it is not questions - half of it is just pure darn

political...bullshit! That's what we are sick of listening to on these

Committees. These two fellows here, they were in the - well, one wasn't in

government, but the other was for the last ten years, and they treated Liberal

districts like the dirt under their feet. They gave them nothing. This fellow

has been in there three years, and he has gotten more out of this government

than any member on this side.

MR. WINSOR: Good member.

MR. CRANE: Not a good member. You shouldn't be

getting anything and if I were the Minister of Transportation, you wouldn't be -

you would be here degrading me - you would have to degrade me, because you would

get nothing. I am sick of that stuff in every darn meeting. If you come here to

ask questions, then ask questions. If you want to drill the minister, then drill

the minister. But I am sick of coming in, hearing you degrade the ministers

about what you are not getting.

MR. TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CRANE: Never mind a point of order, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. TOBIN: A point of order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Crane, I understand -

MR. TOBIN: A point of order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a second. You are not a

member of the Committee and your leave was withdrawn, so your point of order is

out of order. Mr. Crane, I would ask that you withdraw your comment that was a

bit of profane language, just for the sake of the record.

MR. CRANE: (Inaudible) He said, 'If there's any

propanity there I'll withdraw it.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Alright, if you would just

withdraw that.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, can I raise a point of

order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tobin, without the leave of

the Committee, you can't raise a point of order if Mr. Crane would like to

continue, unless the members of the Committee are willing to allow you a point

of order.

MR. TOBIN: Well, the thing is -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Crane still has the floor,

Mr. Tobin.

MR. CRANE: Go ahead, Mr. Tobin, raise the point

of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Tobin.

MR. TOBIN: I was going to say that yes, it is a

point of order. I don't think we have, as members - I am not a member of the

Committee - but this is an extension of the House of Assembly, and the rules of

the House of Assembly are the rules that cover this Committee meeting. As the

critic for Transportation I've been granted the right to come here as a member

as have all other critics. Even though I am not a voting member I have the right

to come here, ask questions and speak, I would suggest. I question that, and I

would like for you to get a ruling on it, whether I have that right, why I don't

have the right to vote. I certainly have the right to ask questions.

I don't think that as a member of this Committee we

should have to sit down and listen to any colleague because he doesn't like our

questions - basically threaten us with the questions, that we shouldn't get

anything and he wouldn't give us anything.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tobin -

MR. TOBIN: He is a member of the Liberal caucus

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tobin!

MR. CRANE: There is no point of order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Crane!

MR. TOBIN: He is a member of the Liberal caucus

in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask, would you gentlemen please

be quiet for a minute!

Now, Mr. Tobin has raised a point by leave of the

Committee. I will ask the Clerk for a ruling on that. Mr. Crane, you have the

floor. I will allow you to continue.

MR. CRANE: There is no point of order, Mr.

Chairman. He can degrade and he can say what he likes. We gave him all the time

in the world. We are going to give him more time. He is not even a member of the

Committee. Nobody is arguing that he can't come in and ask questions. We have

given them all the time in the world so they can ask all the questions they

want. We are even foregoing our time. But I would like for them to ask questions

and not come in degrading the minister, going on about why they are not getting

their share of everything. To me it's terrible, my son! They get more money out

of this government than anybody on this side, these two members. They call this

man 'the $3 Million Man.'

MR. TOBIN: It is more than that (inaudible).

MR. CRANE: And this fellow here is the '$2.5

Million Man.' We, over here getting $400,000 and $500,000 and have to accept it.

Anyway, I want to ask you a question, Mr. Minister.

It is a question that is bothering me.

This four-lane highway in Bay Roberts that you are

talking about: there are a lot of people out there very concerned about where

this is going to begin and end, that you are going to have four lanes going down

through Bay Roberts - it's a very short piece of road - and merging into a

two-lane. There is much concern there about where they merge, where they

bottleneck. Are there going to be bottlenecks of traffic? Because there is quite

a lot of traffic in that area, as Mr. McCarthy knows. We have been waiting for a

road down there, an access road that we don't seem to be getting any closer to.

Right now I think you are putting a four-lane highway into Bay Roberts, which is

only about a couple of miles, and then it is going back into a two-lane highway

again. I am afraid there are going to be problems with that and there is a lot

of concern about it.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Crane. With respect

to the exact nature of the plans for that particular

section of road, I am going

to let Mr. McCarthy field that question.

MR. TERRY McCARTHY: As you know, the project,

itself, has not been clearly defined at this point in time. Design work for that

four-lane

section is under way. I am aware of a lot of the concerns, the

businesses in the area and the number of intersections. The intention is that we

will start the project just north of the existing lights at I think it is Water

Street in Bay Roberts, and we will proceed toward the Birch Hills, however far

the funding allocation this year takes us. We don't know that yet because the

final design is not complete.

MR. CRANE: No, that's right. Just north of the

lights going down Water Street in Bay Roberts is where they will terminate this

year.

MR. McCARTHY: It will start there and proceed

south toward the Birch Hills.

MR. CRANE: Okay, whichever end you are looking

at. But that is where we figure there are going to be problems, when you have to

merge back into a two-lane highway at that point.

MR. McCARTHY: I don't see any great problem

there. We have been at the same type of construction in Conception Bay South for

a number of years now, and the same type and treatment will be used for where

you terminate the four-lane.

MR. CRANE: Okay. Are we getting any closer to

the access road? - Mr. Minister.

MR. McCARTHY: Conception Bay North.

MR. CRANE: Conception Bay North. Mr. McCarthy

knows the one I am talking about.

MR. GOVER: Yes. With respect to the Conception

Bay North bypass road, that is a project listed in the Regional Trunk Roads

agreement. As the member is aware, that agreement runs from 1991 to the year

2003. Although all the projects are listed in the agreement, there is no

specific scheduling of projects in the agreement. That is, projects could

commence at any time between now and the year 2003. Since the Roads-for-Rail

agreement is federally funded, both levels of government have to sit down in the

fall of each year and determine their priorities. As a result of discussions

between the two levels of government, each year an agreed upon list of projects

is announced, as was the case this year when the agreed upon list of projects

was announced - the one announced earlier in the year to allow for early

tendering.

So - when it will commence? It is impossible to

give a definite date, other than to say it will commence sometime between now

and the year 2003. I am not quite sure as to the environmental status on that

particular project. Has that cleared the provincial environmental, or the

federal environmental assessment procedure?

MR. McCARTHY: No.

In addition, before the project can commence it has

to clear both federal and provincial environmental assessments and it hasn't

cleared those processes yet. So it definitely won't commence until it clears

those particular processes. It can't even be considered for commencement until

it clears the provincial and federal environmental process.

MR. CRANE: No, and it is never going to clear

that if you don't get some kind of a route set up. Mr. McCarthy, how close are

we to setting the route?

MR. GOVER: There will very shortly be a meeting

between myself and the Premier and the joint councils of Conception Bay North to

discuss the routing of the Conception Bay North bypass. As I am sure you are

aware, Mr. Crane, there is one issue with respect to the proposed routing which

centres around the community of Clarke's Beach. The proposed routing has the

bypass road running along, shall we say, the back of the community of Clarke's

Beach, and the community has some concerns with that proposed routing. They

would like to see that

section of the bypass road pushed farther back from the

town of Clarke's Beach.

One of the difficulties with it - and you would be

more familiar with this, John, than I would be - is that right at the back of

Clarke's Beach there is a fairly steep hill. So it is not like you could pick up

the bypass routing in that area and drop it down a few hundred feet or a few

hundred metres from the existing routing. In fact, if you were going to change

the routing in that area, you would have to go right over the hill and on to the

other side.

So the town of Clarke's Beach has raised some

concerns about the routing as it is proposed. I guess that will be one of the

issues that will be discussed in the meeting between the joint councils, the

Premier and myself. Apart from that one issue in the town of Clarke's Beach, the

indication seems to be that the other councils in Conception Bay North are

strongly in favour of the project and would like to see it proceed as soon as

possible.

MR. CRANE: If you had to drive back -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Excuse me, Mr. Crane - if I may interrupt here.

Before going any further, just with regard to that point that was raised, I want

to clarify that and make sure that the Committee understands what the rules are.

In the Standing Orders, Standing Order 86(c), it

states: "In a Standing or Select Committee, the Standing Orders of the House

shall be observed so far as may be applicable." In (

b) it states: "Any member of

the House who is not a member of a Standing Committee, may, unless the House or

the committee concerned otherwise orders, take

part in the public proceedings of

the committee, but he may not vote or move any motion, nor shall he be part of

any quorum."

Now, it doesn't specifically state anything with

regard to points of order. The Chair, when I was speaking about the matter,

stated that Mr. Tobin could not raise a point of order. I want to clarify that.

When we started the Committee proceedings, rightly or wrongly, I asked leave of

the Committee for Mr. Tobin to address the Committee proceedings. According to

the Standing Orders, that may have been incorrect, and Mr. Tobin does have the

right to address these proceedings, anyway, and to be recognized. The only

things he does not have the right to do are vote or move any motion, nor be a

part of any quorum for quorum purposes.

So I think that, in itself, was in error in the

beginning, the fact of whether Mr. Tobin addressed the committee. By virtue of

that, he does have the right to participate in the proceedings and would have

the right to raise a point of order. So with regard to that, the point of order

raised by Mr. Tobin, I would rule, is correct, although I will rule that the

point of order was not a point of order, it was a point of disagreement by Mr.

Tobin with what was being stated.

Anyway, Mr. Crane, I will allow you now to

continue.

MR. CRANE: I have just one more question on the

road. Regardless of the circumstances, there are 30,000 people down there who

need that road. Are we going to say that if the town of Clarke's Beach just

doesn't go along with the plan, we are just not going to devise another plan?

Are we going to let that one community of 400 or 500 people tie up that road

till 2001? If government won't go along with the Clarke's Beach plan, and

Clarke's Beach won't go along with the government plan, they are just going to

be in limbo. A small community is going to tie up that whole bay for five or six

years just because of something as stupid as that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CRANE: (Inaudible) now.

MR. GOVER: As you have indicated, Mr. Crane,

without doubt, there would be a fair traffic volume on that bypass route. A lot

of people, as you are well aware, commute back and forth from Conception Bay to

St. John's on a virtually daily basis.

MR. CRANE: A daily basis, yes.

MR. GOVER: And, obviously, a fast and efficient

way for them to get from Conception Bay to St. John's and back home in the

evening is a major consideration. As I indicated, all the councils, I think,

except this particular one in Clarke's Beach, support the proposed routing by

the department. I hope, at the meeting we are going to have, that we will have a

full airing of the issues with respect to Clarke's Beach. They will put their

position forward, the government will put its position forward, and I am sure

the other town councils in Conception Bay will certainly put their positions

forward, and I hope, as a result of our discussions, we can allay some, if not

all, of the concerns of Clarke's Beach with respect to the proposed routing. As

to holding it up, as I have indicated, it can't even be considered for

commencement until it clears the environmental process, after which it will be

considered along with the other priority needs in the Province as to when it

should begin.

MR. CRANE: Thank you, Sir.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Crane.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will be breaking at 8:30, so I

will ask Mr. Winsor or Mr. Tobin if either of them -

MR. TOBIN: I would like to ask one question

before I break, if I could, Mr. Chairman, very briefly?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a second. Mr. Winsor, you

lean forward, are you interested in asking a question?

MR. WINSOR: I will proceed after my colleague.

MR. TOBIN: I will not take up too much time. I

am delighted that you finally arrived at the appropriate ruling and give us all

as members of the House the right to do what we were elected to do. We all have

opportunities to learn and I am sure tonight is an opportunity for you.

Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation: Is your department responsible for the cars that are

presently within the government system?

MR. GOVER: I defer there to Mr. O'Reilly as to

the exact division of responsibility.

MR. TOBIN: Probably I could be more precise

then, if I could, before Mr. O'Reilly answers? I am wondering about the

chauffeur-driven limousines the Premier uses. Which department of government is

responsible for that?

MR. GOVER: If you look at the Salary Details

for the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, I believe you will

find in those salary details, two positions which are labelled Chauffeur. If I

could just have a minute - under Administrative Support on Page 48 of the Salary

Details, there is a position called Chauffeur and funding has been approved for

two positions.

MR. TOBIN: How many chauffeurs do government

hire right now?

MR. GOVER: Well, judging from the Salary

Details, the number of approved positions from the permanent staff complement is

two.

MR. TOBIN: So that is the same as they had last

year, is it?

MR. GOVER: Yes, Sir.

MR. TOBIN: Who uses the chauffeur-driven cars

besides the Premier?

MR. GOVER: If I could just have a moment, Mr.

Chairman?

MR. TOBIN: Sure, no problem.

MR. GOVER: I am sorry, Mr. Tobin, I lost that

question there.

MR. TOBIN: You have two Chauffeur positions

here. I notice occasionally, or fairly often lately, that there are

chauffeur-driven cars in front of the building picking up the Premier.

Basically, two cars are used, one, a grey Oldsmobile, I believe, and the other,

a two-tone Chev Caprice. I am just wondering who else is chauffeur-driven in

this government besides the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before you answer that, Mr.

Minister - Mr. Oldford, you had a point you wanted to make.

MR. OLDFORD: I just asked if chefs were covered

under that department, or were they under another department?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Administration.

MR. OLDFORD: He said chauffeurs. I thought he

said chefs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I see, okay. I thought the

hon. member wanted to make a point.

Mr. Minister.

MR. GOVER: With respect to these particular

positions, I would just like to refer to the, I suppose, job description or the

definition of work. Under that particular description, when we come to

chauffeur, this is responsible work in the operation of a motor vehicle for the

transportation and convenience of government officials and other VIPs,

out-of-province patients and other passengers. Then it goes on to say what the

qualifications are. Work is usually performed without supervision.

With respect to what these vehicles and the

chauffeur positions are used for, my information is that, by far and away, the

bulk of the time that they are in use by the various departments of government,

they are used to deliver mail and packages. But it seems to me that not only

does the Premier's office have access to these vehicles, Executive Council and

the other departments of government have access to them, as well. The reason why

I am somewhat familiar with this is that although these positions are called

chauffeur - I don't know what the situation was with the previous

administration, but since this administration has come into power, my

information is that the bulk of the time of these individuals, the vast, vast

majority of their time is not spent chauffeuring people around, but rather

delivering packages and picking up the mail, acting in a delivery capacity.

Perhaps the time has come to reclassify this position from 'chauffeur', which is

a misnomer, to some sort of other job description because the bulk of this time

is not spent chauffeuring people around.

MR. TOBIN: I will ask another question. Are

these the two chauffeurs that drive the Premier around to various places in the

city? Is a log kept on those cars as to how often they are used and by whom?

MR. GOVER: As I have indicated, these cars are

not for the exclusive use of the Premier's office, they are for the use, as I

understand it, of all government departments. I would imagine a log is kept.

MR. TOBIN: Could a copy of the log be made

available to the House of Assembly?

MR. GOVER: I will take that matter under

advisement.

MR. TOBIN: Would you advise me in the House

within the next week?

MR. GOVER: Advise you in the House in the next

week. What do you mean, advise you publicly?

MR. TOBIN: Sure, it is questioned, probably,

whether or not the log can be made public.

MR. GOVER: I will give you an answer,

personally, as to whether or not the log can be provided.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

Anyway, I think, if my colleague is ready to

proceed with his question, I will -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Tobin.

I do apologize to you for the error in procedure

earlier, with respect to your right to ask questions and the right to

participate in the proceedings of the Committee.

Thank you for your questions. There being only

about three minutes left until the time we break at 8:30 p.m., I will adjourn

now until

8:45 p.m.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will call the proceedings back to

order.

Are there any government members who want to comment?

We have had comments from only one government member to this point in the

proceedings. If Mr. Short would like to have a few, or Mr. Oldford, we will give

them an opportunity now, and then we will get back to you, Mr. Winsor, and your

colleague from Burin - Placentia West.

Mr. Short, you have indicated that you want to speak.

MR. SHORT: I just have one question, Mr. Chairman,

but first of all I have a comment.

I had the pleasure of teaching in Ladle Cove in

1971-1972. Actually, that is where I got started on my political career, down

there with Beaton Tulk back in 1971 and 1972. I am glad to see, first of all,

that the minister is still using the same criteria as the previous government

that was there for seventeen years, because in 1971 when I went down there to

teach, the road wasn't paved; it is not paved yet, and obviously, the department

is still using the same criteria. Maybe the member for Fogo will want to go back

and check with some of his colleagues from the previous government to see what

the criteria was at that point in time for those seventeen years.

The question I wanted to ask the minister - in his

opening remarks he mentioned $7.5 million in money that was there pending a -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Short, if I could interrupt just

for a second. Mr. Tobin, you are disturbing the proceedings. If you and Mr.

Oldford want to have a chat, maybe you could just go to another area of the

Chamber or keep it down a little lower.

Mr. Short, thank you.

MR. SHORT: The $7.5 million that the minister

mentioned - my understanding is, that is there pending some type of

federal/provincial agreement worked on at the moment. I just wondered what the

status of that might be, since he mentioned it in his opening remarks.

MR. GOVER: That is quite correct, Mr. Short. There

is $7.5 million allocated, and there was an announcement in the Budget Speech

that funding had been provided for a future federal/provincial agreement as it

relates to highways in the Province.

Discussions at the officials' level have been ongoing

with respect to the national highway policy and indeed, I suppose, with respect

to other types of agreements, but primarily the national highway policy.

The $7.5 million is allocated on the expectation that

in the near future there should be a federal/provincial agreement with respect

to highways, and if such an agreement materializes, the $7.5 million would be

the provincial contribution towards that new agreement.

MR. SHORT: Is that the official's level between

the two levels of government now? Is it being worked on or is it just sitting

there with very little progress being made?

MR. GOVER: No, with respect to the national

highway policy, talks have been ongoing, I would say, for some period of time.

Various funding formulas have been discussed; the routes that would comprise the

national highway system and the criteria and standards for that system have been

discussed - I should say, when discussions have taken place between officials,

that is my understanding, at least in the recent past. Maybe in the past

discussions have taken place between ministers.

I would hope that at some point in the near future,

the provincial ministers and the federal Minister of Transportation will sit

down and possibly come to some agreement on a national highway system. Should

that materialize, then the $7.5 million has been allocated as the Province's

contribution towards any such new federal-provincial agreement which would

materialize in the nature of the national highway agreement, or indeed, any

other federal-provincial agreement that may materialize.

The exact nature of agreements which may materialize,

I really can't say. One that is on the horizon right now is the national highway

system. But I would certainly like to see a new federal-provincial agreement of

some kind which would allow the $7.5 million to be multiplied at least two or

three times so that we could tender some more projects this year and get some

more people to work this year, because certainly, the economy does need some

stimulation. That is the reason the department announced its program early and

is doing everything in its power to get the tenders called and the tenders

awarded to ensure that the total amount of money is spent to encourage the

stimulation of the economy in the Province. I would hope that before the

construction season ends, we would have a new federal-provincial agreement of

some kind.

MR. SHORT: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mr. Short. Mr. Oldford?

MR. OLDFORD: I will pass, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You will pass. Now, back to Mr.

Winsor.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: I'm tempted to respond to the vicious

personal assault but I'll leave that because there are more important things to

discuss.

Mr. Minister, in your opening remarks, you mention a

sidewalk on the causeway crossing Gander River and the Gander Bay area. What,

specifically, are you going to do with that? Does that entail the complete

sidewalk right from, I think it's Route 330 over to Clarke's Head, or does it

refer specifically just to the concrete portion of the causeway? Because it is

made up of two parts, both equally narrow.

MR. GOVER: With respect to the exact work that is

planned under that particular project, I will ask Mr. McCarthy if he would

provide that information to you, since he would be more familiar with the

details of the project than I would be.

MR. McCARTHY: The sidewalk is just included on the

concrete structure.

MR. WINSOR: It's just included on the concrete

structure. I was much afraid that was going to be your answer. Because the same

problem exists on the paved portion. The road is no wider on the paved portion

where the guardrails are. In fact, the causeway might even be a bit wider.

Secondly, since the abutments are already maybe six to eight inches higher than

the surface itself, I would assume that this will be a raised causeway, a raised

sidewalk?

MR. McCARTHY: Yes it will.

MR. WINSOR: What about winter maintenance on that,

in terms of snow-clearing? Since I know there are no sidewalk plows in the

depot, what do you propose to do for snow-clearing?

MR. McCARTHY: It would be snow-cleared just with

the wing of the plow - with the wing on the snowplow, or whatever type of plow

is being used.

MR. WINSOR: Okay. It is not in my district but it

serves a part of my district. The road from Stoneville on towards Port Albert

and Farewell has been included in the list of roads to be paved in the

Lewisporte district this year. I am somewhat mystified by the fact that the

paving will not go to the branch going out to the ferry terminal at Farewell. I

think it is some two or three kilometres short. I am wondering why you would

stop at that point, bearing in mind that if the rest of it is to be redone. it

will obviously involve mobilizing and demobilizing equipment. I understand from

contractors that work to this extent is going to require setting up a paving

plant in the area, most likely. I am sure the contractors don't, for free, move

a piece of equipment into that area and then have to move it out. In light of

the little distance that is left in that road to pave - and I realize you

couldn't do the other portion of the road because it is not up to a paving

standard, the road from Farewell out to the ferry terminal where you branch off.

But my understanding from talking to officials is the road will not be completed

to the turn-off going to the ferry. What is the reason for that?

MR. GOVER: Before I answer that I would like Mr.

McCarthy to advise. What is the distance from where the pavement is finished

now, to the turn off.

MR. McCARTHY: I don't know the exact distance to

the turn-off, but it is about twelve kilometres from the end of the pavement to

the ferry terminal, and then it is about another two kilometres, the branch road

to Port Albert. So it is about fourteen kilometres.

MR. WINSOR: So it is ten kilometres, the

section

from the end of Stoneville that is paved to the ferry terminal, the junction

road going to the ferry. It is about ten kilometres, and you are paving seven

and a bit, or something like that. I am wondering, since you have to mobilize

the equipment anyway, the other road is not up to a standard to be paved. It is

going to take a number of years, I am sure to complete it. I wonder why that

road wasn't completed at least from Port Albert to the Farewell turn-off?

MR. GOVER: The short and simple answer to that

particular question is that when you have $25.5 million to allocate and you have

several times that in needs, perhaps even hundreds of millions of dollars worth

of needs, you have to make a decision as to when a project is going to be

terminated. In this particular case, the decision was made to terminate that

project. The project is to pave approximately seven kilometres. If you go down

through the list of projects in this current program, and I am sure if you went

through the projects in previous programs brought in by this administration, and

indeed, by the previous administration, as indicated by the Member for Burin -

Placentia West, you will find that in many, many instances projects are done on

a phase basis. The Member for Burin - Placentia West indicated a couple of

projects that were done project-by-project, step-by-step, or phase-by-phase. So

it is not unique to this particular project that it would terminate before the

turn-off, because phase projects are not unusual to the program, and when you

only have $25.5 million to allocate, given the needs in the Province you have to

make a decision to terminate at some point in time. This was a reasonable

project, to do seven kilometres, and a reasonable point to terminate, in light

of the amount of money that was in the program and the other needs in the

Province.

MR. WINSOR: But it seems it is ending at such a

strange place when, for the extra couple of clicks, you would have certainly

gotten more bang for your money, because next year now, if you do it, as you

say, as a phased-in process, then next year you are going to have to absorb the

cost of moving the equipment in again and moving it out. Paving plants, the

assembling and transportation doesn't come easy, and it is not cheap. So you are

going to have to incur the cost of setting up that particular equipment again.

But I will accept the minister's explanation. I don't necessarily agree with it,

but I will accept it.

The minister has given - I will have to preface this

by saying media reports, reports from the Fogo Island Transportation Committee,

have indicated that the minister was going to make $60,000 available for a

preliminary feasibility study of the costing of, I suppose, the viability or the

feasibility, of constructing a fixed link from Fogo Island to Change Islands.

Can the minister indicate the status of that now?

MR. GOVER: I believe this project - a request has

been advertised. We are seeking, I guess, a consultant -

AN HON. MEMBER: A request for proposals.

MR. GOVER: A request for proposals to select a

consultant to do the feasibility study. Would that be correct? Yes, so we have

already advertised, called for proposals on that.

MR. WINSOR: So it is the cost of -

MR. GOVER: Have we received the proposals?

MR. McCARTHY: Proposals are due on June 5.

MR. GOVER: Proposals are due on June 5.

MR. WINSOR: So that would be the cost of

constructing - or what exactly is involved in this? Is it the cost of

constructing a causeway, or is it to see if it is viable to construct a proper

feasibility study? What exactly is involved in this study?

MR. GOVER: I will let Mr. McCarthy answer that

question.

MR. McCARTHY: It is a feasibility study on the

feasibility of constructing a causeway between Change Islands and Fogo Island.

That study is to give us the estimated cost and the physical parameters of the

causeway, and also to do a cost comparison on the cost of the causeway versus

the cost of operating the ferry service to those two islands.

MR. WINSOR: This is only a link to - this is a

half job. Because the other half involves using a ferry from the South End of

Change Islands to - it is not a complete job connecting it to the mainland.

MR. McCARTHY: No, it's not. It is connecting

Change Islands with Fogo Island and running one ferry service from the South End

of Change Islands to Farewell.

MR. WINSOR: So, ultimately, a ferry - there is no

talk of completing the link. So, at the end of the day, you still have to have

the ferry with the same problems we have now at South End as we do in Man O'War

Cove or Farewell, or wherever.

MR. GOVER: I don't know if that is entirely

accurate to say. Because my understanding is that there are more days that are

navigable between the mainland and Change Islands than are navigable necessarily

between the mainland and Fogo Island, that there are more days when the

passageway between Change Islands and Fogo Island is blocked with ice than is

the case between the mainland and South End.

MR. WINSOR: I think you might have one, two, three

or four days in a year, if you're asking me. You seem to be looking, to me, to -

that certainly doesn't seem to be the trend the past two or three years. As a

matter of fact, quite often it is - and I know that on occasion, it has

happened, but it also works the other way, too. Quite often, it is the South End

area that causes the problem because of the ice packing in and the inability of

the icebreaker to actually get in to South End. So obviously you'd be proposing

a change in the ferry terminals that we have at Change Islands at this point in

time, to dredge or to make it more practical for icebreakers to get in. Because

they have tremendous trouble getting in there now.

MR. GOVER: My understanding is that one of the

reasons the people on Change Islands would advocate a separate service to Change

Islands, especially during the winter months, is that they would maintain that

they could access the mainland more often if the service were separate than if

the service came from Fogo. Because their allegation is, in substance, that

there are more days that the passageway between Fogo and Change Islands is

blocked with ice than between South End and the mainland.

But, I mean, your question is quite right. There will

have to be a ferry. The question is, I suppose, if the causeway were in place,

would the ferry that would operate between South End, Change Islands, and the

mainland, have to be that sophisticated, and built to the same specifications as

a ferry that would be designed to operate between Fogo and the mainland?

If you are going to build a ferry to operate between

Fogo and the mainland, that is one level of specifications for one length of

passage and one level of ice conditions. If you are going to build a ferry to go

from South End to the mainland, that is another level of specifications and

another level of climatic conditions to consider.

Certainly, you would not advocate that a ferry that

could serve Change Islands would necessarily be satisfactory to the people of

Fogo?

MR. WINSOR: What is that?

MR. GOVER: A ferry that could adequately serve

Change Islands would not necessarily be adequate for the people on Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: If you are talking about the ice

conditions in the winter, I see little difference in my many visits to the area.

I see the same need for icebreaker assistance from South End to Farewell as I

see from Fogo Island to Farewell. In my observations and visits, the icebreaker

has to 'baby-sit' is the term we use - baby-sit the boat from one end to the

other, and it doesn't seem to differ very much. What it would do, obviously, is

reduce the amount of time and improve the service so that you could make more

trips, but the type of icebreaker, if you are thinking that the Beaumont Hamel

or the Flanders type would be able to navigate that winter crossing unassisted

is, I think, a nice dream but I don't think it is reality, and that we are going

to certainly need an icebreaker-designed ferry to complete the run from South

End, and certainly, that would have to be part of the consideration, as well.

MR. GOVER: I agree with you 100 per cent, Sir,

that in a decision as to whether or not a causeway should proceed, we are going

to have to look at the cost of providing an adequate ferry service, and, I mean,

there are various scenarios. What types of ferries would you have to provide?

What type of service would you have to provide if there were no causeway; and

what type of service would you have to provide if there were a causeway which

linked the two islands? Obviously, the point of doing the feasibility study in

the preliminary stages is to determine exactly that. What are the physical - is

it possible at all, and if it is possible, at what cost is it possible? - so

that we can gain some information so that the government can sit down and make

these decisions as to what is the most effective mode of transportation for the

people on the two islands.

MR. WINSOR: What kind of time frame are we looking

at?

MR. GOVER: We are looking at having a report by

the end of October.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Winsor, if I might interrupt, I

just want to check with other Committee members to see if they have anything

further.

Mr. Crane, anything for you?

Mr. Short, nothing?

Mr. Oldford, nothing?

Okay, you may continue.

MR. WINSOR: You also referenced the fact that a

dedicated ferry service is now going to be in operation for six months of the

year. I note that - and I know this recommendation came from some people, but it

is certainly not what I am hearing from the people I talk to, generally speaking

- of the need to have the three-month winter service of a boat station on each

island for the winter months. The fall schedules, the minister's officials will

tell them, last year proved not to be very successful, that the boat frequently

had to make extra runs, and that one boat for two islands does not work very

well at all during the fall months. In fact, I suggest that right now the

two-boat system should be reinstated, because that boat is going flat out now in

attempting to service the needs of the island.

In winter it is quite frequent that we can only get

one trip in a day because of severe ice conditions, even with the assistance of

the icebreaker, and last winter was an exceptionally good winter, by the way.

Even though we had to have an icebreaker for a number of days, we were quite

fortunate in that we had cold weather and the bay ice froze before the northern

ice came. Had that not been the case, it certainly would have been much longer.

From where did this recommendation to use two boats

during the winter months originate? Is it really feasible to have the boat tied

up for long periods of time during the winter, as it happens, one on each

island?

MR. GOVER: The service for two vessels in the

previous fiscal year was for three months, I believe. This year we found it

within our budget to go for six months.

MR. WINSOR: Three months during the summer and

three months during the winter.

MR. GOVER: Yes, but six months in total.

With respect to the scheduling as to when the

two-vessel service would be in operation, we have had discussions. I have met

with the commuters committee on Fogo Island, and the Fogo Town Council. At the

officials level there have been discussions with the commuters committees on

both islands, and as a result of the representation and information we received

from the various parties interested in this matter, this was determined to be an

appropriate schedule.

Unfortunately, within the fiscal capacity of the

Province at the present time, the department is limited to providing six months

of two-vessel service, and following discussions with the various people and

interest groups, this was determined to be an appropriate schedule. I guess the

summer

schedule provides for the increase in traffic due to tourism and the

fishery during the summer months, and during the winter months the two-vessel

service is designed to provide a more effective service when the ice is in and

conditions are severe on the passageways; that these were the two critical

periods of time - the summer because of the fishery and tourism, and the winter

because of the ice - and based upon the information we have received, this is

the

schedule that seems to be most appropriate.

MR. WINSOR: I know where it came from, but the

people I talked to are not reacting the same way. In fact, most people were

surprised, because when the six months was announced they thought it would be

from May up until Christmas, that type of thing, and not the three months in the

winter when the usage of the boat is down considerably.

I know, because I talked with the transportation

committee much the way you did, and that was their recommendation; but in

talking to the ordinary people, they were of the assumption that the six months

would be during the months of greatest traffic use,

whereas these winter months,

there is less use.

MR. GOVER: I can appreciate what you are saying to

me, but as to how the

schedule was drawn up, I believe that I have

correspondence which is endorsed by both islands, or groups on both islands,

suggesting a very similar schedule, if not the identical schedule, to this for

the winter months. So this is representation -

MR. WINSOR: I know.

MR. GOVER: Okay. Now the average person might say

- what you are saying is the people who are not associated with the committees,

let's say, or on the committees, are saying that it should go from June to

Christmas.

MR. WINSOR: Well, they were quite surprised. The

assumption was that the six months was going to be the area of greatest use, and

I am sure the minister has the stats there that show what the volume of traffic

is during the fall, if we use that as a counterbalance to what happens during

the winter months.

MR. GOVER: Well, certainly, I can say this is what

has been suggested to the department by -

MR. WINSOR: The minister's decision to do that

came on advice from the people of the island and it was not officials in your

department who suggested the schedule.

MR. GOVER: Naturally, we received representations

and the officials evaluated the representations we received to determine if, in

fact, these were feasible, given the fiscal resources that we had. It is a

process whereby on all the ferry services in the Province we encourage the users

of those services to give us their input. Their input is very valuable and often

adjustments to schedules or other matters are made on the basis of their input.

We assume, since these are people who use the service regularly, that what they

tell us is an accurate reflection of how the users feel. We take this advice

very seriously and the officials evaluate it. So there is a process of

evaluation, I won't say there isn't.

But we have to assume that when we meet with these

committees and town councils that they represent the views of the users. If they

suggest something which they believe is sensible and practical, and we find it

to be sensible, practical and within our resources, well, we tend to go along

with that.

As I have indicated to the commuters committee on Fogo

Island - and, indeed, all the commuters committees and all the town councils

that are affected by our various intra-provincial ferry services - I encourage

input. I still encourage input as to scheduling. If the commuters committee or

the town council of Fogo Island wants to meet with me on this proposed

schedule

I would certainly be prepared to receive their representations and have a look

at their suggestions, and we would see what we could do on the basis of their

input. But this is what has been suggested as agreeable.

MR. WINSOR: I have no problems with that, I just

wondered where it came from, because a number of residents have expressed some

concern and surprise about it. I want to go to another question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Excuse me, Mr. Winsor. Gentlemen, could you keep it

down a bit so that the hon. the Member for Fogo is able to ask questions and be

answered in silence, please? Thank you.

MR. WINSOR: In doing allocations for winter

maintenance - sand, salt, snow-clearing and so on - what kind of budget, say,

per kilometre of road is kind of a standard thing? I know that obviously the

winter conditions determine. But in doing budgets you allocate so much money for

winter maintenance. What kind of money do you determine would be for say,

snow-clearing, sand, gravel - ice control?

MR. GOVER: Generally, year-round maintenance -

year-round, now, not just winter - year-round maintenance, on average, in the

Province runs $7,500 a kilometre. For winter maintenance, on average - and this

is an average -

MR. WINSOR: Yes.

MR. GOVER: - different areas will have different

needs - $4,000 to $5,000 a kilometre.

MR. WINSOR: Four thousand to five thousand dollars

per kilometre. How many kilometres of road are there from Wabush to Labrador

City?

AN HON. MEMBER: Three or four kilometres, Mr.

Winsor.

MR. GOVER: No, what he is saying is Wabush to

Labrador City.

MR. WINSOR: Between Wabush and Goose Bay, I'm

sorry.

MR. GOVER: Wabush and Goose Bay - the total? - 540

kilometres.

MR. WINSOR: Five hundred and forty kilometres.

Now, did I hear the minister - because I was kind of intrigued yesterday to hear

the exchange between my colleague from Menihek and the minister as to the winter

maintenance on that particular road. Five hundred and forty kilometres - was

that the intention or the understanding, that the road would be cleared from

Goose Bay to Labrador City during the winter, the entire 540 kilometres, or was

it only to Churchill Falls?

MR. GOVER: To maintain the Trans-Labrador Highway

from Labrador City to Happy Valley - Goose Bay open during the winter, in the

department's opinion, is not a feasible proposition until there are capital

expenditures on that highway of $20 million to improve the bridge structure on

the highway, to re-align the curves, to improve grades and to rectify some very

severe dips which exist along the Trans-Labrador Highway. As I indicated in my

answer, under the regional trunk roads agreement, $9 million was allocated to

the Trans-Labrador Highway. When the projects for the agreement were announced

earlier this year, $2 million was allocated to the Cache River Bridge.

Following a meeting of the joint councils, I believe,

with the Premier, in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, I was invited to meet with the

town council of Happy Valley-Goose Bay and, the council requested that the

Provincial Government consider asking the Federal Government to accelerate the

remaining $7 million in the regional trunk roads agreement in order to

facilitate winter maintenance on the Trans-Labrador Highway. Also, it was

indicated to the Premier, and to myself - although I was not present at the

meeting with the Premier - certainly it was indicated to me at the meeting I had

with the Happy Valley - Goose Bay Council, that due to the unique nature of the

snowfall in Labrador, at least, in that particular

section of Labrador, the lack

of winds and the way the snow comes down, winter maintenance on the

Trans-Labrador Highway could be accomplished in a manner different from the way

it was accomplished on the Island portion of the Province, and given the nature

of the snowfall in Labrador, that winter maintenance cost should be

substantially less than on the Island portion of the Province.

This is not my opinion nor is it the opinion of my

department, it is the opinion as expressed to me by the Town Council of Happy

Valley-Goose Bay. As I indicated, my opinion is that winter maintenance is not

feasible without significant capital expenditures, but based upon our meeting,

we were prepared to pursue the idea of performing winter maintenance to maintain

the entire length of the Trans-Labrador Highway open this particular winter

season. The first step in that particular procedure would be to accelerate the

$7 million in funds. I requested that the federal minister accelerate those

funds. A significant period of time passed and I received no response. I

subsequently called the federal minister and again corresponded with him,

indicating to him that because of the short construction season in Labrador, if

these accelerated funds were to be of any benefit, they had to be accelerated

very quickly and we needed his decision.

Last week he came back to me and indicated his

decision was that the federal government couldn't find it within its financial

resources to accelerate the other $7 million in the regional trunk roads

agreement. As a result of that refusal, I again met with the Town Council of

Happy Valley-Goose Bay and again indicated to them that in the department's

opinion, it was not possible to conduct winter maintenance on the Trans-Labrador

Highway without significant capital expenditure, which had been refused by the

federal government. Also, from our estimates, based on information we had

received from C(F)LCo, and information on the winter maintenance on the Quebec

side, on the roads leading to Labrador from Quebec, in that particular area, the

estimates the towns were indicating were way off base and winter maintenance on

that length of highway would involve the expenditure of millions of dollars -

not hundreds of thousands, but millions of dollars.

The town council does not agree with our opinion, so

what we agreed to do was provide the town council up to $400,000, but no more,

to conduct an experiment to see if winter maintenance was possible for that

amount of money without capital expenditures taking place.

I know it is a long answer, but that is the total

answer with respect to why the $400,000 was offered. I do not believe it can be

done for $400,000; in fact, I do not even believe it can be done - it might be

done for $4 million, but it certainly cannot be done, in the department's

opinion, for $400,000. But if the town council is so convinced that the

department is wrong, they now have the opportunity to show us the error of our

ways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, I thank you for that

response. It was very lengthy. I know the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West is sort of waiting in the starting gate, but he wants you to continue, so

you may continue.

MR. WINSOR: I have to react to this one, because

the minister says his officials say, he believes, all indicators point to the

inability of the town to do it, yet the government is prepared to give $400,000

for snow clearing of 540 kilometres of road which, if you work out, is less than

or about $700 a kilometre. The government, itself, is budgeting $4,000 to $5,000

per kilometre for winter maintenance. Is this not a case of sending a fool

further? Why would you entertain the notion of giving $400,000 to someone when

you know there is not a snowball's chance in hell that the objective can be

accomplished? This is $400,000 of government money.

MR. GOVER: Yes. In my opinion, this is not

possible -

MR. WINSOR: Then why do it?

MR. GOVER: - for $400,000; but the town feels that

because of the unique nature of the weather in Labrador, they can winter

maintain the Trans-Labrador Highway for significantly less than can the Island

portion of the Province. So, if you adopt the council's position, the figure of

$4,000 or $5,000 on the Island is totally immaterial. They are saying that

because of the unique conditions in Labrador it can be done for less. I

disagree, but if the town feels that it can be done, and they seem convinced

that it can be done - well, they have indicated that it can be done.

When I met with the council and said that we could

make $400,000 available to conduct this experiment, but only that amount of

money, the first question raised to me was: Well, if the town takes up the

offer, what is the liability risk? And I said: That is precisely one of the

reasons why the department will not do it, because it cannot be done without the

capital expenditure put in place to make sure the equipment can get from one end

of the road to the other end of the road.

After the councils were offered the money, they sort

of seemed to back away from the proposition, but they still maintain, due to the

unique conditions in Labrador, this can be done for substantially less than on

the Island, and they can now go and demonstrate that they are correct, and we

shall see the fruits, if they decide to take up the offer, of whether they are

right or wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have they taken up the offer?

MR. GOVER: Have they taken up? When I left the

meeting what I indicated to them was to draw up a plan to winter-maintain the

Trans-Labrador Highway for that amount of money, and they have yet to provide me

with the plan.

MR. WINSOR: Where did the $400,000 figure come

from?

MR. GOVER: That is a figure that I believe was

suggested by the councils, themselves.

MR. WINSOR: The councils suggested they could

clean that road for $400,000 and keep it open all winter long?

The minister says he thinks; that is where the notion

of $400,000 came from - from the Town Council in Happy Valley - Goose Bay?

MR. GOVER: The notion that this could be done for

substantially -

MR. WINSOR: No, that is not what I am asking. My

question is about the notion of $400,000. I have no doubt that perhaps it could

be done for less than the government's estimates of $4,000 to $5,000 per

kilometre, but the figure of $400,000 or $700 per kilometre, where did that

figure come from?

MR. GOVER: It is my understanding that arose out

of the meeting between the joint councils and the Premier.

MR. WINSOR: So you don't know who suggested it,

then, whether the Premier said: I'll give you $400,000, or they asked for

$400,000.

MR. GOVER: It is my understanding that the

councils indicated it could be done for around that figure.

MR. WINSOR: This $400,000 - is it allocated in the

budget now?

MR. GOVER: Yes it is.

MR. WINSOR: It was already built into this year's

budget.

MR. GOVER: Yes it is.

MR. WINSOR: I think someone else wanted to ask a

question, so I will defer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tobin.

MR. TOBIN: To the minister, I guess, somewhat of a

district question again: Can the minister tell me when the ferry terminal at

South East Bight will be started, or the wharves, or the -

MR. GOVER: Mr. McCarthy.

MR. McCARTHY: We have a proposal in to Small

Crafts Harbour, the Federal Government, to jointly build a new terminal at South

East Bight. All the work has been done at the officials level. The terminal is

designed, ready for tender, but we are still waiting for Federal Government

approval on that proposal.

MR. TOBIN: Why would you be applying to the

Federal Government? Is that the procedure?

MR. McCARTHY: The idea is that Small Crafts

Harbour will pay half the cost. It would be cheaper for us to build one wharf to

serve both purposes rather than for us to build our own individual terminal.

MR. TOBIN: Is there an estimated cost on that?

MR. McCARTHY: There was half-a-million dollars set

aside in the agreement for the terminal in South East Bight.

MR. TOBIN: That is total cost, or half-a-million

each?

MR. McCARTHY: We are hoping that the cost will be

maybe a bit less than the half-million, by combining with Small Crafts Harbour.

MR. TOBIN: So Small Crafts Harbour is scheduled to

put a wharf there, in any case, as I understand it. Is that it? You are going to

combine both the fishing wharf -

MR. McCARTHY: They have an existing wharf. It is

not in very good shape.

MR. TOBIN: Yes.

MR. McCARTHY: They realize it has to be replaced

in the not-too-distant future.

MR. TOBIN: So that is where it will go. That will

be adjacent to that wharf?

MR. McCARTHY: It is right at the same location as

the existing wharf.

MR. TOBIN: Okay. To the minister. I listened with

interest to your discussions with my colleague from Fogo regarding the need for

an ice-breaking service at Fogo Island. Can the minister tell us if they have a

name chosen for that ferry yet?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: In more serious vein, can the minister

tell me what the status is for the proposed ferry for Fogo Island? I know the

design work is done.

MR. GOVER: My understanding is that the design

work is, in fact, not completed.

MR. TOBIN: The design work is not completed at the

shipyard?

MR. GOVER: That is my understanding, yes.

MR. TOBIN: It is not mine. Okay, you could be

right, I don't know. But from -

MR. GOVER: In any event, the position is that

serious consideration was given to that particular project in the budgetary

process this particular year. Given the constraints on capital account, there

was insufficient money to proceed with that particular project. It will be

considered in next year's budgetary process as well, but no commitment can be

made at this time with respect to that particular ferry.

MR. TOBIN: So you don't foresee anything in the

immediate future before next year's Budget that will cause government to proceed

with the construction of that ferry?

MR. GOVER: At this point in time, no.

MR. TOBIN: I was just glancing through the

Estimates and I noticed there is a reduction in the amount to be voted for the

Queen's Printer. Can the minister tell me why that is happening?

MR. GOVER: Where is that?

MR. TOBIN: The Queen's Printer.

MR. GOVER: The Queen's Printer - what page is that

on?

MR. TOBIN: Page 69 of the Estimates.

MR. GOVER: Yes, with respect to the Queen's

Printer, you are saying there is a reduction in the amount budgeted?

MR. TOBIN: The amount voted, yes, page 69 in the

Estimates. The minister says they would like to be voted, this year, $324,300

whereas last year it was $602,900.

MR. GOVER: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: Why the reduction?

MR. GOVER: Okay, the reduction is - as the member

is aware, we passed legislation in the fall sitting authorizing the

consolidation of the statutes. The statutes were consolidated in 1952 and again

in 1970, now they are going to be consolidated in 1990, so the consolidation of

the statute required additional resources last year which are not required this

year because the next consolidation will not be for at least a decade.

MR. TOBIN: Are you putting more work out to tender

than you did last year?

MR. GOVER: More work out to tender in the printing

office?

MR. TOBIN: For government printing?

MR. GOVER: Not that I am aware of.

MR. TOBIN: If I could revert to Mr. McCarthy's

response regarding the ferry terminal at South East Bight, I notice the total

amount for ferry terminals this year is $500,000. Is the South East Bight ferry

terminal included in this?

MR. McCARTHY: No, that is not the allocation for

South East Bight. South East Bight is actually in the ERDA allocation.

MR. TOBIN: Let me ask the minister: Why has there

been such a problem during the last month - not now, but in the latter part of

the year - with a high content of heavy rock involved in salting and sanding on

the Burin Peninsula Highway, in particular? I also ask him, were there any

instances in which the sand was loaded without being screened?

The last lot of ice we had on the Burin Peninsula, as

a matter of fact, one gentleman brought me a rock that hit his car; he just

stopped and got out. I am asking you why there was so much sand and so little

salt, and why there was so much rock in the sand?

MR. JOHN O'REILLY: We do have a spec that we

follow in manufacturing the sand which would preclude the large stones being in

the sand. The only thing I can say, not knowing the specifics, would be that at

the end of the year, we are getting down to the end of the sand pile and it may

have been contaminated with other stones in the area, but without seeing the

sand, I couldn't confirm that.

MR. TOBIN: Do you process the screening that

should be put in place?

MR. O'REILLY: We do have screens that we use. When

we see large pieces, or stone in it, it should be screened out.

MR. TOBIN: Is it possible that some of it was done

without being screened?

MR. O'REILLY: I couldn't answer that, not being

there, but it should not. If large particles are in the sand then, obviously, it

should be second-screened before it is used; but when it goes in the pile it

should be meeting the spec, which would preclude any large stones being in the

sand.

MR. TOBIN: Is it possible, if it can be proven

that the sand was used without being screened, and did contain a high quantity

of rock, that government would accept liability for some of the problems?

MR. O'REILLY: We would look at each individual

case and if we had a claim from an individual who stated that, in fact, there

was large stone in the sand that damaged the windshield, then we would assess

it, sure.

MR. TOBIN: Is the department aware that there are

cases on the Burin Peninsula where people have had so many windshields replaced

that the insurance company will no longer provide comprehensive insurance?

MR. O'REILLY: I am not aware of that, but if we

had received the claims, we would have dealt with them. I couldn't be aware of

anyone who has lost his insurance because of damaged windshields.

MR. TOBIN: I can assure you that it has happened.

I will not get into who it is, but you can rest assured that it is the case with

some people. Personally, I have had four windshields damaged this year with

rocks on the Burin Peninsula Highway.

MR. O'REILLY: Is this through rocks being flicked

up by traffic ahead of you?

MR. TOBIN: This is rock coming up as a result of

its being in the sand and gravel. I am at the point right now where I am buying

time, just letting my windshield crack away because I can't afford to replace it

anymore. I can tell you, as one person involved, who drives daily on the

Trans-Canada, that one of the insurance companies has refused to write any

further comprehensive for me, because I have had so many windshields in the last

two years. And it is on the Burin Peninsula Highway that it is all happening.

I didn't submit any claims and I am not bringing my

problems here but I am making the point that it is happening to other people.

Because of the windshield factor, insurance companies are now refusing to write

comprehensive for some of us who frequently use that highway. As a matter of

fact, if you looked at my jeep now, you would find four different places, I

would say, where it has been cracked in the last month. It is hard to drive over

that road without cracking up your windshield. I have two cars that I drive back

and forth to St. John's and the windshields in both of them are beaten to

pieces. The deductible I finally ended up with is, I think, $500, so it is

cheaper to buy the windshields than go to the insurance companies. It is not

just to me that is happening and I am not here with a personal gripe. I want you

to understand that. I am just using my own case, because I get it every day, to

explain to you, Mr. Minister, what is really happening with the rocks.

MR. GOVER: It seems to me, from the tenor of your

question, that this is only occurring during the wintertime.

MR. TOBIN: Mostly.

MR. GOVER: Can we definitely say it is a case of

the rock coming from the sand as opposed to the roadway, itself?

MR. TOBIN: There is no doubt in my mind

whatsoever. I have seen it. When we had the last lot of ice on the Burin

Peninsula Highway you just couldn't go behind a sand truck, because there was no

salt, very little sand and mostly rock that was coming out.

MR. WINSOR: That is true, not only on the Burin

Peninsula, it is true everywhere. I have raised this issue before in Estimates

Committee meetings because it is a grave concern in my area, too. I think Mr.

O'Reilly might have been here on one occasion when I raised it. There are two

distinct areas of sand that they collect from - Mr. McCarthy might know. One is

from the Pine Pond area in Musgrave Harbour and the other comes from Denny's Pit

in the Gambo area. When you drive on the road you can actually tell that this is

Musgrave Harbour sand because it is of low grade and terrible quality, I would

say, a quarter plus instead of a quarter minus, everything that is there. The

other sand is of much finer texture.

Following along that argument - because I have had the

same situation, too - has there ever been a cost feasibility study done for

maintaining a fifty-kilometre

section of road using salt and salt alone, as

compared with this mixture of sand and salt which proves to be ineffective? I

suspect that more accidents happen as a result of the slush it leaves on the

road than from the snow and the slippery conditions. Has there ever been a study

done in terms of overtime? Because you have to do it over and over, cutting

edges on your heav

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	1992-05-21
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_govservices_ga41session4_1992-05-21_gsc-wst_.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3924d60b3efb62b34f4a080c7ae6667783d3f356

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).