Government Services Committee

2018-04-16

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

PDF Version

April 16,

The

Committee met at 9:05 a.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CLERK (Hammond):

Good morning.

My name

is Kim Hammond; I'm acting Clerk this morning for this Committee.

This is

the Government Services Committee and the first order of business is to elect a

Chair.

Are

there any nominations from the floor?

MR. KING:

I nominate Randy Edmunds.

CLERK:

Are there any further nominations from the floor?

Are

there any further nominations from the floor?

Hearing

no further nominations, the Member is acclaimed Chair.

Mr.

Edmunds, would you take the seat?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Edmunds):

Good morning, everyone.

Traditionally, our next step is to select a Vice-Chair.

I call

for nominations from the floor.

MR. FINN:

I nominate the Member for

Conception Bay South.

CHAIR:

Okay, a nomination for the

Member for Conception Bay South.

Are

there any more nominations?

Any

further nominations?

Okay, I

announce that the Member for Conception Bay South is Vice-Chair of the

Government Services Committee.

This

morning we are reviewing the Estimates of Transportation and Works. I'd first

like to start off by the Government Services Committee to introduce themselves,

starting with the front row.

MR. PETTEN:

Good morning, everyone

Barry

Petten, MHA for Conception Bay South; Transportation critic for the Official

Opposition.

MS. BONIA:

Laurie Bonia, Researcher,

Official Opposition.

MS. MICHAEL:

Lorraine Michael, St. John's

East - Quidi Vidi.

MR. MORGAN:

Ivan Morgan, Researcher, NDP

caucus.

MR. LANE:

Paul Lane, MHA, District of

Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. FINN:

John Finn, MHA

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR.

KING:

Neil King, MHA for Bonavista.

MS.

HALEY:

Carol Anne Haley, MHA, Burin - Grand Bank.

MS.

PARSLEY:

Betty Parsley, MHA, Harbour Main.

CHAIR:

Thank you to the Government Services Committee, and now I'd like to ask the

Minister of Transportation and Works and his staff to introduce themselves.

MR.

CROCKER:

Good morning, everybody.

Steve Crocker, Minister of Transportation and Works.

MS.

KING:

Tracy King, Deputy Minister, Transportation and Works.

MS.

MS.

MCCARTHY:

Charlene McCarthy, Departmental Controller.

MR.

MORRISSEY:

Patrick Morrissey, Budget Manager.

MR.

DUNFORD:

Joe

Dunford, Assistant Deputy Minister of Operations.

MR.

GRANDY:

Cory Grandy, Assistant Deputy Minister for Infrastructure.

MR.

SCOTT:

Brian Scott, Director of Communications.

MS.

ANDERSON:

Eilanda Anderson, Executive Assistant to the minister.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you for all the introductions. The plan is to conclude by 12 p.m. at

the latest. We will go in rotation, 10 minutes for the Official Opposition, 10

minutes for the Third Party and, at intervals, we'll open the floor up to the

Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

CLERK:

1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall

1.1.01 carry?

Minister.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll

start with some brief comments. Budget 2018-19 marked the fourth consecutive

year that Transportation and Works has not requested any new funding. In

2018-19, the department identified pressures totalling $8.9 million, and again

we were able to absorb these pressures and address them from within.

These

costs increase are the primary results of tendering and contracting increases,

utility price increases and demand-driven material usage pressures from such

items as salt and sand and the rental of heavy equipment. To find ways to deal

with these pressures, the department has undertaken an in-depth salary review

and operational budget review to absorb these costs and review the individual

program areas in 2018-19's Estimates books will reveal a significant number of

funding increases and decreases.

These

changes in funding levels are primarily the result of the re-allocation of

existing funding to properly reflect the financial requirements of the

department's new organizational structure. The department moved from a

regional-based structure to a functional-based structure in 2018 and '19.

The

2018-19 salary budget was reduced by $1.26 million to reflect government's

attrition plan. These savings will be achieved through the elimination of

positions as employees retire or leave their positions for other reasons. The

2018-19 salary budget was reduced by a further $427,000 to reflect the

annualized impact of the new departmental management structure. No additional

lay-offs will occur in the 2018-19 year to achieve these savings.

comparison of the Department of Transportation and Works total budget from

2017-18 of $573 million to the 2018-19 budget of $549 million shows a funding

increase of $24 million. This apparent increase in the Department of

Transportation and Works budget is somewhat misleading. To increase operational

efficiencies, responsibility for all government leasing spaces and the majority

of government's vehicle fleet have been consolidated into the Department of

Transportation and Works. Funding of $18 million for leases and $3.1 million for

vehicle operations costs have been removed from various other core government

departments and re-allocated to Transportation and Works.

The

apparent increase in the Department of Transportation and Works budget does not

represent an increase in government's overall spending. In 2017-18, the

department made a commitment to host the annual Transportation Association of

Canada conference. Each year, the province assigned to host this conference

agrees to send a higher number of delegates to this conference. As a review of

the Employee Benefits expenditures in 2018 in the Estimates book, it will show

that the amount spent throughout the department on TAC registration fees is much

higher than it would be in a normal year. The department identified one-time

savings to fund these additional registrations.

Budget

2018-2019 numbers: budget approved $274 million for operating, including $93

million for salaries; budget 2018-19 for current account infrastructure is $69.7

million, including salaries of $5.3 million; and budget 2018-19 for capital

account infrastructure is $143 million, including salaries of $10.2 million.

Mr.

Chair, I just wanted to give a brief overview of some of the things that have

happened, which reflect the things that you will see in the Estimates today. I

look forward to the questions from the Members opposite and we'll endeavour to

answer every question we can. And if there are some questions that need further

research, we'll certainly do it.

Just as

a side note, as our staff from TW introduce themselves, Charlene said yesterday

in a meeting that she's been to many, many of these meetings and this will be

her last one, so feel free today to throw some extra hard questions at Charlene

because she has no intentions of returning to Estimates next year. I think she

has a much better plan next year than spending a Monday morning in Estimates.

She'll enjoy her retirement.

Again,

thank you to the TW staff for all the work they've put in to preparing for

today's Estimates so that we can endeavour to answer your questions to the best

of our ability.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

Before

we turn it over to questions, I'd just like to state that when a question is

deferred to one of your staff that they introduce themselves just prior to

answering. When we ask to carry the heads, we shall wait until we've completed

then carry the whole Estimates and accept them.

So with

that, I'll turn it over to the Opposition.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What

sections are we doing there now?

CHAIR:

We're going to start off with 1.1.01 and work our way right through.

MR. PETTEN:

So we're just starting,

there's no end – you just got the one that you're opening, okay.

CHAIR:

Yeah.

MR. PETTEN:

Minister,

section 1.1.01

under Salaries, there's an increase of $45,000. It's not a huge amount from last

year's revised amount, but what's included? How many positions are in this

salary $242,000?

MR. CROCKER:

That would be the Minister's Office, so there obviously would be the minister's

salary, the executive assistant to the minister. About halfway through last

fiscal year, we hired a ministerial liaison in the department and that salary is

approximately $44,000 a year. It reflects the salary somewhere around the

political level of a constituency assistant.

This

position is to be used, and is being used, to do some work around – primarily

working with municipalities because one of the areas that we've identified as an

office that we feel there is some work that we can do to help streamline some of

the inquiries – because, as you probably would be well aware, there are quite a

number of inquiries in Transportation and Works.

I think

one of the efficiencies that we're hoping to achieve in the department is not so

much a better working relationship, I guess, with municipalities because I think

we've always had a good working relationship, but there is a consistent

pipeline, I think, is important with municipalities.

MR. PETTEN:

Yes, communication is very

important; there's no doubt.

Under

Employee Benefits, there was an increase in the amount budgeted under Employee

Benefits and the revised amount. What was the increase again? It's a small

amount but just –

MR. CROCKER:

That was the $100?

MR. PETTEN:

No, $2,100. It went down.

MR. CROCKER:

Oh, I am sorry.

MR. PETTEN:

It was only a small amount,

but it's just –

MR. CROCKER:

That's the TAC conference. That's the one we mentioned where we hosted this

year, so there was an extra cost.

MR. PETTEN:

Memberships.

MR. CROCKER:

Pardon?

MR. PETTEN:

Memberships or …

MR. CROCKER:

Registration fees.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under 1.2.01, Executive Support, there's $25,000 more in

Salaries than budgeted last year. This year you're estimating to spend almost

$50,000 less. What is this variance?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, that's a reduction due to the change in the pay level of the new

communications director. So I guess that would be a step increase – step issues.

The new director came in at a lower step than the previous director.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

So there

are no extra positions there, that's just a pay scale –

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, and there were some severance costs in that expenditure as well.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

1.2.02,

Administrative Support, there's a significant change in the description of what

is included under Administrative Support this year compared to last year. There

are huge increases in the numbers from last year's Estimates. For example, last

year's Estimates allotted just over $1 million for Salaries under this section,

yet they listed here for Budget 2017

just over $4 million. Likewise, the total voted for in Administrative Support

last year was just over $3.4 million, but here it states almost $6.6 million.

Can you

explain what occurred (inaudible) or what changed in these budget numbers?

MR. CROCKER:

That was the departmental restructuring. You'll see these fluctuation's

throughout the Estimates, like I referred to in my opening remarks where we

changed our structure. There were big jumps in some areas and some big decreases

in others.

MR. PETTEN:

What kind of restructuring

happened there?

MR. CROCKER:

I'll turn that over to the

deputy.

MS. KING:

There are a couple of things

going on here. This salary now funds financial operations, corporate safety, and

planning and accommodations. In last year's budget, the corporate safety manager

wasn't in the right place in the structure. So the movement of all of the safety

folks from one part of the organization to the other, as well the other piece

that's changed in here is the departmental attrition number for this year is in

here and then, as the year goes by, it will be moved to where it needs to be.

The

other piece that's in here is that there are some clerks and a receptionist that

are voted in here this year that wouldn't have been there last year. So it's

just a small change but when you add it to the departmental attrition number, it

looks a bit larger as an impact in this branch.

MR. PETTEN:

Salary numbers are up by over

$400,000. Is that all to do with the extra positions that were –?

MS. KING:

From the revised?

MR. PETTEN:

Yeah.

MS. KING:

Again, the manager of

corporate safety's salary is in here but the funding for this position last year

was under a different number, so that's been moved here. There were four

positions in here that didn't have the funding allocated and we moved, so that's

corrected for this year – two clerks and a receptionist that were here, as well

as an OHS officer. That's what's going on here –

MR. CROCKER:

And there was some severance

MS. KING:

And there was some severance.

MR. PETTEN:

– in here as well.

MS. KING:

Yes.

Thank

you, Minister.

MR. PETTEN:

So there were four positions

included in this amount?

MS. KING:

Uh-huh.

MR. CROCKER:

Four positions and severance.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under

Employee Benefits, what is included there?

MR. CROCKER:

Under Employee Benefits?

MR. PETTEN:

Yeah.

MR. CROCKER:

Funding for such things as

workers' compensation, claim costs only; TW departmental staff; as well as

provisions for professional development; and membership fees for the Corporate

Services division.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under

Supplies, last year you spent $17,000 less than was budgeted for supplies, yet

this year you're budgeting almost $16,000 more. What's the reason for this

fluctuation?

MS. KING:

The difference last year was,

really, we made a concerted effort to keep our supplies and our paper down. As

well, with the reorganization, we've readjusted all of the budgets so that this

year, our first full year under our reorganization, I think will give us a

better picture as we head into next year if we can make the permanent reduction.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

And

under Purchased Services there's a similar fluctuation. There's $50,000 less in

your revised, yet you're budgeting again $50,000 more this year. What's the

reason for that?

MR. CROCKER:

So the $50,000 in savings were on shredding and advertising costs.

MR. PETTEN:

On what?

MR. CROCKER:

The savings – shredding and advertising costs.

MR. PETTEN:

But it's gone back up again this year.

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah, mostly due to advertising costs being down this past year and the budget

stays there for this coming fiscal year.

MR. PETTEN:

In anticipation?

MR. CROCKER:

Well, in the event it – yeah. We didn't take it out of the budget, I guess. We

didn't use it last year but, you know, it's there this year if it needs to be.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under

Transportation and Communications, what's the increase of almost $80,000? What's

the reason for this?

MR. CROCKER:

What number?

MR. PETTEN:

Transportation and Communications under 1.2.02.

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah, that's reallocation again. Funding provided for T and C for corporate

services employees throughout the province, corporate safety planning and admin,

regional administrators and this also is associated costs with postage and

envelopes for the department. It's a reallocation issue, taking from another

division of the department and brought to this division of the department,

again, as a result of restructuring.

MR. PETTEN:

Under your Revenue – Provincial, what's included in this? I know last year the

numbers have been from 2017 to revised to this year. What is this? What's

included here?

MR. CROCKER:

Increase in revenues due to the increased number of insurance claims during the

year including a Western Memorial insurance claim, a Churchill Falls River

bridge insurance claim and an MV Veteran

insurance claim, and as well another insurance claim for the

Flanders .

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under

1.2.03, Strategic and Support Services, there's a significant change in the

description of what's included under this

section this year compared to last

year, and there's a huge increase in salary numbers and all other categories

from last year's Estimates as well; $3 million in Salaries alone from last

year's budget amount, there's an increase.

what's included here and what are the reasons for this?

MR. CROCKER:

So what line was that?

MR. PETTEN:

That's under Salaries,

1.2.03.

MR. CROCKER:

This funding provides salary

costs for employees under policy and planning, mail services, tendering and

contracting, building security and overtime and other earning requirements.

MR. PETTEN:

So that's an amalgamation of

all the divisions that weren't there last year, correct?

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah, so the additions in

that

section would be mail services and security.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under

Salaries, too, there seems to be a steady decline in Salaries, almost $200,000

revised, another $65,000 for this year. Why is that a downward slope, even

though you have more stuff added, why is that?

MR. CROCKER:

This variance is due to a

number of changes, including the manager of corporate safety being improperly

budgeted in the 2017-18 budget. This has been allocated in 1.2.02,

Administration Support for 2018-19 and a manager of evaluation and research

being replaced who is in a lower scale. Security services overtime requirements

have been reduced and various other changes to the salary plan, including step

changes, attrition management and vacancy factor for this activity.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

In last

year's Estimates, there was a

section there for Mail Services with a budget of

$671,000. So did all of that go over into that, that and the full budget go over

into this new section, this Strategic and Support Services?

MR. CROCKER:

It would have, as the Mail

Services were moved in the Estimates, they would have brought their budget with

them.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

There is

also a

section for Administrative Support associated with the purchasing of

capital assets that the minister said he was keeping on the advice of Finance,

just to keep the account open, but that's no longer there. Any idea what

happened to that?

MR. CROCKER:

Charlene, can you –?

MS. MCCARTHY:

Yes, if there are tangible capital asset purchases that we didn't know about

when we did the budget, then this account allows us to find one-time savings,

move it in to buy those essential items. Without this account, we wouldn't have

a place to put that money and we wouldn't be able to address these issues within

the department. So that's why the Department of Finance wants this account kept

open.

MR. PETTEN:

Under your Grants and Subsidies, what is included there in that line?

MR. CROCKER:

Funding is provided for FPT

contributions, FPT Ministers of Transportation, a TAC membership for the

department, TAC scholarship fund, World Road Congress membership for the branch

and other grants.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay, I'm going to ask just a

couple of quick questions there now in the last minute of my block.

How many

people are employed in the department today, from this year to last? Last year,

it was 1,165, which was 23 less than 2016 according to the minister at the time.

Do you

have a number on how many people are employed in the department now?

MR. CROCKER:

Well, yeah, I do have a

number as was prepared at the snapshot of Estimates. Transportation and Works is

a hard department to capture numbers in because of the nature of the business

and it's a snapshot in time.

These

Estimates are prepared on 1,555, but if you want to go to Thursday, it will

probably be somewhere in the half, in that neighbourhood, or half of where the

department is because, obviously, on Wednesday of this week we switch from

winter to summer maintenance and we'll layoff hundreds of employees as we change

that. So it depends, it's a snapshot in time in this department.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay. Are contractual

positions included in that number?

MR. CROCKER:

In that number? Yes.

MR. PETTEN:

They are. And what about

13-weekers?

MR. CROCKER:

So, currently, there are 67

13-weekers in the department and that number will fall in half or better on

Thursday.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

My time

is ….

MR. EDMUNDS:

Okay, thank you.

We can

go to the Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Good

morning, Minister, and all your staff, and congratulations on the potential

retirement.

I will

just start with 2.1.01.

Before

that, Minister, just so – because it determines how many notes we take – can we

expect to get the briefing book again this year?

MR. CROCKER:

You will, but it will be in

electronic form.

MS. MICHAEL:

That's okay.

MR. CROCKER:

Anybody over here with a binder this morning had to buy their own paper.

MS. MICHAEL:

I was noticing the iPads.

That's

great, we don't care what form it's in. The information is the important thing.

MR. CROCKER:

And I apologize this morning, I won't take any amount of your time, but if you

see me flicking around about I had to switch from electronic to this on Friday,

I think, because I was getting too confused. So my apologies if I'm seen

fumbling around the binder this morning.

MS. MICHAEL:

If I were in your position,

I'd have a binder in front of me.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

2.1.01, obviously, in the

Salaries line there's a variation. Could you explain the variations from last

year's budget to the revision and then to this year's estimate?

MR. CROCKER: That

increase is due to a more realistic salary recharge rate for infrastructure

projects. Salary variances reflect the 2018-19 departmental salary plan. This

salary plan reflects ongoing attrition management plan, fund requirements for

step increases and reallocation of salary resources based on changing

departmental priorities.

MS. MICHAEL:

Were any positions moved somewhere else? Because it is $421,400 less, so it's a

fair bit of money. Was there a movement of positions?

MS. KING: When

we restructured, the department employees reporting to the director of

Maintenance and Equipment were moved to that activity. Those salaries were all

reallocated as well. So it's not a decrease in funding.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

Under Purchased Services, last year the budget was $645,000

and it was revised upward by quite a bit to $819,500, and this year it's just

$48,500 under Purchased Services. If we could have an explanation of all of

that, please.

MS. KING: Sure.

Again, this isn't a budget decrease but it's reallocation of funds for the new

structure. The funding for our road weather information system and our new AVL,

sorry, our vehicle locators were reallocated to Maintenance of Equipment

administration account.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. So that's why we're down to the $48,000.

MS. KING: That's

right.

MS. MICHAEL: Did

you have extra expenditures, though? You did spend more money last year under

the revision.

MS. KING: This

overrun is mainly due to expenditures with our new GPS tracking system. We

implemented it more quickly. We were able to do it quicker than we had

anticipated.

MS. MICHAEL: Oh

good, great.

Thank you very much.

Coming down to 2.1.02,

and it's under Revenue. The Provincial Revenue is estimated at $150,000

and this year it's maintained at $150,000; although, last year it was down by

$50,000. Where exactly does that revenue come from?

MR. CROCKER:

That would be primarily our TODS, our tourism directional signage. If a tourism

operator wants to purchase a sign, and there's an ongoing rental we achieve from

that as well.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right, okay.

Thank

you very much.

2.1.04

under Salaries, we do have a slight drop under Salaries. Can we have an

explanation of that, please?

MR. CROCKER:

Well, I guess that's our winter maintenance salaries. Is that correct? Yeah.

So there

is a salary variance on this. This is one that fluctuates with winter weather

conditions. The amount primarily, I guess, it would be overtime. Because in a

core situation we pay our staff a core salary or core work hours, but this would

be associated with overtime costs when it comes to snow and ice control.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. Thank you very much.

Under

Supplies, last year the revision was up by $4.3 million from the budget. Could

we have an explanation of that increase? Because you do expect to come back down

this year again.

MR. CROCKER:

That was a reallocation of funding to offset the increase in salt and sand

costs. Some of this is due to the new sections of the pavement on the

Trans-Labrador Highway.

Again,

this is one of those fluctuations you'll see in this department due to usage of

salt and sand. Because really we don't get – our salt and sand savings come from

the previous year, we don't see it. We would have started this season with no

inventory,

whereas next season we may have some inventory, and that would be

reflected in the – it's how much we got left in stock and what we got to

purchase in the next fiscal year.

MS. MICHAEL:

Sure, understood.

Thank

you.

Just a

couple of questions, Minister: Does the department have a way of counting how

many times the plow tracker is accessed, and do you have numbers on that?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, we can see that. I don't have those numbers this morning. I'm not sure,

Joe, if you could speak. Do you have –

MR. DUNFORD:

(Inaudible.)

MR. CROCKER:

We can certainly get those numbers. I can tell you, there has been a significant

uptake and we were able just a few weeks ago to make this now province-wide.

Again, there was a question earlier that referenced an increase in expenditure,

and that was because we were able to find a way to get this done province-wide –

island-wide, I should say – as quickly as possible.

We're

working to make it available in Labrador. There are some different challenges

because in Labrador we contract our snow and ice removal, so we have to work

with the contractors to make plow tracker available.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

Is that

the only place you have contractors?

MR. CROCKER:

Well, yeah, as primary providers.

MS. MICHAEL:

As primary.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes. We use contractors all over the province –

MS. MICHAEL:

Well, that's what I thought.

MR. CROCKER:

– to supplement our crews,

but in Labrador we do have two contractors providing the majority of the

service.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. Thank you.

There

was a review being done of the tow-plow pilot project. Has that been completed?

Do you have the results of that?

MR. CROCKER:

We haven't got the final

results of the success because I guess some of that review would go down to be

as technical as the size of engine required in the truck. We did announce in the

budget a couple of weeks ago that we will be adding to the tow-plow fleet this

year. So we are confident that it has been successful.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

And will

that information be in the briefing book, do you know?

MR. CROCKER:

I wouldn't think so.

MS. KING:

No, it's not in here.

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah, no, it's not. No,

sorry. It's not in here, no.

MS. MICHAEL:

But if we wanted it we could request it.

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah.

MS. MICHAEL:

If we needed it.

Thank

you very much.

Coming

to Building Maintenance, Operations and Accommodations – that's 2.2.01. Here

again it's a salary issue, and this may be reallocation of positions. I would

like an explanation because this year we see an increase of $791,100 over last

year's estimate. It's down slightly from what the revision was because the

revision went up quite a bit. It was $1,012,800 over the budget. So if we could

have an explanation of that line.

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah. I guess the 791

increase is due to more realistic salary re-charge rates to our infrastructure

projects. Salary variances reflect the 2018 departmental salary plan. The salary

plan reflects ongoing attrition management plan, funding requirements for step

increases and the reallocation of salary resources based on changing

departmental priorities.

The

second question around the revised and the $1.012 million includes severance

payments of approximately $457,000 and a lower-than-anticipated salary re-charge

rates to our infrastructure projects. As a part of the annual salary plan

estimates, salary re-charge rates are used to prepare the yearly salary

allocations for the department. These recharge rates are estimates only and the

level that's actually recharged varies based on the number and scope of the

infrastructure projects we do and complete annually.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

I only

have 24 seconds left so I'll stop, Mr. Chair. I only have 18 seconds left, so

I'll stop.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Okay, we'll go back to the

Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like

to go back to 2.1.03. Under Purchased Services, what amounts are included in

this? What's included here?

MR. CROCKER:

This funding is provided for

machinery rentals to supplement our equipment: sealers, rollers – sorry,

spreaders, rollers, tampers, long-reach excavators; equipment that we normally

wouldn't have in each and every one of our depots. Obviously, this is obtained

from various suppliers. The road maintenance of the Trans-Labrador Highway – and

this would also include our brush-cutting program and our calcium chloride

program.

MR. PETTEN:

What about the asphalt

recycler cost with maintenance – is that included in this section?

MR. CROCKER:

It wouldn't be, would it,

Joe, because that's a –

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible.)

MR. CROCKER:

That's a piece of equipment

that was actually purchased previously, so it's actually in our inventory. It's

not something that we're going out to rent or –

MR. PETTEN:

Under 2.1.04, in Salaries, is

overtime included in this? Does this figure include overtime for this past year?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MR. PETTEN:

Do you have any idea of what

your overtime was? How much overtime there actually was? Do you have that broken

down?

MR. CROCKER:

Sorry, if you could, would

you mind asking the question again and I'll get Joe to take the question.

MR. PETTEN:

Do you have a breakdown of

the overtime cost this year for your winter maintenance, snow and ice control

from last year?

MR. DUNFORD:

I don't have that here

offhand at the moment. That's something we can get, absolutely.

MR. CROCKER:

So the deputy can get you

that information. The overtime was $3.8 million. Labrador region was $150,000;

Clarenville region was $751,000; Avalon region was $1.1 million; Grand

Falls-Windsor was $800,000; and the West Coast-Deer Lake region was $1 million.

MR. PETTEN:

Has that increased from last year? Is that an increase over last year's amount?

MR. CROCKER:

No, we've held our estimates on Salaries steady. So the last year budgeted was

$20 million, revised was $20 million, was equal, was the same, and our estimates

this year are at $20 million again – $19.9 million. So the overtime is in that

number.

MR. PETTEN:

And under your Summer Maintenance, 2.1.03, the cost associated with the

potholes, pothole repairs, would cold patch fall under this? Would that be

included in this section?

OFFICIAL:

In Purchased Services or just overall, Barry?

MR. PETTEN:

In that section, probably under Purchased Services. That's what I'm kind of just

basically generally asking. Is that cost included in this section?

MR. CROCKER:

That would be practically the same answer I guess as the Summer – no, I'm sorry,

2.1.03 –

MR. PETTEN:

Yeah.

MR. CROCKER:

So this is the funding for equipment rentals?

MR. PETTEN:

Well, I'm asking the general question –

MR. CROCKER:

Oh.

MR. PETTEN:

– is there in that section? I'm asking you I guess is that cost associated with

that in there?

MR. CROCKER:

Oh, okay, sorry. Stuff like cold patch and stuff?

MR. PETTEN:

Pothole repair, yeah, for all your costs.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, in Purchased Services, because our cold patch would be (inaudible).

MR. PETTEN:

So how much did cold patch cost the department last year, this year, do you

know?

MR. CROCKER:

Typically between $500,000 and $600,000.

MR. PETTEN:

Five hundred thousand dollars and $600,000 per season?

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

And what

kind of results did you get from the cold patch this year?

MR. CROCKER:

I guess any time you're patching potholes there are always challenges with

weather and other things. But it's been, I guess, similar to other seasons.

MR. PETTEN:

In the 2.2.01 section, under your Salaries, 2017 estimates Salaries at $3.814

million and this year's budget shows them at $2.589 million, and it starts off

in the budget being $1.798 million, but last year's Estimates show that it was

$3.8 million. But the heading remains the same under Administration. So what's

would the change for this – that's a fairly substantial amount. There is

obviously something removed.

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah.

So this

increase is, again, more realistic salary recharge rates for infrastructure

projects; salary variances reflects the 2018-19 departmental plan; and the plan

reflects ongoing attrition management, funding requirements for step increases

and the reallocation of salary resources based on changing departmental

priorities.

Did you

ask the revised question on that as well?

MR. PETTEN:

No.

Well, I

know last year was $3.8 million and this year we're down to $2.5 million, and

even though in your budget that line is showing $1.798 million, last year's

estimate show $3.814 million. I'm asking what the drop is for. Like, what's

missing?

But the

heading doesn't change. Administration is just the same as last year's.

MR. CROCKER:

Engineers have been removed.

MR. PETTEN:

What?

MR. CROCKER:

The engineering staff has

been removed.

MR. PETTEN:

Removed from this section?

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah.

MR. PETTEN:

So where are they now?

MR. CROCKER:

Charlene.

MS. MCCARTHY:

We've consolidated all of our

engineering services under the one activity and I think it's 3.1.02.

MR. PETTEN:

3.1.02? Okay.

Minister, I've got a couple of minutes left in this round. I'm going to just ask

a couple of general questions I guess.

To go

back to the positions, I finished off the last time talking about the attrition

plan. Are you still following the attrition plan? Do you still have the

attrition plan? Are you still –?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MR. PETTEN:

As a result of the attrition

plan, how many positions have been eliminated?

MR. CROCKER:

Do you mean, like, since the

previous administration brought in the attrition plan?

MR. PETTEN:

Well, or if in the last year – because I think I had the figure from last year.

MR. CROCKER:

Charlene, could you speak to

that, or (inaudible)?

MS. MCCARTHY:

Are you talking about in '18-'19 reductions, upcoming?

MR. PETTEN:

Well, yes – or to date,

really, from year over year. So I'm talking pretty well since we met last year

to this year, what reductions have been found, or have there been any reductions

in the last year? And I guess any plan for the coming year.

So just

in –

MS. MCCARTHY:

Okay.

For the

coming year there is no plan to reduce any positions, except for ones where

people are retiring and we do not have to fill them. So there will be no bodies

going out through the door, as such.

So as

positions become vacant, the department will be looking at individual

requirements for that position and making judgment calls on whether we should

fill that position or leave it vacant.

MR. CROCKER:

I guess just to add to that,

if you look at how Transportation and Works actually operates as a department,

every time you look at attrition plans, and, I guess, that's why attrition has a

number, a percentage or a value works better for a department like this one, is

the fact that we don't apply any attrition when we look at snow plow operators,

for example. That's not something were we would see an attrition opportunity.

That's frontline services.

We look

for attrition opportunities in more of a senior role or a role that doesn't

affect our frontline employees because, really, our primary focus, I think, is

providing safe highways for our residents. That's not somewhere we would look

for attrition savings.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

One

question in my last few seconds. How much have you spent on snow clearing this

winter, to date? How much has snow clearing costed?

MR. CROCKER:

That would be just a shot in

the dark because the reality is we still have snow clearing costs. We still have

our snow clearing costs up until Wednesday. We already know that we are

extending the West Coast beyond – we had a severe winter event on the West Coast

last week. Those costs wouldn't be tallied at this point in time.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

If we

look at 2.2.02, Building Utilities and Maintenance, just a quick question with

regard to the Salaries because the Estimates for this year are $432,200 less

than last year's budget.

MR. CROCKER:

This variance is mainly due

to the reallocation of salaries to reflect again the new departmental structure.

Regional engineers, senior engineers and technical service inspectors were moved

to come under director of Building Design and Construction, which we'll see a

little bit later in 3.1.02.

MS. MICHAEL:

3.1.02, if I get that one I

won't ask you the question then when we get there, except maybe to ask how many

engineers there are in that department.

MR. CROCKER:

I'll be deferring to Cory.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much.

Under

2.2.03.

MR. CROCKER:

Building Rentals?

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, Rentals. We have large

numbers here, of course, but we see an increase of $523,000. Could we have an

explanation of that under Purchased Services?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, that's an increase of our rent at Atlantic Place.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. It's that white

elephant.

Thank

you.

MR. CROCKER:

The gift that keeps on giving.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, right.

All

right, that was 2.2.03; 2.2.04, that's the Salt Storage Sheds. Under Purchased

Services the revision was downward by $200,000 and the budget for this year is

down to $800,000. That's a big jump down. Can we have an explanation?

MR. CROCKER:

On the $200,000, it was

saving on expenditures in '17 and '18. Coming down even further is over the last

number of years the department has been successful in a lot of new construction

of salt sheds and we're really getting to a point where our salt sheds are

reaching a good place, I guess. I can't take all the credit for that but we do

have some good infrastructure now when it comes to salt sheds.

One of

the things we'll be doing this year when it comes to salt sheds is replacements

in Lethbridge and construction of a foundation and a new building at White

Hills.

One of

the successes that new salt sheds bring to the department is savings in salt

because, obviously, if our salt is not stored outside, we don't have the erosion

caused by precipitation, wind and other factors.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. Thank you.

Some

municipalities, my own included, probably needs a look at the salt storage. We

have a few –

MR. CROCKER:

We're addressing our issue just this year in St. John's at White Hills. So

that's one of the ones we'll be constructing this year.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, but the one down on the

Waterfront, is that municipal or provincial?

MR. CROCKER:

No, I think that's actually – that's where we buy it. Well, not necessarily we

buy it from, but that's Harvey's storage.

MS. MICHAEL:

Oh, that's right, it's

Harvey's.

Thank

you.

Just a

couple of general questions, Minister. In your mandate letter you were required

to further reduce the government's building footprint, and I know there have

been some efforts taken on that. Can we have an update on what's going on?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, as of today, since 2016, we've been able to reduce government's footprint

by slightly over 90,000 square feet and we will continue. I believe in

The Way Forward we – we are ahead of

our targets, actually. We are now moving to the over 100,000 square foot

reduction number.

MS. MICHAEL:

Could we have some examples of how that's being done with buildings?

MR. CROCKER:

If you look no further than West Block, AES just came into a new space on the

first floor. We're using new standards. We've adopted, I guess, the standard

used by the federal government with work space requirements. So that's one here

in the building that we've done.

So AES

moved, I think, off Kenmount Road to –

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible.)

MR. CROCKER: S o,

as an example, the AES move has a savings of $273,000. That was they came off

Kenmount Road, and others, we'll have a tender actually that – sorry, an RFP –

closes, I think, later today for our leased space in Corner Brook. We're going

to reduce the space used primarily by Fisheries and Land Resources in Corner

Brook by approximately half.

MS. MICHAEL:

And would that AES move in particular, would that have included frontline

workers access to the public or more administrative?

MR. CROCKER:

The function that's now located over there that came off Kenmount Road was a

call centre, so I guess receiving in-bound calls, primarily.

MS. MICHAEL:

All calls?

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

Also,

still related to the government-owned buildings, you've been mandated to make

sure that they are energy efficient and environmentally sound by pursuing the

BOMA BEST certification. So can we have an update on that as well?

MR. CROCKER:

So, yeah, obviously any time we're contracting for construction of new

buildings, we're looking for LEED certification, any opportunities we find for

switching. Government will have a part of the new low carbon fund and that will

be to help retrofit some buildings, not only here in the city but throughout the

province. Any time government looks for space now or does things to our own

properties, energy efficiency is always in mind, no different than it would be

for any of us.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

With

regard to new construction, we do have construction coming up, for example,

under the Department of Health. Well, of course, you're in charge of the

construction.

MR. CROCKER:

Mm-hmm.

MS. MICHAEL:

So would the calls for

proposals include this as an essential part of proposals?

MR. CROCKER:

So any of our requests for proposals that we put out, there is scoring, I guess,

points for your energy efficiency and we look for LEED Silver now in all of our

builds. That's something we're looking for. In everything we build, we look for

LEED Silver.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, and will that be the same as well for any buildings where you're going to

be using the P3 model for construction, for example?

MR. CROCKER:

Absolutely.

MS. MICHAEL:

And government is in control

of those RFPs?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, absolutely.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you very much.

I'll

just move on to – that's all the general ones I have at this moment – 2.3.01,

Equipment Maintenance.

MR. CROCKER:

Okay, yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Again, it's a salary

question because the Salaries have gone up by $415,500 over the budget of last

year.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes. This is, again, due to

restructuring. Employees reporting to the director of maintenance and equipment

were moved to the maintenance and equipment administration activity, which is

2.2.01. This is administrative support for roads and as a result the funding

associated with these employees has been reallocated, and this does not reflect

in this increase,

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

Under

Purchased Services in the same head, we have a variation here as well.

Do you

have that? That's still 2.3.01.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. So the variance here is

$581,500 more budgeted for this year over last year's budget. Do we have an

explanation of why that big jump?

MR. CROCKER:

Again, some of this answer

will be repetitive, but this is due to the restructuring in the department, and

employees reporting to the director of maintenance and equipment were moved to

the maintenance and equipment administration activity. As well here, Purchased

Services funding associated with these employees was reallocated and this would

primarily include the funding that's used for the road weather information

system.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

Just out

of curiosity, is there a chart showing the restructuring of the department?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, we can certainly get

that. Absolutely.

MS. MICHAEL:

He'd love it actually.

Thank

you very much.

Okay,

I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I don't have any on that one (inaudible) on line by lines. My

colleagues are doing a good job at getting through those, for sure.

I have

some more general questions. The first question goes to 1.1.01 under Minister's

Office, and you talked about a ministerial liaison –

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MR. LANE:

– to deal with

municipalities. I'm assuming where that's in the Minister's Office, that's a

government appointed position as opposed to a public service position that would

be through the Public Service Commission?

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah. No, that is a political

position. It's compensated, like I said, around the constituency assistant

level.

MR. LANE:

Okay, thank you.

MR. CROCKER:

It's not wholly for

municipalities but it is one of the, I guess, interest –

MR. LANE:

The impetus for doing it,

perhaps.

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah, and I guess it's a lot

more. Our stakeholders – we have a lot of opportunity I think to work with

municipalities, not only municipalities but other groups as well. It's sort of

to get some more emphasis on co-operation.

MR. LANE:

Okay, thank you.

My next

question falls under 1.2.02, it's just a very general question. There was one

item there that somebody asked about, I think it was Professional Services,

where it was $131,800, it went down to $81,800 and then still back up to

$132,500. When asked about it, I think you said you saved money on shredding and

advertising costs but the explanation for continuing was we just decided to keep

it the same as what it was the year before, even though we didn't use it.

Just a

very general question on that. Based on that response, I'm just wondering, is

government still using the zero-based budgeting or has that been abandoned?

MR. CROCKER:

Absolutely not abandoned, and

you'll see lots of times when you look through these Estimates you will see

minor tweaks of 100, 200, 300, 400.

MR. LANE:

Okay.

MR. CROCKER:

That's zero based, but when

it comes to advertising in this department and why we would want to keep that

budget is occupational health and safety is a huge concern of this department.

One of the things we're – public awareness, for example, around construction

zones and some of the issues we see in construction zones, it's really important

that we have the ability to advertise and partner with others when it comes to

advertising, whether it's a construction association or others because awareness

of drivers, I guess all the time, but during construction season is a concern of

ours. We feel it's necessary to keep our advertising budget. You'll see it this

year where we'll have an advertising campaign or some more focus around employee

safety and contractor safety.

MR. LANE:

Okay, good.

Thank

you.

The next

one I guess would fall under 2.1.02. Again, it's a general question because it

relates to signage and so on. I'm just wondering, there was a sign strategy,

TODS I think it's called. I can remember it back in my days of being on the

board of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, I think when it was first –

five or six years, or probably eight years ago now it was brought forward. I

know there was some push back about having this sign strategy, if you will.

I'm just

wondering, is that something that's still on the radar or has that concept sort

of been abandoned and we're just going to stay as we are?

MR. CROCKER:

No, it certainly hasn't been

abandoned. Actually, it's part of my mandate to work with the Minister of

Tourism to get a strategy that works. One of the things that I think we need to

do – maybe a little bit different than it was approached previously – is we need

to work with, primarily, Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador.

There's

no doubt about it, we have significant sign challenges in this province but a

solid strategy is something we're working towards. I met with the Minister of

Tourism just a few weeks ago actually to discuss this very topic, and I know the

Minister of Tourism has regular communications with HNL on this.

No, it

is certainly something that hasn't been abandoned, but we want to do it in a way

that's respectful to business owners. We need to preserve their right to

advertise but we need to do it in a standard of a format as possible.

MR. LANE:

Okay, thank you.

I'm glad

to hear that because I know there was push back at the time. I understand why

there perhaps would be, but I'm glad to hear you're not abandoning it because I

really do think it's the right thing to do, so good.

2.1.03;

again, it's nothing specific but I guess it would fall under there. There's been

a significant issue, as you know, as has been raised by one of my colleagues

about potholes and so on, and I know it's ongoing. It has nothing to do with

who's at the helm or whatever, a pothole is a pothole. It's a challenge, there's

no doubt.

I do

want to thank, by the way, Mr. Dunford here because a number of times I've had

to reach out for him on the ramps going in and out of Mount Pearl. They've been

pretty accommodating, and I realize the challenge. So thanks for that.

I'm just

wondering, have you looked in to or has the department looked in to any

potential new technology or whatever that relates to potholes?

seen it. I don't know if that's even realistic in our climate. I don't know what

the costs are. It might be a pipedream, I don't know, but it looked pretty good

on the computer. I know that's totally different from doing it in practice.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MR. LANE:

I'm just wondering, have you

been looking at, whether it's that technology I'm referring to or other

technologies to try to deal with and keep up with potholes? Because what we've

been doing presently doesn't really work as great as we'd like.

MR. CROCKER:

It's a good question, actually.

We're in

the process, I guess, of finalizing, updating our pothole patching procedure.

That doesn't sound like a very big procedure to update but the last time the

pothole patching procedure was updated in this province was 1994. A lot has

changed in the way potholes are addressed. You're correct, there is equipment

out there today that does that. I'm not sure it works.

One of

the things that we've been successful in this season, I think – and this has a

lot to do with weather conditions – is more and more use of our hot asphalt

recyclers. We have four hot asphalt recyclers and what we did a few weeks ago –

at this point in time the West Coast is not to a point in the season where they

can use their hot asphalt recycler so we brought that one in. We have two in the

Avalon region right now trying to keep up. I think the hot asphalt recycler is

out today.

There is

work around procedures and I guess it comes down to two things. I'm sure we're

all familiar with the Bruce Street potholes this year in the intersection.

MR. LANE:

Absolutely.

MR. CROCKER:

We went there on a number –

number, number and number – of occasions and actually used cold patch. Then, we

found a window, went in there with the recyclers and that was successful. If you

look at cold patch versus the ability to use hot asphalt, I personally think

it's like chalk and cheese, but anywhere we get the opportunity to use it.

To go

back to your point, we're always looking at ways to improve that procedure. If

there are technologies out there we'd certainly be interested again. Some of

these technologies we see like the Python 5000 are probably not really conducive

to our climate and the fact that we're maintaining potholes on 10,000 kilometres

of roads.

MR. LANE:

Okay, thank you for that.

I'm glad

that you're at least continuing to look into it because, as we all know, I'm

sure there's not one Member of the House of Assembly that hasn't gotten numerous

calls about potholes. It's an ongoing issue for sure, as well as municipalities.

Minister, I'm just wondering, I know under 2.1.03 it talks about brush cutting.

How are we doing on brush cutting in terms of keeping up with it to deal with

the moose situation? Are we maintaining the amount of brush cutting that we've

normally been doing and we're planning on continuing?

MR. CROCKER:

Absolutely, we are

maintaining. We budget approximately $2 million a year for brush cutting. When

we're doing larger summer construction projects, we'll also include brush

cutting in that.

There's

always a need for brush cutting because, obviously, it's just the nature of

growing. It's going to be a continuous cycle, so if we're ever fortunate enough

to get to a place where we can keep ahead of it – our engineering staff and our

regional staff are always asked to compile hotspots, I would call it. So we

address it in that way. If we identify a hotspot with moose, for example, we'll

put a priority to it.

Yes,

we're still working with SOPAC. We do some funding with SOPAC. We were able to

continue that coming into this fiscal year for their public awareness campaign

and some of the great work they do around awareness and their hotline. Any time

we can give motorists a heads-up or some knowledge of where there's a moose

incident or a moose opportunity or an incident, it is worthwhile doing.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Minister.

I see my

time is up so I'll defer.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Minister, we've gone through

the road maintenance

section but there are a couple of questions, outstanding

ones that I'd ask before I move on to another section.

The list

of roads, of course, for the province, there's been much conversation over the

last year or so since you implemented the five-year Roads Plan. It's meant to be

an open and transparent – issuing of all roads, of course, for all of our

provincial roads, the 10,000-and-some-odd kilometres we have. I've asked many

times for a list of roads but I've never received them. Is there an official

list of all the roads and where they score somewhere in the department?

MR. CROCKER:

Understanding the process of how we get to where we are with our Roads Plan, the

first level of feedback comes from our local staff. Our local staff would go out

and identify in their region this road, this road and this road. Then they bring

these roads to our regional engineers and they bring it to our senior engineers.

Then, in the late fall we have public input and then we finalize.

We're at

a point right now where we're only updating 25 per cent. This year, of a

$64-million roads budget, we had about $16 million to put – because we'd already

committed. You can go online this morning and see that 75 per cent of our road

projects for next year are there. They are planned, we see it and that's an

input.

There

isn't a database that has every single piece of every 10,000 kilometres of roads

in this province in it because, obviously, by the time you got to there, it

wouldn't be a five-year Roads Plan; it would be a 20-year roads plan. The

reality is our engineers go out, we look at traffic counts; we look at local

roads versus Route 1, 2, 3, 75, our trunk roads.

We need

to leave that flexibility of that 25 per cent, for example, going into next year

for emerging priorities because I can tell you, you see things deteriorate fast.

Especially around bridges and stuff, you see quick deterioration. This is a

snapshot in time and that's why we leave the number of 25 per cent for the next

construction season.

MR. PETTEN:

My point – and I don't want

to belabour it because I've asked this many times as you're well aware and I'm

sure officials in the department are well aware. But from my standpoint, and a

lot of people's standpoint, that's not what was advertised, that's not the way

it was introduced. It was a five-year Roads Program; it was taking the politics

out of paving.

I get

that. I wasn't opposed to that when it was announced. Actually, I didn't think

it was a bad plan. But I've always argued, and you've heard me say it many times

– and I say it in all sincerity – where is this list? It was said there's a list

but there's no list.

I'll use

examples. You've heard me talk about Route 60, and most – Joe, I'm sure, has

heard me say it a million times and I'll keep saying it because it's one of the

busiest roads in the province. All the criteria for you rating a road, Route 60

is the poster child for it. It's probably the fifth busiest road in the province

– you're looking at use, population, needs, what have you – but it's nowhere to

be found. I've never ever been able to find where that road ranks on the list

MR. CROCKER:

And that's fair, but I think

– and our approach to that is if you look at Route 60, we look at it as a local

road. Government's mandate for –we look at ones, twos and threes. That's our

priority.

Government built Route 2, Peacekeepers Way, in a way so that we would relieve

ourselves of the responsibilities of local roads like Route 60. This is one of

those roads that we want to work with the town on and finding a way going

forward. There are many advantages and, I guess, if you talk to the town there

are many disadvantages of municipalities taking over roads like Route 60. But

some of the best sections of Route 60 you'll find in Paradise.

If you

look at that

section in Paradise, it's the stuff that's maintained by the town.

This is a road that when Mount Pearl, for example, took over Topsail Road from –

when government starts building Outer Ring Roads and Harbour Arterials,

traditionally roads like Route 60 are devolved down to the town.

Our

primary focus in that region of the province would be Peacekeepers Way and we

have investment again going into Peacekeepers Way this year. I do understand the

conversation you and I are having here, your frustration on Route 60. It's

something we met with the town as recently as last week to keep the conversation

going, but it's important to us that priority is given to our ones, twos and

threes, our main trunks in the province.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay. We'll continue on with that one. To be continued.

MR. CROCKER:

I'm sure.

MR. PETTEN:

Under 2.2.02 in the Building Utilities and Maintenance section. Is that where

our government assets are located? Is that where –

MR. CROCKER:

2.2.02?

MR. PETTEN:

Yeah. It's the revenue, I guess, is probably what I'm asking. Is that to do with

– is that any of our government assets? I know it's government-owned buildings.

Is that where our government assets are stored, any buildings or used or

unoccupied, I guess?

MR. CROCKER:

So you're asking about the revenue here?

MR. PETTEN:

Yeah, well, I guess. So what's the revenue, basically?

MR. CROCKER:

It's revenue from rental of government buildings, sale of steam heat, parking

meters and revenue from, I guess, our agreement with even the cafeterias here in

Confederation Building. There is revenue that comes back from the operator of

the cafeterias.

MR. PETTEN:

So what have you received in the sale of government assets to date?

MR. CROCKER:

In Transportation and Works?

MR. PETTEN:

I guess, yeah, well that usually falls under –

MR. CROCKER:

I don't have that list right in front of me. I know, for example, we sold the

Holyes-Escasoni Complex.

One of

the things for Transportation and Works that we really focus on is our reduction

in footprint. As I said earlier, we've reduced our footprint by 90,000, with

substantial more footprint being reduced. Again, FLR closes today and we're

looking at reducing government footprint by probably another 20,000 or 30,000

square feet on the West Coast. So that's where we see it.

Our

number of assets at TW are somewhat limited when you think about it because the

sale of, for example, old school properties. That sale is done by the

that government would have would be primarily health facilities. I know, for

example, right now we're in talks in Lab West with bringing that building off.

One of

the things when you talked about the sale of government buildings, it's one

thing to look at the dollar figure you receive for a building, the other thing

is to look at the liability you're getting off the books because in lots of

cases many of these assets don't really have a lot of real estate value but they

have a big value to us in savings that you would see in heating costs, security

costs, insurance costs and just all liabilities associated with it.

MR. PETTEN:

Minister, also the Budget Speech mentioned Asset Management Framework. Can you

offer any details on that?

MR. CROCKER:

That is actually being lead by the Department of Finance, but, I guess, in a

smaller piece, if you want to look at this department, two things that did

happen in the budget that are management tools, and not so much on the asset

side is – well, they are assets obviously – the entire government fleet, light

vehicle fleet resides in Transportation and Works, where previously each

government department would have so many cars, for example.

We did a

very extensive review of that and found that what happens in lots of cases – and

I'll give a couple of examples – is, for example, Tourism wouldn't be using

their cars in the winter as much as they would use them in the summer. Other

departments use cars more in the winter.

What

we're in the process of doing now is setting up a method or a management system

where a government employee or a government department requiring a car for

tomorrow, you phone up and you book a car. That's how we'll determine how many

cars we need in our fleet.

We've

already determined that we're going to reduce our light vehicle fleet this year

by 10 per cent. What you'll quickly start seeing is when you look at cars and

government owned vehicles, you'll no longer see the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador, the department of works, services and transportation, you're going

to see Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on the vehicle fleet.

We've

done the same thing this year. Previously, departments came to Transportation

and Works and said: We want some space here, we want to keep this space or we

want to do that. Really, we were just the key holder, but now Transportation and

Works actually has all the leases for government in the department. We'll be

able to make the final decisions on where departments are located and how their

space is allocated.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Coming

to 2.3.02, Maintenance of Equipment. Okay?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Under Purchased Services in

that head, the Purchased Services went up in the revision by over $633,000.

Could we have an explanation because it's back down again for this year, but

there seemed to be a big bump in last year's expenditure?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, that was an overrun primarily due to outsourcing of repairs for winter

fleet preparation. Costs can vary on availability of in-house staff, the

complexity of the work we're into and, obviously, labour and material costs.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

In the

same head under Revenue, 02, provincial revenue, you maintained $82,000 there

although it went down by $30,000 last year in the revision.

What is

the source of that revenue? That's going to be question I'll be asking

consistently. What is the source of the revenue there?

MR. CROCKER:

The source of that revenue is the sale of old equipment and all OH and S-related

expenditures for equipment maintenance are 100 per cent covered by WorkplaceNL.

So there's revenue that comes back from WorkplaceNL.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, thank you.

I'd like

to ask a question so that I don't forget it. It goes back to something that was

asked by Mr. Petten.

When the

school board sells property, does that revenue stay within their revenue

coffers?

MR. CROCKER:

I asked that same question last week and the answer that I got was – it's best

asked to Education, but my understanding was it's quite possible that it stays

with the eastern school district, but I wouldn't want to be quoted on that. I

think that's more of an Education question, but what they do is that sale is

MS. MICHAEL:

That's right. Okay, well then we have Education tomorrow morning, I'll make sure

I ask that question then.

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

Coming

back now to the line items here, 2.3.03, Equipment Acquisitions. Again, under

Property, Furnishings and Equipment, which is, of course, what the main line is

there. There was a big increase last year of over $490,000. This year there's a

big jump downwards, spending $884,000 less.

So could

we have an explanation of that whole area? What the equipment is that's provided

there. Well, it's the heavy equipment and light vehicles, I see.

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah, so the deficit here can be mainly attributed to cost of two brine tankers

that we were trying to secure and two new snowplows because, unfortunately, on

January 7, we had a fire at the Bellevue depot and we lost two trucks. So we had

to find ways within the department to go out as rapidly as possible to replace

those two vehicles. That's why you see the difference here.

MS. MICHAEL:

The big difference, right. Okay.

And just

out of curiosity, what kind of tankers? What were they?

MR. CROCKER:

Brine tankers. So what we do on our larger highways is, in anticipation of a

snow event, we actually lay what I'll call a saltwater mix before the storm and

it helps with the initial cleanup.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, so B-R-I-N-E tankers.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

Again,

under 2.3.03, there's provincial revenue. What is the source of that revenue?

Last year we got more than we expected?

MR. CROCKER:

There's $28,000 that relates to one-time revenue from Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro – just imagine, government getting revenue from Hydro – as a reimbursement

of costs of a vehicle required for post-transmission line construction

monitoring south of Bay du Nord Wilderness Reserve.

MS. MICHAEL:

That's the kind of thing that

MR. CROCKER:

That would be if we are able to achieve revenue from someone using our

resources, our vehicle, we would charge them.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you.

Moving

on then to Highway Design and Construction, 3.1.01, my only question here has to

do with Purchased Services. There was an expense that seemed to be maybe a

one-time expense because it's $45,000 more than what had been budgeted.

MR. CROCKER:

This overrun is primarily due to higher electricity costs related to the

electrical systems and traffic lighting that TW is responsible for. We need to

find efficiencies to offset some of these electrical costs.

We've

done some work here; for example, at Confederation Building and other places

where we're looking to LED lighting. There are opportunities but getting to more

efficient lighting, for example, takes time and, unfortunately, it takes money.

These are things that we're going to need to do as we go forward for savings

when it comes to electricity costs.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

Related

to that, what happened this week though with regard to taking down light

standards in our parking lots here? That was more related to the wind, was it,

or …?

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah, that was related to an ongoing issue. Back a few weeks ago we had a pole

that actually fell, so we immediately, for safety reasons, called in an outside

company to do some non-destructive testing. What they found was deterioration in

a number of our light poles here at Confederation Building.

Last

week, after we received that independent advice, we immediately removed all the

poles that were of immediate threat. That's something we'll work in the next

coming little while to get replaced but, again, we'll be looking to – there may

even be more come down yet because we're going to make sure that all the poles

are safe. If we're doing the job, it's just as well to make sure we do as much

of it as possible.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right, because right now we

have temporary lighting, I think, don't we.

MR. CROCKER:

We do have temporary

lighting. Our safety staff have reviewed that and made sure there is ample

lighting. We're somewhat fortunate to the time of the year, but it's important

that we have the lighting. We'll maintain the safety with temporary lighting

until such a time that we can get the poles replaced.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. Thank you very much.

Coming

down then to 3.1.02, this is where we have the engineers. I'm not going to ask

why we have the jump in the salaries because I'm assuming this is it for 3.1.02,

Project Management and Design. It has a big variance of $601,500.

MR. CROCKER:

You're correct. That is the

reallocation.

MS. MICHAEL:

That's the engineers, right;

the reallocation. How many engineers are on staff?

MR. CROCKER:

Cory doesn't have that number

right there with him this morning, but he can certainly get that number for you.

It is a large number of our staff because we have regional engineers, then we

have our senior engineers and we have some junior engineers. We have a large

engineering staff.

MS. MICHAEL:

I would imagine the answer to

my question is, yes, but does the government have to really try to keep salaries

in that area at industry standards?

MR. CROCKER:

We do. To be quite frank and

honest, we struggle competing with the private sector lots of times when it

comes to engineering staff. There's no doubt about it, it's a struggle keeping

those professionals within government. There are lots of opportunities outside

of government for engineers. It's an ongoing battle.

MS. MICHAEL:

Ongoing battle, right.

Thank

you.

Under 01

of that section, Purchased Services; there was a big variance last year

downwards, actually. Do you have that there now, the Purchased Services under

3.1.02?

MR. CROCKER:

Right, one of the variances

was reallocation of funding for rentals to rightsize the budget and resultant

increases in the accommodation and leases. That would be something you would see

show up in other parts.

There

was another. Some of that savings was on building insurance. This is demand

driven and can vary depending on the number of claims during the year.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CROCKER:

That was the variance in the

revised. In the '18-'19 budget the $153,000 is mainly due to reallocation of

funds to other areas of the department's budget.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Before we carry on, we're going to take a short break and reconvene in seven

minutes.

Recess

CHAIR:

Okay, we'll get started

again.

We shall

go to the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Under 2.3.03 in Equipment

Acquisitions you had said about the vehicle fleet, a reduction of 10 per cent

and whatnot. How many vehicles were there to begin with?

MR. CROCKER:

1,121.

MR. PETTEN:

Good. How many were purchased this year, or will be?

MR. CROCKER: I

don't have that information – how many were purchased?

MR. PETTEN: How

many were purchased this year, yes.

MR. CROCKER: I

wouldn't have that information; I can certainly get it for you. It might take a

little bit of time because last year – or we don't know that?

OFFICIAL: No, we

didn't have it.

MR. CROCKER: It

will be a little bit easier next year to tell you because it's all going to be

TW.

In the previous fiscal year, everybody would have had their

own vehicle acquisition. One of the things now is that we have a central

acquisition. This hopefully will be a way to achieve some savings also. We can

get those numbers of how many vehicles were purchased in the previous year for

you.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

One other thing I skipped to mention, 2.3.01, just above

it, you mentioned about outsourcing of repairs. Mechanics; how many vacancies

are there now? How many mechanics are in the province?

MR. CROCKER: In

heavy equipment technicians?

I was expecting this question so I got the number this

morning. The current number is 18.

MR. PETTEN:

Eighteen mechanics on staff?

MR. CROCKER: No,

vacant positions.

MR. PETTEN:

Vacant positions. Wow.

MR. CROCKER:

That's province wide.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

MR. CROCKER:

Just to add quickly to that,

we constantly have an ad looking for heavy equipment technicians. We have six

jobs posted today and if we fill those six, we'd post six more.

MR. PETTEN:

So 18 from how many? How many

are on staff? What's the normal staff count?

MR. CROCKER:

MR. PETTEN:

What?

MR. CROCKER:

MR. PETTEN:

105 mechanic positions in –

MR. CROCKER:

In the province, yes.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay and we're down – 18

vacancies?

MR. CROCKER:

We have 18 vacancies.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

MR. CROCKER:

Unfortunately, that number's

been consistent for quite some time.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under

Equipment Acquisitions, you've referenced this tow plow. Is there a new tow plow

being purchased?

MR. CROCKER:

We have plans to purchase at

least one, maybe two. We haven't really finalized our acquisitions plan for

heavy equipment yet this year, but it is our intention right now to purchase

another, maybe two more tow plows.

MR. PETTEN:

Even though the budget has

dropped this year from last, do you still plan on purchasing out of that?

MR. CROCKER:

We do.

Some of

the budget decrease here you would see, too, is we're anticipating savings from

– the light fleet is in here as well. We're going to reduce the light fleet this

year by 10 per cent. Not only that, we feel there are savings to be found with

consolidation of the light vehicle fleet.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay, one more question on

that.

Recyclers, you say, seem to be somewhat successful. Are there any plans to buy

any more?

MR. CROCKER:

What was that, sorry?

MR. PETTEN:

Asphalt recyclers; are there

any plans to buy more?

MR. CROCKER:

We haven't set out our

equipment infrastructure plan for this year, but it's certainly back to the

Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands' question or comment earlier about always

looking for technology. That's something that we do. That's in this budget.

We'll look for – if there is equipment that helps, for example, with potholes,

we're certainly open to looking at that equipment.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Next

we're going back up now to 3.2.02. We're on Infrastructure under Road

Construction. I have a couple of more general questions for that area as opposed

to probably line by line.

MR. CROCKER:

Okay.

MR. PETTEN:

I'm going to go back to your

bridge inspections. When are they carried out, yearly?

MR. CROCKER:

The mandate on bridge

inspections is every two years.

MR. PETTEN:

Every two years?

MR. CROCKER:

Every two years, yeah.

MR. PETTEN:

I know there's been some

recent attention paid to one particular bridge.

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah.

MR. PETTEN:

The Mutton Bay Bridge on

Route 10 that was supposedly assessed in 2015.

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah.

MR. PETTEN:

Was there another inspection done in 2017 on that bridge?

MR. GRANDY:

That was likely to be inspected this winter again. So the next time we post

bridge inspection results – I would think you would see the updated report for a

bridge that was inspected in 2015 posted now after we get our website updated

with the new bridge inspections completed over the winter season.

That's

usually when the bridge inspections are done, during the engineering downtime

over the winter period. Then you can see it updated in the next year.

MR. PETTEN:

When would you expect an updated report?

MR. GRANDY:

It will be sometime this spring or early summer when we would put that up.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Minister, the Team Gushue Highway; there's $13.7 million announced in the

budget. What's the status of the project? Where are we with the project now?

MR. CROCKER:

Obviously, the contract was awarded about a year ago. The contractor is still in

place. We've had conversations with the contractor as recently, I think, as last

week. They anticipate an early mobilization. We've seen some early mobilization

throughout the Avalon region; we actually have summer road construction projects

happening.

There is

activity on Team Gushue right now. The company that's doing the Topsail Road

overpass is on site and the roadbed contractor anticipates to be on site within

the next couple of weeks. The next step right now at Team Gushue is the concrete

median and the installation of the above-ground lighting. There were some

challenges that, I think, we have worked through with the city with regard to

stormwater tie-ins on – what's the road – on Brier Avenue. We've addressed a lot

of these concerns and it should be full steam ahead once the contractor is able

to get back on site in the next couple of weeks.

MR. PETTEN:

There's $2 million in the budget for brush cutting along provincial highways.

Have you decided where that work would be done yet?

MR. CROCKER:

No, we wouldn't have gotten the assessments back yet I wouldn't think.

Wholeheartedly, the reality is our staff right now is focused on the summer

maintenance program. We do have the opportunity this year, actually I think, to

have the earliest brush-cutting tenders ever out.

But as

most people here would be aware, brush clearing is an activity that we can't do

between May and the end of August. The 1st of May until the end of August we

can't do brush clearing due to some environmental concerns. There's fire safety

risk as well. Once we get past our Roads Plan and our construction plan, we'll

get on to brush-cutting.

MR. PETTEN:

Under 3.2.04, there are a number of agreements and funds over the next few

pages, but could you perhaps give some overview of the status of these

agreements?

MR. CROCKER:

Tracy, would you like to do that? Could you go through the funding agreements?

MS. KING:

So if we look at these, there are a series of federal agreements that are coming

to a close. The first one being the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund. This

year you'll see the last of that agreement, just some clue up and final receipt

of revenue from the federal government and then that program will be over.

The next

agreement you'll see is the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Infrastructure

Framework Agreement. From here this is largely where we are paying for Team

Gushue, right? Yes. Team Gushue largely comes from this section.

Then we

move into the current and the program most active right now, which is the New

Building Canada, and this is one of the funds that we use most heavily. The work

on the TCH that we did last year would all be from here. We have close to $20

million from New Building Canada each year that contributes to the Roads Program

in current and capital.

So those

are the pots of federal funding. As well, the Trans-Labrador Highway you'll see

here separately with federal funding. Then there's the new Investing in Canada

plan, which is the federal government's newest infrastructure program that's

just starting to come on stream. So you'll see a small amount of money in the

budget this year in anticipation so we can be ready for the new federal program.

that's just an overview of how the federal programs kind of fit together.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay, thanks.

slipped in the last few seconds. Back in 3.2.02, under Purchased Services,

significantly less was spent than was budgeted from last year, almost $9.3

million actually and almost $8.2 million was added again this year. Can you

explain why this is?

MR. CROCKER:

That line is related to the South Coast rain event, the Thanksgiving storm. So,

obviously, when we have these events, we budget an amount, when the snow goes

you get down and see it, and then this was just an exercise of being

overcautious or budgeting more than, actually.

The

reality, when you look at these numbers, it's not a number that we can actually

reallocate because there's a revenue offset on this. So this one would be – at

this point in time when you get into those type of numbers – 90-10 with the

feds, but it's obviously not money we can access for anything else because

obviously it's related to this one, I guess, insurance claim against the

disaster fund.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Okay.

The

Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

(Inaudible) catch up to see

where I am.

So that

was 3.2.02, let's stay there for a minute then.

MR. CROCKER:

3.2.02?

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, 3.2.02. Looking at the

salary line, the salary line is going up by $237,000 this year over last year's

budget.

MR. CROCKER:

This just simply reflects the

salary requirements for the Provincial Roads Plan. That's a standard percentage

allocation, so when we look at each one of our roads projects, we allocate a

certain percentage of staffing allowance. This is why there's a fluctuation in

this. It may be something that didn't require it, sometimes it may require it.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, so knowing what you

want to do this year, it looks like it's going to (inaudible).

MR. CROCKER:

Right, and that fluctuates

with any project. If a project, for example, takes longer than anticipated, our

staffing costs go up. If a project is shorter than anticipated, our staffing

costs will go down.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right, thank you.

You've

given an answer to another question. So I think all that's been taken care of.

Okay, the federal question has been taken care of.

I'm

trying not to repeat.

MR. CROCKER:

No, that's fine.

MS. MICHAEL:

You gave answers to some of

my questions so I want to be careful not to repeat.

3.2.06, here my question is about the Salaries. I note that the budget last year

was $1.5 million and only $686,000 was spent and then this year up to $1.1

million, so an explanation.

MR. CROCKER:

This is Project Management

again. So it reflects the costs with major roads projects.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, so it relates back to

what you just explained.

MR. CROCKER:

Right.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much.

Under

3.2.08, would be the same answer with regard to Salaries? It looks like it might

be.

MR. CROCKER:

It is the same answer. It's

related to the projects in question.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

Will the

briefing book have a list of the various projects under here?

OFFICIAL:

It does.

MR. CROCKER:

It does.

MS. MICHAEL:

It does. Okay, so I won't ask

for that.

MR. CROCKER:

If there's a question that you don't – feel free to reach out.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you very much.

All

right, I'm going to ask a couple of questions related – well, one actually. The

Auditor General, as you know, was quite critical of the department's road

maintenance and construction efforts and in June last year the department issued

a statement recognizing the problems. You noted the department is working on new

initiatives and you've talked about that already today somewhat.

I do

comment positively on the Five-Year Provincial Roads Plan. That's something I've

always said we should be doing and delighted government is doing that.

Has the

final report on the night construction pilot project been done because I was

really interested in that?

MR. CROCKER: Yes,

it's something that, if you don't mind, I'll take a minute to talk about.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes.

MR. CROCKER: We

haven't put the final pen to paper, and that being, we wanted to continue the

conversation with the Heavy Civil Association. It's their membership that did

this work.

As you would have noticed in this year's Roads Plan, we

haven't planned for a nighttime project.

MS. MICHAEL:

That's right.

MR. CROCKER: The

reason we haven't planned for it is to make nighttime construction, I guess,

practical and affordable, we need projects of a certain scale. The reality is –

and one thing I think that we learned last year – in order to do effective

nighttime and safe nighttime paving, I think the idea of using road closures and

detours is the safest, most practical way of doing it. So now when we look at

our projects coming into the season, we have to find areas where – safety is

always first – there's a detour available.

We're finalizing that report. The construction association

has had a lot of input in it. To be frank, we found some safety concerns,

certainly not from the contractors or from government side last year, we found

some concerns from some actions of the general public.

I can tell you I was on site one night, Cory and I and some

more department officials, and even with the road closure we had – in the hour

or so we were there – three vehicles that actually ignored the road closures and

came on through.

There are things that we have to make sure – for safety

reasons – that are all in place. We should have that final piece of paper ready

really soon, but I think the general public appreciated the nighttime

construction. It's something that we totally plan on doing again in the future,

but, again, it would be project by project.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Thank you.

That makes sense knowing our road system. It's a bit

different than the 401 in Toronto.

MR. CROCKER:

That's right. Exactly.

Really, there's only a few places in the province where

traffic demands would really accommodate nighttime ,

and it's really here –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah, because it's really

here on the Northeast Avalon, and it carries a premium price. We pay for it. If

you do nighttime construction you're paying for it.

I think

one of the things it did give us a pause to look at is even if you look at

daytime construction, are there opportunities to be using detours? Because

safety of our employees, safety of contractors' employees is of the utmost

importance and efficiencies.

I think

it did teach us, too, and you'll see some more wording in contracts this year

about making sure contractors are off the road in peak hours so that we're not

creating traffic problems.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right, thank you.

Minister, certainly the Five-Year Provincial Roads Plan was something that, as

I've noted, was a great move forward. Can you give us an update on what you're

doing with regard to remediating some of the other problems identified by the

AG?

MR. CROCKER:

I think I'll turn that over

to you, Tracy, because you're –

MS. KING:

Yeah, and I might actually get Cory to take us through because it's a bit

technical and I just as soon let the engineers kind of talk to the response to

the AG.

MR. CROCKER:

(Inaudible) or just the AG's

report as a whole?

MS. MICHAEL:

Well the maintenance and

construction, I think, were some of the key areas.

MR. CROCKER:

Right. So –

MS. KING:

I'll do it.

MR. CROCKER:

Okay.

MS. KING:

In response to the AG, I

think one of the big things, of course, was the five-year plan because it really

looked at how we do project selection. One of the other pieces that the AG's

report highlighted was late tendering and then issuing tenders very late in the

season when you knew it was impossible to get the work done.

Again,

that's another benefit of the Roads Plan, and we're seeing that. We've been

having those discussions internally. Getting your work out in a reasonable time;

not setting up the expectation that you're automatically going to carry projects

over in to the next year. We've done a lot better on that and we see it both for

the benefit of the contractors, of course, and to the department's bottom line

in being able to get more work done in a given season if people can start early

and doing a better job of our upfront planning to know what we're asking people

to do.

The AG's

report also highlighted a number of concerns about how we manage our pavement

and how we assess, more technically, where some of our weaknesses are. That's

one of the issues, frankly, we're still trying to work our way through in how

we're going to enhance our pavement management system and what that looks like.

So that's an ongoing discussion in the department about how we can use more

evidence-base to inform our pavement condition information and analysis going

forward.

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah, I guess even to that

point, one of the pilot projects we did last year was the test stripping on the

Trans-Canada.

MS. MICHAEL:

I was just going to ask that.

MR. CROCKER:

We've laid down some test

strips. We'll do an early analysis of that now, actually, in the coming weeks.

We don't suspect we'll see very much in that.

One of

the other things we've decided to do this year in consultation with the industry

– last year we consulted with the industry of different formulas of how to do

this. Actually, we're going to add one additional test strip this year, and I

can tell you the industry is quite pleased we're laying them, because we hear

consistently from an industry that are all competitors – they feel that some of

the pavement quality is not there. So they've actually asked if they could lay a

test strip of a mix that they, as a group, have come together to say we think

this is the best formula.

We have

seen success, I think – and it's hard to gauge it, because we're doing so much

mill and fill and so many lane kilometres, but credit where credit is due. In

2014, the department on its high volume highway started using polymer in their

mix. We're seeing results with the use of polymer that are positive, without a

doubt. The general public wouldn't actually see it, but we're seeing our testing

primarily on the Outer Ring Road and Route 2 that polymer is working.

MS. MICHAEL:

Would that be related to the

rutting that we get, that would be improved with the polymer?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes. What we're seeing early

– again, the department started putting polymer in their tenders in the summer

of 2014, and we're seeing some of that asphalt that was laid back – sorry. It's

even like our test strips, we're really not going to see significant results in

this probably until next year. We're finding that the pavement that was laid in

2014 with polymer is standing up.

MS. MICHAEL:

Oh, good.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Okay.

The

Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you.

Mr.

Minister, just a quick follow-up on the question you're already answering there.

Is it possible, I wonder, that as opposed to just the mix and what's in it,

could it be related to thickness? That's something that's been suggested.

I know

sometimes you see areas where there was rutting or whatever, and you can

actually see the asphalt that was there and you get like a hole or whatever. It

would appear to the naked eye that it's really, really thin. So some people seem

to have the impression that it's a case of making it thinner so that it goes a

greater distance, as opposed to doing it right the first time. Is that something

that's …?

MR. CROCKER:

I'm going to give you my

answer as a non-engineer –

MR. LANE:

Yeah.

MR. CROCKER:

– and then I may turn it back

to the engineers, but an interesting question.

One of

the first questions I asked when I came over to TW back in late July was why is

this in – we always lay in lifts, regardless of how many lifts there are, so

you're going to see that. We'll typically lay in a 40 mil or a 50 mil lift. So

you would still see that result no matter how thick it is.

If you

look at, for example, the Outer Ring Road, you're probably dealing with nine or

10 inches of pavement on that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER:

I don't know if it's that much, but it's several inches, yes.

MR. CROCKER:

It will probably be six

inches or greater of pavement now on the Outer Ring Road. So it's a raveling

effect. What we have found is if you cut down through and take a cross-section,

it's not an impact, it's actually raveling. Many reasons why, I guess

contractors will tell you it is air voids, it is different compaction levels and

how we mix our pavement.

One of

the other things that some people actually – and this usually sparks a good

argument – is we have the highest level of studded tire use in Newfoundland and

Labrador as you have anywhere in North America, or certainly in Canada and the

northern US. We use studded tires more than anybody else. Some would argue it's

a factor, some would argue it's not. We'll argue that it is a factor.

That's

some of the reasons for it. I don't know if someone wants to add to more of a

technical –?

MR. GRANDY:

The minister did a pretty good job of describing, actually, in terms of how the

pavement deteriorates. It's not as if the pavement is deflecting. I think if you

were to sort of paint that picture you're talking about, if the pavement was

thicker people would have an image that it wouldn't deflect as much, but that's

not actually the problem as it happens.

The

minister used a term pavement unravels, it's a raveling effect. The parts of the

asphalt that bind it together seem to be coming undone and it allows the

pavement to wear in that fashion as opposed to deflecting. If we were to remove

all the asphalt, we see that the roadbed is not deflecting. So it's not a

roadbed problem. It's more in that wear layer, that top surface coat of asphalt.

MR. LANE:

Okay.

MR. GRANDY:

So the test stripping we talked about, or playing with the asphalt mix design,

several variables that go into that and experimenting with that mixture to find

out what mixture works best in our environment.

MR. LANE:

Okay.

Thank

you.

I know

there was a bunch of questions asked on the Team Gushue Highway. I did miss a

little bit because I had a constituency emergency that just sort of came up, but

I don't want to be repetitive. I'm glad to see that we're getting back on track

but, obviously, that impacts my general area.

Minister, on the Team Gushue Highway I guess I'm wondering – this is not

something I would have normally raised when it was the district of Mount Pearl

South. Now it's the district of Mount Pearl - Southlands so it becomes more

relevant to me in my constituency.

I was a

member of the Mount Pearl city council at the time that absolutely,

categorically refused to have anything to do with covering any of the costs,

capital or operational, on that

section of the Team Gushue Highway. I felt then,

as I feel now, it's a provincial highway and it's really linking up two

sections, Robert E. Howlett and the current section, that are already maintained

by the province. All you're doing is connecting the one road. It's the same

highway whether it goes through the city or not.

I think

the City of St. John's made an ill-advised decision to ever agree to taking on

the maintenance of it. I understand they're having second thoughts now, which I

knew they would. You talked about secondary roads, Route 60 and so on. This is,

without doubt, a major highway. It's no different than Veterans' Memorial,

Torbay Bypass. So what, it goes through the city. Big deal, it's still the same

highway.

I have

to ask this, I suppose, more so as my role as a constituency MHA and people in

Southlands having to pay for this. Is there any opportunity to revisit that

decision?

MR. CROCKER:

It is our anticipation that once Team Gushue is completed it will become the

property of the City of St. John's. We realize that, as an example, we have to

turn it over in a certain – up to a good standard. That will involve some work

on the existing part of Team Gushue. We would not expect the city to take Team

Gushue in any form of disrepair. When we turn it over we want to turn it over as

a new highway, but we anticipate turning Team Gushue over to the city.

MR. LANE:

But, Minister, once this is

completed, it's going to be one highway, right? It's going to go from the Outer

Ring Road to Bay Bulls Road – or to the Goulds, Middle Pond, whatever. It is one

road.

Is what

you're anticipating going to happen? Works, services, transportation are going

to plow the snow from the Outer Ring Road up to Kenmount Road and then the City

of St. John's is going to plow it from Kenmount Road to Heavy Tree Road area and

Ruby Line, I guess. Then the provincial government is going to plow it again.

Doesn't that seem a bit ludicrous on the same road?

MR. CROCKER:

I guess the reality on that

we're really talking a conversation that happened a long time ago, and a

conversation that will happen a long time ahead, because by the time we get to

Robert E. Howlett that's quite a time from now.

We're

going to continue to have a conversation with the city and we're having good

conversations with the city now. I don't mean at all to deflect, but if you look

at – we're having good traffic and good road construction conversations with the

city and this is one we'll continue to have. The road was built on the premise

that when Team Gushue was completed, the province would no longer maintain it,

it would become a city-maintained road.

I think

this opens up an opportunity for a lot of conversations that we need to have

with municipalities when it comes to servicing roads. It's not necessarily about

the province saying: Here's your road, go away and look after it. We have to

find ways. We all have resources and how do we get the best value for all those

resources, whether it is snow clearing or pothole patching.

I think

we have a lot of work to do with municipalities when it comes to roads

throughout the province, whether it's St. John's, CBS, Harbour Grace or

somewhere on the West Coast. If there's a conversation around roads,

municipalities and us, let's find a way to work together on it.

MR. LANE:

Okay, thank you for your

response, Minister. For obvious reasons we'll agree to disagree on your

decision. I still think it's ludicrous but they signed up for it.

Minister, the other question I had now – this is a specific one because I have

only a couple of minutes left. This is very specific. The Outer Ring Road,

westbound ramp going in to Mount Pearl, you go down and you have this stop sign

and then you can turn left to go towards Donovans or you can turn right to go

towards the Paradise roundabout there on Kenmount Road. That stop sign situation

and trying to make a left-hand turn there, I'm surprised I haven't seen

accidents there. Surprisingly I haven't. I'm sure there must be because it's

absolute madness there in peak hours for sure.

Generally, I'll go and make a right turn, take the roundabout and go and come

back again basically. I think some people started doing that. But there was talk

at one point, I had heard, about maybe some traffic lights or something going

there to try to alleviate that situation. I'm just wondering are there any plans

to do anything with that particular ramp that you're aware?

MR. CROCKER:

I agree. I've done the exact

same thing as you've done. I think it's a conversation we'd have to have with

the city.

Now that

you say it, so that officials are listening, there's the exact same situation

ever since we had the new development on Kelsey Drive where Suncor has moved

into those two new office buildings and you have 300 new cars on Kelsey Drive

every day. When you're coming down off Team Gushue now to make a left-hand turn,

say, to go onto Goldstone Street, you're running into the same challenge. We'll

certainly take that away as – I've done both and you're right, the traffic

volumes on both are concerning.

I'm not

sure. It would have to be a conversation we'd have to have with respect to the

cities.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Minister.

I just

wanted to put it out there for the record and for your attention.

MR. CROCKER:

No, it's a good point. Yeah.

MR. LANE:

It is, indeed, an issue for a lot of people –

MR. CROCKER:

It is.

MR. LANE:

– in my district and I'm sure throughout the whole region.

Thank

you.

MR. CROCKER:

The same thing with Goldstone Street. It's terrible in the afternoon.

CHAIR:

The Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, under 3.2.12, Land Acquisition, what's the increase in $3 million from

last year's budget? It's gone back to $2 million now so, obviously, there was a

$5-million acquisition.

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah, this was the result of a legal settlement regarding an old file on

expropriation for Team Gushue.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under

3.3.02, Low Carbon Economy, have you done an analysis on the cost of the carbon

tax cut and what impact it could have on your department? I'd say Transportation

and Works may be the most affected department by this.

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah. If the feds do institute the carbon tax on January 1 as they said they

will, for the last three months of this fiscal year, January, February and

March, it's something that we're confident we can absorb within our existing

budgets. But it will certainly be a budgetary consideration as we go into our

planning for fiscal '19-'20.

We feel

comfortable we can absorb the three months of this year, this fiscal, but after

that it will be a conversation we'll have to have going forward. You are

correct; TW will be the department, in all likelihood, affected most when it

comes to being a landlord and building owner.

MR. PETTEN:

Any analysis on that will be done as the year progresses, I'm assuming, will it?

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, as the year progresses, as we go into budgetary planning for fiscal

'19-'20.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under

3.4.01, School Facilities, it's self-explanatory in some of the adjustments

there that you said so I won't go there, but I wanted to ask some questions

regarding the school construction.

The

Mobile school extension, is that still on target?

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah, on time and under budget. That tender is awarded – or whatever, I think it

was an RFP. That's been awarded and we expect to see construction activity

pretty much as soon as the contractor mobilizes to go on site. I would think

that will happen in the coming weeks.

MR. PETTEN:

Is it still anticipated to be completed late fall?

MR. CROCKER:

That's our plan. I think the

anticipation is that – typically, we don't do a whole lot of moving children

around in the fall semester, or whatever you want to call it, but typically,

yeah, we would anticipate they'll move in there after Christmas of the next

school year.

MR. PETTEN:

What about the Bay d'Espoir

Academy, Minister?

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah.

MR. PETTEN:

The $13 million for insurance money, apparently, but what's the plan for that?

Is it going to be –?

MR. CROCKER:

Obviously, budget '18-'19 announced a full replacement, a full new school. We

will start the design – well, we have funding this year to start the design

process and that would lead to construction on a timeline that would see it into

a heavy construction mode by next construction season.

MR. PETTEN:

The $13 million insurance

money where does that go? Does that just go back in general revenue?

MR. CROCKER:

That would go back received

in general revenue. We would expend it through the life of the project, and this

project won't be $13 million, unfortunately.

MR. PETTEN:

It won't be what?

MR. CROCKER:

It won't be $13 million. It

will be substantially more than $13 million.

MR. PETTEN:

Right.

MR. CROCKER:

The commitment is for a new,

full replacement of that school.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Minister, on the Low Carbon Economy, I neglected to ask on salaries, there's

$100,000 there. What's this for one position or –?

MR. CROCKER:

Like, if you go back through

any of our programs, federal contribution programs where we have cost-sharing

programs, it's the cost associated with staff to administer said program.

MR. PETTEN:

What about the grants –

MR. CROCKER:

One engineer, apparently.

MR. PETTEN:

Pardon me?

MR. CROCKER:

I'm being told it's

practically one engineering position.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

What

about the grant

section there, $1,093,000?

MR. CROCKER:

That's the money that

Transportation and Works would have to have, and it's anticipated to be an

application-based program. For example, if it's a health care facility somewhere

in the province that feels they have a good case for an upgrade, you know

something energy efficient upgrade –

MR. PETTEN:

takeCHARGE?

MR. CROCKER:

Pardon?

MR. PETTEN:

It's probably takeCHARGE is

it? Is that what you mean?

MR. CROCKER:

No, no, it will be building

renos. For example, a health care clinic can make application for funding

through this fund if their renovations are related to energy efficiency.

The

grants are to other public institutions. Unfortunately, TW doesn't qualify as a

landlord. So it would be other public institutions outside of TW's envelope of

buildings.

MR. PETTEN:

Has that ever been announced,

publicly announced?

MR. CROCKER:

Not yet. The parameters are not finalized, the program itself. So this is

anticipation, but we're getting down that road that we know what this should

look like.

MR. PETTEN:

Yeah, and I realize it now. I

was curious.

Minister, under 3.6.01, Investing in Canada Plan, the $10 million, is that

federal money? Is it provincial money? What's the make up of that?

MR. CROCKER:

That's provincial money. Because this is, again, a new plan that hasn't been, I

guess, finalized, signed off on. This is in anticipation of us so that we're

able to – once this plan is signed off on –

MR. PETTEN:

Right.

MR. CROCKER:

– that we have revenue available from our side to take advantage if there are

projects in the province this year that qualify for this new federal funding

program, infrastructure program, that we'd have revenue on our side of the

ledger to make sure we can leverage the federal funding.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

On to

Air and Marine Services, one question I have while that's there. First off, is

the Fogo Island airstrip – I know it's been in use recently. I was hearing

something was in use. Does the province put any money into that? I know there

have been proposals made over the years before.

MR. CROCKER:

No. No, we haven't.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

There's

no provincial funding?

MR. CROCKER:

No, we have a responsibility for airstrips on the North Coast of Labrador, and

one of our priorities – when we talk airstrips, one of our priorities as a

province is the airstrip in Nain. That airstrip needs some work. That's our

first priority when it comes to airstrips, it would be the airstrip in Nain.

MR. PETTEN:

How many airstrips do we

presently have in the province? Randy?

CHAIR:

Seven.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, the province maintains Nain, Postville, Makkovik, Hopedale, Rigolet,

Cartwright, Charlottetown, Black Tickle, Mary's Harbour, St. Lewis and Port Hope

Simpson. So the only airstrips that the province maintains are actually on the

Labrador portion of the province.

MR. PETTEN:

Under 4.1.02, this is Revenue

- Federal. It looks like there was more spent last year than was received from

the federal government.

MR. CROCKER:

Is that William's Harbour?

No.

MR. PETTEN:

Sorry, 4.1.03.

MS. KING:

Oh, 4.1.03.

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah, that could be William's Harbour.

MR. PETTEN:

Sorry about that.

MR. CROCKER:

In revenue, or –?

MS. KING:

That's just the current capital split.

MR. PETTEN:

Yes, 216 is the –

MR. CROCKER:

Okay. It's the current

capital split between the projects federal/provincial.

MR. PETTEN:

What's that?

MR. CROCKER:

It's the current capital

split from the projects. Do you want a better –?

MS. KING :

So you see more spending in Current account dollars this year than on Capital.

Overall it's the same. It's just the way the funding splits between Current

funding and Capital funding.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

What's

included in that? What would be included in that amount?

MR. CROCKER:

Resurface.

MS. KING:

This is maintenance activities really, in Labrador. So this year in Hopedale

we'll install a new septic system and the same in Makkovik.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

4.1.04,

why is there nothing budgeted in this year's budget?

MR. CROCKER:

Pardon?

MR. PETTEN:

In 4.1.04 under Airstrips,

why is there nothing budgeted for this year in the Operating Accounts? You're

probably looking at a different sheet than I am, but under Transportation and

Communications, Property, Furnishing, Operating Accounts?

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah, we're finalizing the

Current Capital allocations of the LCARP for 2018. As a result, the full

allocation of the – yeah, the full allocation for LCARP is in Current this year

versus Capital.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

All

right.

CHAIR:

Okay.

We'll go

to the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I would like to come back to 3.3.03, Development of New Facilities.

Under

Salaries, the budget last year was for $270,000 but only $54,700 was spent, and

this year it's going up to $320,000. Can we have an explanation of salaries in

this context?

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah. So the surplus is due

to lower-than-expected construction projects, and this is due to unanticipated

delays in construction.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. What construction would

that be, do you know?

MR. CROCKER: The

number is primarily related to the Portugal Cove terminal facility, but there

was a haz-mat issue that delayed the process. It's primarily related to the Bell

Island ferry terminal in Portugal Cove.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, and then these would be jobs that are all connected directly with

construction.

MR. CROCKER:

With the construction.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, great. Thank you. That

explains that.

Coming

down to 3.4.01, School Facilities - Alterations and Improvements to Existing

Facilities, there's no money allocated this year under Salaries and yet there

are expenditures. Operating Accounts has quite a bit of expenditure going on but

no Salaries. What's happening here?

MR. CROCKER:

The funding for Salaries related to the project management here is from the

Alterations budget. Again, I think, and I could stand to be corrected, but it's

a project-by-project management cost. A lot of these projects are very much

smaller projects that would be administered by a contractor.

All the

engineering staff that would be used for this are consolidated over in the

department itself, unless it was a bigger project that we had to hire outside

management.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, so this would be mainly

for the engineering work and that will be done where the engineering is located.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, and this work stretches from everything from $5,000 for a new fence to $1

million for a major, fairly substantial renovation.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. So where then in the

whole structure – who then monitors these expenditures under School Facilities?

MR. CROCKER:

has a maintenance staff that could certainly monitor smaller type projects but

if we were to get into a bigger project, we would use our engineering staff.

MS. MICHAEL:

Under Professional Services

and Purchased Services, who is in charge of the determination around those

needs?

MR. CROCKER:

Our director of buildings and

design.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. That's what I'm trying

to get a handle on, how this is managed.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, right.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, great.

Thank

you very much. That's helpful.

Okay, I

think they were asked. As I said, I don't like repeating questions.

Coming

to the Airstrip Maintenance, 4.1.02, I'm not sure if this direct question was

asked or not. Under Salaries, it's down quite a bit this year from what was

budgeted last year. Last year was $812,600 and this year the estimate is

$678,200.

So why

do you think that's realistic, especially since the revised last year was also

over $800,000?

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah, so this is mainly the result of changes to the salary plan including a

reduction of overtime and vacancy factor for this activity. This will be our

first full fiscal year with William's Harbour being removed from the airstrip,

our inventory of airstrips.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

MR. CROCKER:

So there will be savings in William's Harbour as well.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay. Great.

And that

would show then in some of the other line items, like the Purchased Services, I

would imagine.

MR. CROCKER:

William's Harbour would show throughout this section.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right. Okay. Thank you very much.

4.1.03,

you may have answered this already, but it looks like there isn't much expected

this year. You do have the money that will come in federally, but you have

nothing allocated for Salaries. Last year, there were no Salaries estimated

either but there was $10,900 spent. I'm curious around all of that.

MR. CROCKER:

So, yeah, the salary costs you're seeing there, the $10,900, is a salary cost

that was charged off due to some specific projects. That's why we would've spent

the – we wouldn't have budgeted it last year, we wouldn't have budgeted it this

year because that's related to projects themselves.

MS. MICHAEL:

And once again, who manages this whole area, because you do have an operating

account and you purchase the services to do the work, I'm assuming.

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah, our director responsible for roads would be director responsible for

airstrips.

MS. MICHAEL:

For that. Okay, thank you.

I think

everything is answered on Airstrips.

Coming

down then to the Marine Operations, 4.2.02 is what I'm looking at; 4.2.02,

Island Ferry Operations.

Under

Salaries this year, $321,900, so almost $322,000 more has been estimated under

Salaries. Can we have an explanation of why?

MR. CROCKER:

This was a reallocation to

help offset some mandatory backfill costs. The salary plan reflects an ongoing

attrition management plan, funding requirements for step increases and the

reallocation of salary resources based on changing departmental priorities.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay.

I take

it some of that change happened then between last year and this year because

last year it was revised up by almost $2 million.

MR. CROCKER:

Yes, we always find to have

pressure around the marine services and it's certainly something we're doing our

due diligence to try and address.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, well, I think probably

everybody in the province, whether they use the ferries or not, are aware of the

problems.

The

issue around people with disabilities on ferries, especially Bell Island. Are

you dealing with that? What is being done to try to accommodate?

MR. CROCKER:

Right now, I guess, in late

fall we reached an agreement with the ferry-users committee on Bell Island to

actually have an independent third party come in and do an assessment. We would

with inclusionNL and other groups. We expect the results of that independent

report at the end of this month, at the end of April, and that will inform our

next steps.

endeavour to make sure that we have services available for peoples with

disabilities whether it's using our staff or working with other groups, like I

said, we work with inclusionNL.

It's

challenging because our primary concern is safety and if you look at some of the

concerns we've seen raised, I think where we need to be is to ensure that we're

in vehicles on these boats is not something that we're comfortable with. We'll

see what the report says, but the reality is if you're on a lower deck and the

greater if we find ourselves in an emergency situation.

MS. MICHAEL:

Right.

Okay,

thank you.

I do

look forward to hearing what that report says.

MR. CROCKER:

Absolutely.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under

4.2.02, one of my colleagues just asked the questions while I was – I just want

to know under Salaries, there's $300-and-some-odd thousand, was there any

positions removed or added? I know reallocation seems to be the theme, but were

there any positions …?

MR. CROCKER:

It's backfilling challenges

if somebody is off –

OFFICIAL:

And new positions.

MR. CROCKER:

And new positions.

OFFICIAL:

There aren't any.

MR. CROCKER:

Oh, sorry, there are no new

positions. When it comes to salaries, we face significant challenges lots of

times because of the structure of the collective agreement, and our overtime

challenges. If you want to think back to last fall when we lost the

Veteran , again, we run into

significant overtime costs because the arrangement that we have is that the crew

of the Veteran , which primarily would

be a crew that would be typically based in Bell Island, had to move to Fogo

Island. The parameters, the start and finish times of the Bell Island schedule,

becomes the start and finish times of the Fogo Island schedule.

In some

cases, this just doesn't work. So we're put in a situation where we have to

start earlier, which creates some overtime cost. So in lots of cases – and this

would be year over year – the overruns are caused by these pressures.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Professional Services under 4.2.02, there's a one-time cost there, $80,000.

What's that for?

MR. CROCKER:

That's the Bell Island risk

assessment.

MR. PETTEN:

What's that?

MR. CROCKER:

That's the Bell Island risk

assessment.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

MR. CROCKER:

And I say the Bell Island

risk assessment, but this is greater than the Bell Island risk assessment. We'll

apply this risk assessment to the entire province, but it came from our

discussions around the issues on Bell Island. And other regular training costs

are in here as well.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Minister, what's the status of the RFP process with South Coast ferries? Where

are we with that?

MR. CROCKER:

We put that process out late

last fall and received it back. There were timeline challenges faced by the

proponents. So we've had an opportunity now, I think, and concluding a review of

the information we received in a way that – we're reviewing the information

blindly of to whom was the bidder. So we've identified a number of different

challenges that we want to address and make sure before we go to the next step

again, we want to make sure that it's a successful RFP process. So we're

evaluating that information pretty much as we speak.

MR. PETTEN:

No timeline on when the new

RFP would be issued?

MR. CROCKER:

Yeah, we're going to get it

back out as soon as possible because we want to provide certainty for the users

and we know that some of the existing infrastructure needs to be updated. But

again, we got to make sure that we get the RFP right and we'll take the time

that it needs to actually get that back out.

MR. PETTEN:

What about the

Earl Winsor , Minister? I know it's still in government possession.

What's the plan for that?

MR. CROCKER:

We went out on two separate

occasions looking for somebody to actually purchase or, I guess to some extent,

take the Earl Winsor out of

government's inventory. We are working right now – I guess we feel we may have

reached an agreement with somebody for the purchase of that vessel. But we're

workin

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	2018-04-16
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_govservices_ga48_2018-04-16gscdepartmentoftransportationandworks.html
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	55572443c809667434505d4189974eabdc08bd4f

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).