GOVERNMENT SERVICES ESTIMATES

COMMITTEE

May 6, 1991 DEPT OF WORKS,

SERVICES & TRANSPORTATION (UNEDITED)

Pursuant to Standing Order 87 Mr. Oliver Langdon,

MHA (Fortune-Hermitage) substitutes for Mr. John Crane, MHA (Harbour Grace).

The Committee met at 9:30 a.m. in the House of

Assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Welcome to the second meeting of the Government

Services Estimates Committee. We will be studying the estimates this morning of

the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. My name is Melvin Penney,

the Member for Lewisporte, and I will be the Chairman for the meeting. On my

left is my Vice-Chairman, Mr. Bob Aylward, the Member for Kilbride. To my left

the Committee Members: Larry Short, the Member for St. George's; Oliver Langdon,

the Member for Fortune-Hermitage; and Norman Doyle, the Member for Harbour Maine

- we have another couple of Committee Members who will be joining us later; and

the Clerk of the Committee, Miss Betty Duff.

I would introduce to you now the Minister of the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation who is sitting over on my

right. He will in turn introduce the officials from within his Department

shortly. Mr. David Gilbert.

The format that we will be using here today is

similar to what we have used in the first meeting. The Minister will be given

fifteen minutes to make an opening statement. When he has finished his statement

a Member of the Opposition will be given fifteen minutes to make a reply.

MR. GILBERT: I do not need fifteen minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, that is quite alright sir,

that is not a problem. You will be given a maximum of fifteen minutes.

MR. GILBERT: So the Opposition will be given

the (Inaudible) as mine or would (Inaudible)?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Take up your time too, Dave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the Opposition has fifteen

minutes to reply. Once that is done we will go to general questioning from the

Committee, and I will recognize Members as they express an interest in asking

questions. I would respectfully request that the questions be asked one at a

time, that they be concise questions and that we get concise answers. But every

Member of the Committee will be given an opportunity to ask whatever questions

they wish. But I will not allow any one Member of the Committee to monopolize

the question period for any more than ten minutes.

The position of the Chair in these proceedings is

very similar to that of the Speaker of the House of Assembly. My job is

basically to maintain order and an acceptable level of decorum. But it is a much

more relaxed atmosphere in here and I would remind gentlemen that they are

permitted to remove their jackets if they so desire. Coffee can be brought in

here to the Chamber. Those are things that would certainly not be permitted at

regular sessions of the Legislature.

For the benefit of Hansard I would ask everybody,

particularly the officials of the Department, that when they speak they identify

themselves for the record. That they lean into the microphones. We are used to

standing when we speak here in the Legislature so when you are speaking from a

sitting position I would ask you to lean into the microphones and please speak

up. Hansard is having a little bit of a problem with that kind of thing. I would

like to welcome the news media here as well.

Now, Mr. Minister, if you would, sir, introduce the

Members of the staff of your Department and then proceed with your opening

statement.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a

pleasure for us to be here this morning and get our estimates considered for the

coming year. I will start off by introducing my executive. To my left is Beth

Marshall, the Deputy Minister; to my right is John O'Reilly, the ADM of Works.

Behind we have: Harold Stone, who is the ADM of Administration and George

Greenland who is the ADM of Works. So then we have Gordon Murphy, Director of

Human Resources; Ramona Cole, Director of Finance and General Operations;

Gilbert Pike, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission; and Jack Balram,

who is the Director of Administration for Pippy Park. So these will be the

support people here from this Department this morning.

Now, as everybody is aware the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation is one of the new Departments that was created when

the Cabinet was restructured after the present Government took over just two

years ago. What is there are the Departments of Public Works and the Department

of Transportation, and I think there are bits and pieces of a couple of

Departments. There is some of the old Department of Communications in there. So

in actual fact I suppose there were more problems and growing pains in this

Department than some of the other ones by virtue of the fact that we had to

learn to live with each other.

The old Department of Public Works had operated

independently for years, and the Department of Transportation. So getting the

two of those groups to come together as a cohesive group caused some problems

and some head scratching from time to time. As I look around at the executive

that are here with me today compared to two years ago when we started, John

O'Reilly is the only senior executive who is left at the ADM or Deputy Minister

level. When we started this thing John's hair was dark. So now just look at what

is after happening to him in a period of two years. So it was a lot of work to

get this Department integrated and to accept calling "us" and "them" and that

sort of thing that happened for the first year or so we were there. I feel at

this point in time we have sort of cleared the decks and we are ready to get on

with this integrated Department.

As Members are aware this Department administers

8.4 per cent of the total Budget of the Province and we are the largest

Department of Government I suppose. We provide facilities and services to the

other Departments of Government in the general service. The permanent staff

numbers are approximately 2,000. We employ many other Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians on a seasonal basis. We operate seven regional offices across the

Province. I suppose the thing that we are best known for is the fact that we

supervise the road construction for the Province, and the one that is the most

controversial I suppose is our Provincial Roads Programme.

Every year when that is announced we hear the

Opposition critic say that it is blatantly political, and I would like to assure

him again that it is done on a priority basis when the money is spent for

repairs and rehabilitation of the local highways in this Province. We could

highlight some of the ones that are done but I have a feeling that during the

morning we might have to occasionally refer to certain projects that are done.

The point that I would make is that in this year's programme it was reduced

again because of the restraints that we found ourselves under. It was $25.5

million we spent this year. But it spanned thirty-four districts. What the

officials did when they put the programme together was look at the serious needs

and we tried to do the best we could with them.

Now in addition we have the Federal-Provincial cost

shared programmes. The ERDA programme is finishing up this year. The Province as

a Province is spending an additional $12 million in those projects. This year

the Newfoundland Transportation Initiative for the the Roads for Rails deal will

kick in and the Trans-Canada part of it, the $400 million, started last year. We

are going to be spending this year for the total programme about $75 million out

of that Roads for Rails Agreement and the ERDA Agreement. We are starting this

year on the 235 Agreement, that is the trunk roads, and they will be announced

very shortly. This programme is now finalized but Mr. Crosbie and I have not

signed it but I have been talking to Mr. Crosbie and we agree and hopefully we

will have this agreement signed within the next few days.

The other part of this Department is that we are

involved in building construction and that we have approximately $50 million

provided for building construction in 1991 - 1992, of which $37.5 million

relates to new facilities, some of them include the MED Centre in Foxtrap, that

is going to be $4.9 million; the Centre for Engineering Technology is $4.5

million; the Fisher Institute extension in Corner Brook is $4.5 million; a

nursing home for St. Lawrence is $3.5 million; the Young Offenders Facility at

Whitbourne is $3.2 million; that is just to name some of them. But as you can

see it is a rather extensive programme we have this year when you take this

$37.5 million in new facilities this year.

The Airstrips Programme: we will be continuing with

the construction programme for airstrips in Labrador. The projects are going to

finish up. This programme has been ongoing for some thirteen to fourteen years.

So, I understand that this phase of it will finish this year. There are some

projects in Labrador, Grand Falls, Clarenville and the Codroy Valley. These

funds are fully recoverable from the Federal Government under local airport

development. We have contacted the Federal Minister and the previous Federal

Ministers and highlighted and pointed out that we consider the major concern we

have in development of further airports under this programme would be the

Winterland Airport and it is one that we feel should receive top priority. We

have, as I have said in my dealings with the previous Minister, Mr. Lewis, I

pointed this out and I have written the new Minister since he has taken over and

pointed out again this is a priority and one that I would like for him to give

some serious consideration to. I hope to be meeting with him within the next

month at which time it will be a high priority on my agenda because I feel that

with the development that is going on in the Marystown area and with Hibernia

this Winterland Airport is one that certainly should be developed and I am

surprised that more was not done on it earlier. But it is one of our top

priorities.

I am sure the Members are aware that effective

today the payment of driver and vehicle renewal applications will be accepted at

most chartered banks and credit unions in the Province. We feel this is a very

positive step and one that will make the service available to pretty near

everybody in the Province instead of having to drive to Motor Registrations for

the routine work that can now be transacted through banks and credit unions. We

feel it is a positive thing and we are sure it will be accepted as a very

positive thing by the members of the general public. As you know, what will

happen, of course, is that driver's licences and vehicle permits will not be

issued but the people, once they go and use the facilities at the banks or

credit unions, will be given an extension of thirty days while the paper work is

being processed and getting back to them. So, it is an improvement over having

to put their applications in the mail.

One of the major things I suppose that we have

tried to undertake during the two years we have been here, is, we have looked at

the current vehicle fleet, we have tried to reduce the Government fleet and we

have been rather successful at it; we are doing the mechanical assessments in

the vehicles and we are trying to get the economies to scale to work I suppose,

and we are cutting back on the number of vehicles. The first people to get a

chance to buy those surplus vehicles are the community councils and after that

they go to public auction or public tender.

We have reduced these by some 300 units over the

last two years, so we are down from over 1,200 to less that 1,000 by the end of

May this year, so, we consider that is going to be a saving to the public of

this Province, and by judicious management of our fleet, we feel that we will be

as effective with the removal of those 300 vehicles from our fleet.

We think we have streamlined the system and we are

looking forward to as I said, with the executive in place which we have right

now, I would like in conclusion, to thank the people who have worked with me in

this Department for the last two years and I am looking forward now to great

things as we square the decks and get ready to go in to the next few years.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Before

turning it over to Mr. Aylward, I would first like to introduce the Member for

Fogo, Mr. Sam Winsor and the Member for Bellevue, Mr. Percy Barrett who joined

us a little late.

I would like to mention as well, as I omitted

saying this in my opening remarks, that the officials from the Minister's

Department cannot be questioned by any of the people on our Committee, but they

are permitted to answer any questions that the Minister would request of them; I

would remind them as well that even on that account, their answers must be

related to fact and not policy, and I would remind officials again, if they

speak, that they should identify themselves for the purposes of Hansard.

You have had a copy of the minutes of our last

meeting distributed. Are there any errors or omissions?

AN HON. MEMBER: On motion, the Committee

adjourned at 10:05 p.m. to Thursday 6th May, it must be Monday, the 6th of May?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further errors or

omissions?

On motion, minutes as amended were adopted as

circulated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Aylward, you have fifteen

minutes to reply to the statement made by the Minister.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, very much, Mr.

Chairman.

I probably will not take that much time. I prefer

to get into a question and answer period with the Minister. I do want to note

that in the Minister's explanation, early on in his explanation, he finally did

admit that the Department was too big for him to handle, and they had a lot of

trouble getting it together over the last couple of years. Hopefully, with the

great staff he has, it has come together, and I am sure they will look after it

quite adequately.

I do not remember the Minister mentioning anything

about the Outer Ring Road in his comments. There have been many questions raised

on what is going to happen to the Outer Ring Road and whether it is going to

proceed or not. The Minister did mention something about his vehicle fleet.

Later on in his discussions, when he gets a chance, he might let us know,

although the fleet is being reduced, I understand that the vehicles in the fleet

are being kept a bit longer, so I am concerned that because of the age of the

vehicles in the fleet they may be non-repairable? Is anyone noticing that

maintenance costs are going higher than were anticipated? Banks doing the

registration for motor vehicles is not a bad thing. I do not think I ever said

it was a bad thing. It probably is a positive step. The thing negative about it

is that you lose control of the cost of what the banks will charge. There should

have been something in that policy to suggest what the banks could charge for

the service. It might not be very much but I still do not think we have heard

from the Minister what the charge is, and I have not contacted the banks.

Probably that is a bit negligent on my part but it was suppose to be $1.00 when

we started of this process, but I am not sure if the Minister is aware of what

charges the banks are going to charge people for their handling of this motor

registration. We have had policy changes in the past couple of years on the

ferry systems in the Province. Some of them are positive, where you reduce the

rates, and some of them are not so positive according to the people who use the

services because of scheduling changes and less service than they had in the

past. You would think that in the 1990s we would be trying to improve the

service rather than reduce services. If the Minister gets a chance he will

probably go over the point system and see how that is doing. He might report how

my points are coming along.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you still driving?

MR. R. AYLWARD: I am still walking, almost

walking, I think.

Later on in debate I might question him on how many

light vehicles we did buy. I know the fleet is reduced, but are we buying

anything, are there vehicles coming into the system every year? I would imagine

there would have to be for highways equipment, to keep that on the go. The roads

list the Minister mentioned, I know it is prepared by the officials originally,

and I know what happens to it after it is prepared by the officials. I know this

year there was something like five or seven out of sixty-eight projects in

Conservative districts, and the Minister suggests these were not done by

political decisions. I know we have a very professional group of public servants

and they certainly always tend to look after the Ministers and try to do, even

if the Minister does not tell them, try to make sure the Minister looks good.

They certainly did it for me, and had to work hard at it when I was there, and

they are doing the same for you, no doubt. So maybe the list is prepared by

public servants, but it is certainly a list which shows that a lot of money has

gone into Liberal Districts, and a lot less gone into Conservative Districts

which also need it.

I notice the Minister, when he is defending this,

says the District of Kilbride has no unpaved roads and certain things like that.

Well, that is a fact. I got most of it paved while I was there, and I have

another half mile to go, I think, but a badly paved road is worse than a fairly

good gravel road. If anyone wants to drive in over Bay Bulls Road they will

probably get a little shake and notice that there are monies needed in all

districts. It would be better if we had more money to spend, I realize, but it

would be even better if we spent what we have fairly, around the Province.

One other thing that was an issue last summer - I

am not sure what it is lately, but I have tried to get in contact with the new

Federal Minister on it - is the scheduling of the Argentia ferry service. I do

not know if the Department has made any more representations to the Federal

Government. I had a commitment from Marine Transport - I think that is what they

call themselves now, whatever the name of it is, anyway - to look at the

scheduling for the Argentia ferry service, to see if it can be revised for this

year at least.

It was leaving here extremely early in the morning,

and because there was a new boat on and it is more efficient it got to North

Sydney between 9:30 and 11:30 in the evening, and it is extremely difficult for

people to find hotel accommodations in the busy season. Arriving there in the

middle of the night, they had to drive in the middle of the night to wherever

they could find hotel accommodations. So, I do not know what the answer to it

is, but I am sure the scheduling people could come up with something.

Newfoundlanders, when they left Newfoundland, had to spend a night in a hotel

somewhere close to North Sydney or drive all night, and on the way back they had

to spend another night in North Sydney because the ferry left so early in the

morning and they had to be there on time.

So, the Minister might like to make some comments

on his representations on the scheduling of ferries for Argentia for this

summer. I know it caused some problems for local people travelling and also

caused problems for tourists travelling last year on that route, because they

were not familiar with the system.

Apart from that, that is all I have for my

statement, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, if you would like a

few minutes to comment on Mr. Aylward's statement before we go to questioning.

MR. GILBERT: All right, I will say a few words.

I would like to point out for the gentleman from Kilbride that the size of the

Department had nothing at all to do with the overall operation. It was the

getting together and curing the illness that had crept in there after seventeen

years of having ministers as inefficient as he was running them that caused the

problem.

Just for information, I thought it might be a good

time if you sort of looked at it. I have gotten some figures together. I thought

the Member for Kilbride would like to get into the mud a little bit, so I always

like to be ready for him when he gets involved in stuff like that. The combining

of the two departments has no doubt caused problems of the growing together. But

in the long run the people of Newfoundland are going to be the people who are

going to be the net winners.

Just to give you an example, I have taken some

figures, and we will take the Minister's Office and the Executive Support. I

took it for the years 1987 and 1988, compared to this year's budget. To run the

Minister's office in 1987-88, that was the Department of Public Works and the

Department of Transportation, the total figure for the Minister's office, and I

am sure we will get into the details later on today, was $363,985. We are

budgeting right now for 1991-1992, $214,400, that is just for the Minister's

office. Now when you go to the executive support back in those days, the

executive support was $768,445, where right now two years later in 1991-1992 it

is $630,400. So, you can see in the process the net winners were the people of

Newfoundland by this change. The thing that took the problem was getting the two

groups of people that had been separated under the previous government for

seventeen years and this money had been wasted, so if you take into

consideration the $200,000 a year that we saved and you take that for the

seventeen years that you were in there, you would see how much we would have

saved for people by having those together. But it was the gelling and getting

those people welded together into thinking as one Department instead of the two

that caused the problem. It had nothing to do with the Minister. There was a

great Minister. The only thing is that we have had some staff changes and I can

assure you now that we are all on the same deck it will be onward and upward.

He talked about the Outer Ring Road: as the

gentleman is aware, the Outer Ring Road is included in the $405 million under

the Railway Agreement. Those projects are reviewed on a yearly basis and as I

have said in the House continuously, the priority for the Outer Ring Road will

be established the year before it is done. We are certainly looking at it and it

is one of the things that is considered as the Budget is made up. The funding is

$25 million a year that we are going to be spending on that for the next little

while. So, in the funding we will no doubt be looking at it each year and once

the priority is established it will start to kick in.

The charge from the banks, as I understand, for

processing the licence and application fees is $1.25. I think it was $1 when the

thing was talked about but that was the bank's decision. If you take into

consideration if people went to mail a letter it would be 70 cents or something

like that right now, so I think the convenience of walking in and having the

process done right there in their community - I do not think that is excessive.

The ferry service: There is no doubt about it there

has been some policy changed by reducing the rates. It has been accepted with

open arms and hearts. I had the occasion this weekend to be on the ferry between

Ramea and Burgeo a couple of times and as a matter of fact the crew were telling

me that not only is it going to be productive for the people who are living in

Ramea, and I take Ramea because I suppose that is the one I know the best, but

the cost of a car, a man, his wife, and three children, to go from Ramea to

Burgeo, a distance of 9 miles, when we took over was $54, now you can do the

same thing for $15. So, there is rejoicing and dancing in the streets with the

reduction in the ferry service. Not only that they figure that with the tourist

season there will not be a great loss in revenue because people can now afford

to go

whereas under the previous Government they could not afford to go so that

is a very positive thing.

I see the gentleman holds up the fact that we have

changed the schedules on some ferries. We have changed from two to one ferry in

some cases, but in every case where we have done that the service to the people

has not been cut back, the number of trips has been maintained with one

exception, and that is the one we are in the process right now of changing, the

Long Island and Little Bay Islands. What has happened there, as I understand it,

they were getting five trips under the old system and they are now going to get

six trips during July to September and then come September to January they were

getting three trips a day and now they are going to get four trips a day. Long

Island trips are going to be cut back. The Long Island trip was a five minute

trip and they were getting about fourteen trips a day and right now they will be

getting six and four. There is some sort of problem in Long Island but we wonder

if fourteen trips a day might have been a little much when you took the number

of people who were travelling on that ferry. We think it is a positive thing. We

think it is the only sensible and fiscally sound thing to do under the

restraints we are faced with right now. Like I said, any changes are going to be

met with a certain degree of resistance, but I am sure that as we go along the

people will realize, under the circumstances, that we are providing an excellent

system. I am glad he brought up the demerit point system. We are quite proud of

the demerit point system and I am sure when the Member got the brown envelope

under his door that he was very proud about it, too. I always feel sort of good

about that. I heard the previous Premier say one of the reasons he resigned was

because he could not get to pass the demerit point system because his Cabinet

would not go along with it. That was one of the things he said he could not do.

When you take into consideration what the demerit point system has contributed,

right now the fact is it has made people more aware of the hazards of driving

and we are sure that the people who were suppose to be affected by that, the bad

drivers are getting the message. Some of them are getting near to losing their

licenses and are going to have to go for training to improve their driving

habits. In that regard their has been a reduction in fatal injuries from 1989 to

1990. I will be no doubt talking about it later this morning, but I think in

some ways we can attribute it to the point system.

I am glad the gentleman for Kilbride mentioned the

fact that a bad paved road is worse than a good dirt road. That is the problem

we are finding right now. When he says that we have to spend local capital works

money in the now Liberal districts, that were Tory districts, and he says we

spent everything we had on them while we were there, unfortunately some of it

was spent twenty years ago and it was put down during an election, when you

rolled it on during election time. That pavement did not stand up too well and

what we are down to now is the money we had to spend this year, and some of it

no doubt was in districts that had received a fair amount of funding when the

hon. Member for Kilbride and the Member for Harbour Main were there, but those

roads are now gone. They have broken up and as the Member points out himself, a

bad paved road is worse than a good dirt road, so this is why maintenance had to

go into some of those districts this year, and I am glad he recognized it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I would ask the Minister to please clue-up his

comments.

MR. GILBERT: I will clue-up now but I am sure

we will get a chance to go back again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GILBERT: Maybe when you are around

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Short first and then I will

recognize Mr. Doyle.

MR. SHORT: Mr. Minister, a couple of points on

which I want some clarification. You mentioned the Road for Rails Agreement and

the Trunk Roads Agreement, could you expand on this? I know about the $400

million one, that is highway construction, I take it. The Trunk Roads Agreement,

could you give us some more detail on that, and afterwards I want to ask a

question about the building construction.

MR. GILBERT: What the Trunk Roads Agreement is:

$235 million is to be spent over the next thirteen years starting this year.

Eight million is to be spent this year, then it will kick in at $15 million a

year for the remainder of the programme.

The Federal Minister and the officials in my

Department and the officials in the Federal Department have come in with a list

of where these monies should be spent over the next fifteen years. Again, it

will be spent on a priority basis, as is the 405 one that is there for the

Trans-Canada. We have established what should be spent out of the $8 million for

this year and, Mr. Crosbie and I will be announcing that shortly. It is one of

those programmes which has Federal participation.

MR. SHORT: But what would be some of the major

areas that would fall under Trunk Roads, that is what I was getting at.

MR. GILBERT: Well the only thing about it is,

the agreement is not officially signed between us and the Federal Government

right now; there was a list which we inherited from the previous Government, a

tentative list which was there when we came in.

In the two years that we have been here we have

been fine-tuning it and we had to make some changes. I do not think I really can

announce those today, because the Federal Minister for Newfoundland and I have

to sign the agreement. I guess Mr. Crosbie, the Minister for Newfoundland, and

I, have to sign the formal agreements, so I really cannot give you any details

of it today.

MR. SHORT: Well, that was not what I was

getting at. I will just give you an example of what I am trying to get at. For

example: the last five or six years we have been doing some work, say on the

road going to Burgeo, is it that kind of a link from the highway that is

considered under Trunk Roads or is -

MR. GILBERT: Oh. The ones under the Trunk Roads

Agreement: I can give you a basic idea; yes, the one from Burgeo would be one,

the one to the Burin Peninsula Highway, would be one-

AN HON. MEMBER: Argentia access.

MR. GILBERT: - no, the Argentia access is under

the -

AN HON. MEMBER: That would be a Trunk road.

MR. GILBERT: Yes, but it was included in the

405, because of the fact that the ferry comes in through Argentia so the money

is going to be spent out of that 405 and the Argentia access is the only one

that is considered as the main highway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gander Bay Road is included.

MR. GILBERT: I do not know about the Gander Bay

Road. The main trunk roads, the feeder, is directly from the Trans-Canada to

certain areas.

MR. SHORT: Anything up the Northern Peninsula -

MR. GILBERT: Yes, that sort of thing.

MR. SHORT: Okay, I have one other question.

Under building construction you listed off some of the buildings that are under

construction, $50 million, of which $37.5 million is for new facilities. I just

wondered if you could perhaps explain that. Is that $50 million some sort of a

cost-shared agreement for building construction, or is it all totally provincial

money.

MR. GILBERT: That is total provincial money. I

could give you a list of it.

MR. SHORT: Yes, you mentioned the Fisher, for

example, that is in Corner Brook.

MR. GILBERT: Okay. -

MR. SHORT: What I was getting at, Mr. Minister,

was just some details on, not so much the program, but is it a special program

geared to facilities, or something we just put a pot of money into over a period

of time? How does it work?

MR. GILBERT: I can give you some of the

building. I gave you some in my opening statement. The new facilities we are

going to build under that building program are: a new highways depot for St.

Anthony; we are going to start the extension to the Howley Building here in St.

John's; some work is going to be done on Hangar 21 at Gander; then you go to the

Community College in Clarenville; Fisher Institute in Corner Brook; a family

residence and day care centre in Happy Valley; the Cabot Institute on Prince

Philip Drive; the MED Centre in Foxtrap; the Institute of Fishery and Marine

Technology for the offshore simulator; we are finishing of phase one and

starting phase two of the young offenders in Whitbourne; for health care we are

going to construct a new facility at Roddickton; at Port Saunders we have $1.5

million to start the construction of a new health care centre; there is $1.5

million for a new health care centre for Burgeo; we are going to re-develop and

get ready for the extension of the James Paton Memorial Hospital; we are going

to construct a new hospital at Melville; there is a medical clinic for Hearts

Delight; a nursing home and clinic in St. Lawrence; a hospital extension and

re-development for the Brookfield Hospital; there is going to be money for the

inter-faith nursing home in Corner Brook; the health centre in Forteau; there is

an expansion and renovations to the Blue Crest Home in Grand Bank; so a total of

about $12 million is going to be spent in health. You can then go on for each

Department, I can list them for you, but that is basically what it is, about $50

million for new construction which will create a lot of employment in the

construction industry this year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyle.

MR. DOYLE: I have a couple of questions. I want

to get back to the Outer Ring Road. Does the Minister have any better idea of

when the Outer Ring Road is going to start other than just to say we will know

the year before it starts? People are anxious to know something about the Outer

Ring Road. I am wondering if Government is attaching any priority to the Outer

Ring Road? If it is still part of the Roads for Rails Agreement why do I

perceive some reluctance on the part of the Minister to give us any indication

of when the Outer Ring Road is going to start?

MR. GILBERT: The Outer Ring Road, as I

mentioned before, and I will say again for the hon. Member, the Outer Ring Road

is included in the $405 million Roads for Rails Agreement for the main

construction of the Trans-Canada Highway. We identify the priorities on a year

to year basis. The initial money has been spent in four-laning the Trans-Canada

from St. John's towards the Argentia turn off, and the money that is to be spent

on upgrading the road from the turn off to Argentia, because, as I have alluded

to earlier, it is one that was identified under that program by virtue of the

fact it is a point of entry and it is one where the ferry service will be

operating from North Sydney into Newfoundland. There is $30 million a year

included in the Roads for Rails Agreement which will be identified. The

priorities and the start up of the projects along the Trans-Canada will be

identified the year before and then spent.

As I have said, the first priority that we

considered was the road from St. John's towards Argentia, the four-laning of

that because of the traffic that would be there. The one we have started on the

west coast is the road from Corner Brook towards Deer Lake where there was a lot

of concern and accidents in the area around Steady Brook there and the fact that

you drive through. One of the worst areas on the Trans-Canada was the road

between Goobies and Clarenville and that has now been stared in this year's

project. I recognize that the Outer Ring Road is a priority but when we make the

final decision as to when we will start then it will follow as night will follow

day. Each year there will be a portion of that $30 million that will go into

that construction once we have established it and put it on the programme.

What we are doing right now for the gentleman under

that project for this year are: the resurfacing of the Argentia Access; grading

the Trans-Canada from Holyrood to Salmonier; paving Witless Bay Line to

Holyrood; realigning Tompkins' construction at Little Codroy River; and

resurfacing Pasadena to Deer Lake; two bridges around Steady Brook; Riverside

Drive-Massey Drive area, Corner Brook; Welcome Inn towards Clarenville, there is

eight kilometres there; Glenwood towards Notre Dame Junction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I would like to remind the Minister that I have

requested the Members of the Committee to keep the questions very concise. If

the Minister does not keep his answers equally as concise the Chair is going to

have some problem enforcing that rule.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Chairman, I got carried away

with the good news that I have to give. He asked about the Roads for Rails and I

had to enlarge and tell him where it was, you see.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair understands.

MR. GILBERT: I am too exuberant about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just ask the Minister to make

his answers as concise as I have asked the Committee to make their questions.

Mr. Doyle.

MR. DOYLE: Asking the Minister a question is

like - I am reminded of the fellow who asked the time and he was told how to

make a watch. But I still want to have a go at the Outer Ring here. I want to

find out, and the Minister has not indicated: is the Outer Ring Road still a

priority of the Provincial Government? Number one. Listen very carefully. Is it

still the priority of the Provincial Government, and has the Provincial

Government made any attempt to have the Outer Ring removed from that list as a

priority? Is it still a priority, first of all, yes or no.

MR. GILBERT: Certainly.

MR. DOYLE: Okay. Has the Government made any

attempt with the Federal government to have it removed from the priority list?

MR. GILBERT: No.

MR. DOYLE: No. So can the Minister zero in a

little bit more on when the Outer Ring is going to start? Is it going to be

started within a three year period, a two year period, a five year period? The

people have a right to know. Can you give us some ballpark time as to when the

Outer Ring might get started?

MR. GILBERT: Not really, Mr. Chairman. As I

have said the priorities are established on an annual basis. The Outer Ring Road

will not be finished in one year because I understand that it is somewhere in

the vicinity of $60 million or $70 million to complete it. So I think the Member

can be sure that it will start sometime before the end of the next thirteen

years and it will certainly have to be extended over a period of two or three

years to do. So that is about as concise as I can be at this time. But I assure

him that it is a priority and will be considered as such. When we figure that it

has reached the level that it is the first priority it will be considered in

that year's construction.

MR. DOYLE: So the answer is that it will be

considered and it will be started sometime within the next thirteen years.

MR. GILBERT: That is right.

MR. DOYLE: So, that is what the Minister has

said. Okay.

Moving from there to the Bell Island ferry, could

the Minister indicate what the Department's plans are for a second ferry to Bell

Island? You will recall that an announcement was made a couple of years ago,

when the first ferry was announced, that a second one would follow. Could the

Minister indicate what his Department's plans are concerning a second ferry for

Bell Island?

MR. GILBERT: I think that has already been

announced in the budget. The fact that we are into a restraint programme, we

announced what we were going to do. Initially we were going to build an

icebreaking ferry for the Fogo - Change Islands service, and then we were going

to take the ferry, the Beaumont Hamel, from that service, do the renovations to

it, and put it into the Bell Island service. As the gentleman is aware, because

of budget constraints construction of the icebreaking ferry was put on hold for

a year. So, the situation with the Bell Island ferry is on hold for a year, and

we will have to assess that again as we look at what is going to happen in the

budget considerations for next year.

MR. DOYLE: With respect to maintenance work, is

there any consideration being given by the Department for contracting out of

maintenance work? Is there any consideration being given to that?

MR. GILBERT: What do you mean? Maintenance work

for what?

MR. DOYLE: Contracting out of maintenance.

MR. GILBERT: For what?

MR. DOYLE: Highways maintenance, current depots

that we have, and this type of thing. Is there any consideration being given for

contracting out that work?

MR. GILBERT: No.

MR. DOYLE: No? Okay.

What about road maintenance this year? Will there

be any reduction in the numbers of people to be employed on the summer

maintenance programmes this year, the summer work that the Department has?

MR. GILBERT: I would imagine that there is

certainly going to be reduction in the temporary and seasonal workers, because

of the fact that we are into a restraint programme. I do not know the extent of

it at this point, but as we go along we might look at it in one of two ways, I

suppose. We might take on the seasonal and temporary workers for a shorter

period of time, because we have not got the same money we had before. So, to be

concise, it will be a consideration, and there will be a reduction in the number

of temporary and seasonal workers this year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Your time has been used up, Mr. Doyle. I will now

go to Mr. Barrett.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know, Mr. Minister, you outlined in your opening

address that you had plans to downsize the fleet of Government cars within your

department. I guess one of the biggest complaints we have, those of us who are

MHAs and travel around our districts, is the number of Government vehicles, and

there seems to be an abuse of these Government vehicles for personal use. Is

your Department tightening up on the use of Government cars for personal use,

and what plans are in place to enforce those regulations, if there are any

regulations?

MR. GILBERT: Well, naturally the regulations

are there. They are not supposed to be used for personal business, and they

never were. But like anything else, I guess, there are certain abuses that creep

into every system. By virtue of the fact that we have reduced the fleet by some

300 units in this Department, I would say, if there was a tendency for people to

use them for personal use, it will make it virtually impossible for any personal

use. However, I am sure that the gentleman is aware that no matter how airtight

the system is, there is a possibility he can come up with cases that he

perceives to be an abuse to the system.

I really do not think that it is a great problem

with this Department. I would say that if we hear of individual cases, we

operate on them when we hear of the case, but it is down to that now and I do

not think there is any general abuse. There might be individual cases and if we

hear about it we investigate it and that is basically it.

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary. Is there any

requirement for the management people, particularly in the transportation area,

if some of these managers live a fair distance from the highways depots, and in

the whole maintenance of the road system, is it necessary for these people to

have to drive the Government cars home, you know, is it part of their job that

they have to take the cars home?

MR. GILBERT: Well it would depend on the type

of work that the person is doing. The one case that comes to mind, where I say

that yes, it would be, is the foremen in winter time who are on duty twenty-four

hours a day; the week that they are on they take the vehicle that is assigned to

them, that is their vehicle for the week they are on, so, under winter

maintenance, yes, those people take them.

Now I do not know but another case would be the

survey crews, you know they are working all over the Island. I asked the

question myself because I know where I live, there are a lot of people who work

with the survey crews, and I know that I asked this question a year or so ago

and the answer I received was that those people would be working, hither and

yon, so they would drive home in the night and then go back to work in the

vehicles the next morning; those are the two areas where I could see right now

that there would be a justification for employees taking it home.

Now of course, the Member is aware that we also

have a log book with each vehicle, so if a fellow is going to abuse it, he has

to be very good because the log is checked and monitored so we could find there

are excessive miles, so I really do not think it is a major problem. But, as I

said, I am sure that everybody here is aware that there is nothing you cannot

find some way to get around, if you really sit down and work at it, but no,

there is no major abuse I would say.

MR. BARRETT: I will get back more specifically

to my own district. I represent a district that has quite a few gravel roads, a

lot of gravel roads within communities, not only connecting communities, but

gravel roads in the main communities where it is a real problem with dust and

all the things that go with a gravel road.

I can assure the hon. Member for Kilbride that

people are complaining because their pavement is bad; the people in my district

are yet looking for the first bit of black top to go on the road in the

community. I know that -

MR. R. AYLWARD: You should be working harder

for them then.

MR. BARRETT: - within the last two years we

have made tremendous progress; sometimes I hear about this Government's

commitment to rural Newfoundland, but we are very pleased to compliment the

department on the fact that the road to Southport has been paved, a project that

took some twenty odd years to complete at one kilometre per year, but I think in

the final stages we upped that to about seven or eight with the benefits of

Federal dollars of course. The other one is the road to St. Jones Within, which

is also a very small community, and I can assure you that this Member is sure

that the Department is committed to rural Newfoundland. The other one we are

very excited about in the district, and believe me the people in Markland are

very excited about, was probably the worst road in Newfoundland, in that there

were times in the Spring when you could lose a bus in the potholes, and that one

is going to be paved. I think one of the areas, particularly in that district,

there should be plans under the ERDA Agreement to extend that road to Colinet,

which would open up and make it easier for the people from St. Mary's-the-Capes.

I know there is a lot of fish being transported from that area, so it would

enhance economic development if the road were paved. But there are other roads

in my district that are a greater priority.

I would like to ask about the public works

buildings. I know there is a $12.5 million young offenders building being built

in Whitbourne now and I would assume that in the next four or five months the

old building will be vacated. I am just wondering if the Department has any

plans for the utilization of the old boys home at Whitbourne? Will it be turned

into a Provincial Building?-- what are the plans for it? I would not like to see

the same thing happened that happened with the Markland Hospital, that it be

turned into a winery. It seems to be a fairly good building, particularly the

classroom parts of it. Has the Department thought about it or made any plans? If

you have not made any plans I guess I would put it on record now that you should

be making plans for it.

MR. GILBERT: Well, first of all, yes, we have

thought about the boys home at Whitbourne. We have had a couple of suggestions

already and we are assessing it right now; we have not finalized what it is

going to be but it is one of the things that is under ongoing consideration and

by the time it is vacant we hope to come up with a utilization for it. The

gentleman talks about the need for paving in his district and the fact there are

gravel roads. I can assure him I know there is a need for pavement. Only for the

restraints I could find lots of ways to spend a lot more than $25 million. I am

hoping that as conditions get better, with the actions that we are now taking,

we will be in a position within the next year or so to really be able to go into

a paving programme and a road upgrading programme for some of the dirt roads

that need to be paved, and not only that but the paved ones that need to be

upgraded. But that requires money and at this time we are doing the bare

maintenance that we can to keep the roads as safe as possible with the money we

have to spend at this time.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, the other area, Mr. Minister

- and it is a question that I am asked lots of times as I travel around my

district and even around the Province - is the old railway bed in Newfoundland

the property of CN or has it reverted back to the Province? Are there any plans

by your Department, or probably it is not your Department that is going to have

the responsibility for it, if it is reverted back to the Province do you have

any plans to maintain that system, particularly right now that there are some

concerns that some of the bridges may be dismantled off the old railway bed. I

think it would be a crime if this were to happen. I think, as a person who

frequently uses an all terrain vehicle, uses the railway track for pleasure and

enjoyment, that it would be a great tourist attraction. It could bring economic

benefits to the Province if we were to use the railway bed for the recreational

use of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Has there been any discussion? Who owns

the bed? Is it going to revert back to the Province? Are there any plans to

utilize this great resource for the enjoyment of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians?

MR. GILBERT: There has certainly been an

ongoing discussion concerning what is going to happen to the railway bed. The

only way my Department would be involved would be in the part that is directly

related to transportation, where the railway bed and the highway sort of join

up. Where we would need to take the rail bed to extend the highway or widen the

highway, something like that. As I understand it the lead Department in

negotiations with the railway for the reclaiming of that land would be the

Department of Environment and Lands. I understand that the Department of

Development would be the one that would have the concerns you have about the

developing and maintaining of trails. It would not be a transportation

initiative and it is not one we would be involved in. As I say the only way we

would be involved in that now is in any of the areas where the old line comes

into the highway network. That is the only one we would be responsible for and

the rest of it comes under the responsibility of those other two Departments who

would be deciding what is the future of the remaining railway bed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time is up, Mr. Barrett. I

will now have to turn the questioning over to Mr. Winsor.

MR. WINSOR: I want to follow-up on a question

that was started by the hon. Member for Harbour Main. The salary details

indicate that your Department had 2,248 permanent employees in 1990-91 and in

1991-92 there are -

AN HON. MEMBER: How many!

MR. WINSOR: -2,248. I am getting this from the

salary details. This year it indicates there is 2,008, a reduction of 240

permanent staff. In addition to the 240 permanent that disappeared, according to

your salary details now, how many temporary jobs were lost, and exactly where

were they? They are saying permanent. Are you including temporary in your

permanent, too?

MR. GILBERT: I will explain what has happened

there. There were 249 positions eliminated and out of those there were only

thirty-nine permanent positions. The other ones were positions that were not

filled. The salary allocations were there but there were nobody in those jobs,

so in other words what has happened, in the Budget for this year instead of

including those jobs, these are people we can hire and the salary unit is there,

the money is there, we have the position for it but we do not have the money, or

whatever the case. We said we will now abolish the positions. So in actual fact

208 of those positions were people who were not working in them last year. On

paper they were jobs but the actual number of people laid off in my Department

was thirty-nine. Nobody was laid off in the temporary positions because of the

fact that they are hired back for certain seasons of the year. Like I say there

will possibly be a reduction in the number of temporary people we hire back this

year, the seasonal ones. We do not have a figure and there is no way we could

have a figure until we get into the construction season or out to the winter

maintenance season to see where we are going to need those people.

MR. WINSOR: I want to revert back to the

operations of the provincial ferry system. Some time ago you announced that the

Fogo Island - Change Island run would be run by a one ferry service for nine

months of the year, and I think the latter part of last year this system proved

to be cumbersome at least. The boat had difficulty maintaining the

schedule with

the number of cars that were travelling and so on. For example, this Thursday

night nine cars could not get on the boat even on a three trip a day basis and

it was very difficult to maintain that schedule. I think there are five or six

trips that boat needs to run in that period of time. I understand it is June 15

before it reverts back to the two boat a day system. Does the Minister know what

boat is going to be the second boat in that area at this point in time?

MR. GILBERT: As I understand it right now, the

Sound of Islay or the Hamilton Sound will be there for part of the time. One or

the other will be there for the summer.

MR. WINSOR: The reason I ask that is because

the Hamilton Sound, especially during that season, can be of much more valuable

service, because it is able to take more tractor trailers and so on. It is at

the peak of the caplin season, and with the flow of traffic to both islands,

what was happening was one boat was frequently assisting the other to facilitate

the tractor trailers,

whereas the Sound of Islay will not be nearly as effective

in helping both islands.

MR. GILBERT: Well, it depends on the traffic.

Of course, there will be a dedicated service to each island from June 15 to

September 15, during the height of the caplin season, I would say, which would

not start until June 15 anyhow. As I understand it now, certainly the service

seems adequate.

MR. WINSOR: The Minister has talked about the

rates having gone down. I think there have been three, maybe four, rate

reductions. But despite all that, for the commercial portion there has only been

one rate decrease. I know for Fogo Island, particularly, it is causing all kinds

of difficulties, because the rate of buying things out there, propane for

example, is much more expensive, because of the high cost of transportation

involved with commercial vehicles which they frequently have to charter. I

guess, they are not allowed to travel with that kind of thing.

Has the Minister given any consideration to a

reduction in the commercial rate as well, to keep abreast? Basically the same

argument can be used, that the rate on land and on water should be the same,

certainly applying to commercial traffic. I think it is twenty-six dollars just

to move a truck.

MR. GILBERT: Well, that is an interesting

question. I will point out again, that when the member's government was in power

all they did was increase the rates. What we have done is we have reduced the

commercial rates. We made an initial decrease, and then we did a survey. We

wanted to find out, because we are concerned about the people who live on the

islands and in Rural Newfoundland. We did a survey among the commercial people

who are using the ferries all over the Island, and I think it was somewhere in

the vicinity of 60 per cent of them said that they would not be passing on the

reduction in rates to the consumers that live on those islands. So, it is harder

to see if the benefit could be passed on. If we could be assured that the

benefit would be passed on to the end user, the consumer who uses that gas in

Fogo or somewhere else, I think we would be prepared to have a look at it. We

realize that the ferry system that we have - you know members on the other side

have, from time to time, wanted me to raise the rates. I know, the Member for

Green Bay, from time to time, says that we should not have reduced the rates, we

should keep the rates up.

What I am saying is, we are aware of the people who

live on those islands. So, if we can make it better for them, if it could be

proven to us that by reducing the commercial rates it would be passed on

directly to the consumer, we would be prepared to have another look at it.

However when, in a survey we had done, 60 per cent of the commercial people who

are using the ferry service said that in most cases the rate would be too small

to pass on to consumers and they did not have any plans for passing it on, we

felt that it was not to our best advantage to reduce the commercial rate at this

time. That is the reason for it.

MR. WINSOR: We have a market driven economy

where if you are not competitive you buy somewhere else. That, of course, then

fails to take into consideration the co-op, for example, and, in your particular

district, the fishplant which is there. They are the major users from the

commercial aspect of it, and so what happens is there are profits. They have

greater difficulty competing with people elsewhere because their associated

costs and transportation are much more.

MR. GILBERT: No, not that much.

MR. WINSOR: The Minister should check into the

rates if he thinks it is not that much. It is a considerable -

MR. GILBERT: I happen to have a (Inaudible) in

my district (Inaudible) deduces it so that it is not a considerable - and that

is one of the highest ones, I suppose. The transporting of fish from the plant

in Ramea would be one of the higher rates because of the distance and it was not

reduced. But it is not a significant factor and I have talked to the people with

the fish companies and it is not significant. But the point that the Member was

making first was the transporting of goods in and the gas -

MR. WINSOR: In and out.

MR. GILBERT: - and stuff like that would be

passed on to the people. This is not happening. Consequently it was not done. We

are not seriously considering it for this year. It will certainly be under

review for next year.

MR. WINSOR: So there will be no reduction in

commercial rates this year, that is the bottom line.

MR. GILBERT: That is right, sir.

MR. WINSOR: Okay. Another area that I have.

Crossing the Gander River there is a significant

section of road referred to

locally as the causeway. It is property of the Department of Transportation. It

is in an unincorporated area but I guess essentially it would always belong to

Transportation anyway. A couple of years ago I indicate to the Minister there

was a concern in the area with respect to safety along that particular

section

of road. I am sure my colleague for Lewisporte can certainly attest to it. There

has been a fair amount of commercial development in that particular area on both

sides of the causeway recently which has meant huge increases in the amount of

pedestrian traffic using that particular causeway.

Because of where it is located, quite frequently

there is a low mist type thing on the causeway. I had occasion to drive over it

on Friday night and you could not see any distance at all on the causeway, and

there is no lighting there. Residents have often expressed a great concern about

safety. There has already been two or three fatalities there over the years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I have given Mr. Winsor an extra minute to clue up

his question. You have already gone past your ten minutes. I would ask that you

clue up your question.

MR. WINSOR: Okay. Well, my question to the

Minister is: would he consider putting some type of lighting in on that

particular causeway to alleviate a potentially dangerous situation that exists

there?

MR. GILBERT: So what is the gentleman asking me

about, some sort of a lighting system?

MR. WINSOR: Street lighting. yes.

MR. GILBERT: I do not know. I will ask the

people in my Department to have a look at it and do some sort of a traffic count

maybe to see if - naturally we are very concerned with safety in this Department

and if it is as the Member says maybe we should have a look at it. Again, we

will look at it and see what we are talking about there. I take the Member's

question under consideration. I will have my people look at it and see what

really is the traffic count there. Is there significant traffic, is there a

significant safety hazard? I am sure the gentleman is raising it with sincere

concern and we will look at it (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: You have erected some signs there

recently indicating pedestrians on causeway. But it is not adequate because you

cannot see them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Winsor.

Mr. Langdon.

MR. LANGDON: Yes, getting back to the demerit

point system. Do I understand correctly that once a person has lost, let us say

his twelve points, is there an opportunity for him to come in to classroom or

other learning situations where hopefully many of his bad habits can be

corrected? Once this has happened the person can then have the number of points

reverted back so that he can then begin over again, is that correct?

MR. GILBERT: That is the intent of the thing

and any person now of his own initiative can go to school - after he has lost

less than twelve - he can go the time after he amasses those points. Once he

comes in and says that he has passed this test which indicates he has acquired

good driving habits his points can be reduced by up to four points.

One of the concerns that we had when we brought in

the system was making sure that everybody in the Province would have access to

this type of training. This has now been taken care off through the Newfoundland

Safety Council who, I think, are now providing that type of service to the

people. The person who goes has to pay the cost but I do not know what the cost

is. However, it is one of the things that is available.

As you know the demerit system was brought in with

the idea that it was not of a punitive nature but there was a certain amount of

people on the highway who had dreadfully poor driving habits, and those people

were hopefully going to improve or we were going to take them out of

circulation. So, now they have a chance to see the error of their ways and they

can go and be retrained and hopefully become good and safe drivers.

MR. LANGDON: Okay. As you said, they have seen

the error of their ways, Mr. Minister, and they come and do the voluntary

training. I was wondering if there has been any contact with the major insurance

companies, so that the person who pays an exorbitant rate, after losing his

points and having then gone to school, can now see a further reduction in the

amount of premium that he would pay to the insurance company concerned?

MR. GILBERT: This would be outside our sphere

of influence. It would be between the client and his insurance agency, I would

say, or the person and his insurance agency. You know, we, as a Department,

could not get involved in that. It would be sort of like the patient and doctor,

and it would have to be more or less kept at that.

MR. LANGDON: Okay. Getting back to the paving,

I was wondering, once the contractor has laid the pavement on a certain road, or

whatever the case may be, how long then from the time it has been laid is the

contractor responsible as to when the pavement itself deteriorates to the point

of having to be replaced again?

MR. GILBERT: Twelve months, at this time. The

contractor gives us a warranty of twelve months, and if there is any problem

then, the people in Mr. O'Reilly's Division of our Department would go out and

have a talk to them, if anything happens within the twelve month period.

MR. LANGDON: I am particularly thinking about

the Harbour Breton Highway. It has not been paved all that long, a number of

years, but there is a certain

section from the Pool's Cove depot down towards

Harbour Breton, for about probably ten kilometres, where the pavement is just

disintegrating. Regardless of how much patching you do, it just does not stop

the deterioration of the pavement. In fact, you can almost take it with your

hands and more or less scoot it away. That is what prompted me to ask that

particular question, because it has not been paved that long and there certainly

had to be some type of defective material there in the first place for that to

happen.

MR. GILBERT: This is the point, you know, you

can only hold a contractor responsible for a twelve month period. Some of the

paving that we had under previous rules and things like that, we used to

laughingly call election paving. You did the upgrading and you put the pavement

down at the same time, and where the road had not settled -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Especially when it was snowing

out.

MR. GILBERT: Some of it in snow too. So, that

could be the reason for it.

I am sure if you give me the details of it, we can

ask our fellows to have a look at it and see what exactly the problem is there

now.

MR. LANGDON: Yes, because it is a certain area

and it looks like it was a red stone that was used. The pavement is, as I said,

just deteriorated, almost to the point where it is beyond repair. It probably

might have to be recapped sometime. I will give you further details on that.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we will now take a

ten-minute recess. There is a pot of coffee and tea out in the Government common

room. We will take a ten-minute coffee recess and come back and the Chair will

turn the questioning over to Mr. Aylward.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The meeting will now

resume.

Before I turn it over to Mr. Aylward for questioning,

I would like to comment on something that I overheard being said about members

questioning the officials of the Department. I would like to remind all hon.

members that the Committee members or the MHAs who come in as observers are not

permitted to ask any questions of the officials. They must question the

Minister, and if the Minister wishes the officials to answer, that would be at

his discretion. Even then the officials would have to answer on fact and not

policy.

Mr. Aylward.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess it does not matter who is in Office every year

the roads program is announced because one side will accuse the other of

political patronage no matter what the true story is, I suppose.

Has the Minister even given any consideration to his

Department preparing a list of needs or a priority list of roads for the next

five years, which could be published so that people would know which roads are

going to be paved, upgraded or reconstructed for the next five years and with a

10 per cent variance on that, I guess, for emergencies or anything? Could the

roads program be committed to something like that?

MR. GILBERT: I am sure that the officials in my

Department have a five year program right now. As to the practicality of putting

it in place, I have certainly never given any consideration to publishing it. I

do not see there will be any great gains made, other than the political play

that you would have out of it by doing it, so I would say, no.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It is a strange thing because one

of the first casualties of the Liberal Government was the Liberal Policy Manual.

It was put out in the last election and one of the platitudes that were in this,

one of the broken promises again, `The Liberal Government will do an immediate

assessment of community connector roads in the Province and establish and

publish a paving and reconstruction priority program.' I guess now that you are

Minister this thing is not necessary anymore.

MR. GILBERT: The program is there. There is no

doubt there is a priority for ten years of roads in the Province. As to the

publishing of them, I do not know what the benefit would be, but I, at this

point, do not intend to publish them.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well, the benefit, according to

your Premier during the last election was that every part of the Province would

know from the beginning when local road work would be done and would have the

satisfaction of knowing that its timing is based on need and not politics. That

is what your Premier thought during the last election but I guess he changed his

mind on that, too, did he?

MR. GILBERT: The policy that was annunciated in

the last election must have been a good one otherwise we certainly would not

have put it in our booklet, and I will have to look at it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: That was a part of the 'real

change' but the change changed backwards, or changed somewhere else in the

meantime, I think.

Mr. Minister, I do not know if you have a copy of it,

I cannot find it here right now, but a couple of times in the House of Assembly,

I questioned you on a rental agreement for space for the Department of Education

in the Remax Building on Newfoundland Drive. Apparently, the Department of

Education wanted so much space and it was done without tender. I believe

proposals were asked but I do not remember now. After quite some time it

appeared in one of the Public Tender Exemption Act Reports. I have March here

but it is not in this one. I thought it was March but it must have been sometime

in January or February.

MR. GILBERT: It was in February, I think.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I think the people moved in last

August and there was no report of it until sometime between December and

February of this year. The reason used, as every tender exemption gives a reason

why it was done, in this book was that it was an extension of an existing

tender. I do not understand the reason for it because it was the first time that

the Department of Education moved into this space.

MR. GILBERT: I think I might have all the details.

Keep talking.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Go ahead.

I know it is the first time that the Department of

Education occupied this space in the Remax Building on Newfoundland Drive. I am

wondering now if it is a case where the Department of Public Works had this

space rented and nobody was in it, or was there somebody else who moved out and

the Department of Education was put into the space? When the Minister gets a

chance to get all his details here he might get the Public Tendering Exemption

Act that it was in. I have it up in my office but I forgot to bring it down this

morning. I still suggest that the public tendering exemptions or the Public

Tendering Act was broken, because it took so long to report the space being

acquired without tender; if the space was occupied in August of 1990, and even

if the tender was signed in October of 1990, it was not reported for some ninety

days after the tender was actually signed.

In The Public Tendering Act Exemptions, there is also

a

section that indicates the award date. For that tender the award date was

marked the date that the space was taken over, not necessarily the date that the

contract was signed or that the lease was signed. The Minister's explanation to

me when I asked the question was that it was not unusual to not have it reported

in the Public Tendering Act Exemptions Report until thirty days after it is

signed.

Now, it would appear that his own Department agrees

with the

interpretation that I put on the Public Tendering Act, that they have

award date marked in their outline here in the book and the award date is listed

as the date occupied and not the date that it is signed, according to this

particular contract.

I have one other question on the exemptions to the

Public Tendering Act: I have noticed that every month they come out lately they

are getting thicker. There is no great controversy, I do not think anybody is

trying to get around the system from what I can see, but, in particular - the

March 1991 book has quite a bit of detail in it and I noticed that the March

Book is not so bad. However, I think in the January and February books there are

tender exemptions from different provincial Crown corporations or agencies

dating back as far as 1989, when they were supposed to report within thirty days

of issuing the tender.

There were a few exemptions from 1989, a lot from

1990, in the 1991 or late 1990 books and I am just wondering, has the Minister

changed his policy or made say the Marine College more aware of the Public

Tendering Act? The Marine College was one of the offenders.

MR. GILBERT: We have tightened it up.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, well, okay. Now, maybe the

Minister can answer some of the questions on the specific acquisition of the

Remax Building lease for the Department of Education.

MR. GILBERT: The hon. gentleman has raised this

question several times and I have answered it several times. I thought I had the

full details and was going to give him the chronological order of what happened;

I thought it was here but it was not.

Anyhow, we shall go back to 1989 when Government

changed. At that time the Department of Education was renting space at Atlantic

Place and the lease had expired prior to this Government taking office in March

or some time in 1989 anyhow.

The then Department of Education came back and asked

if they could operate in Atlantic Place on a month-to-month basis? The owners of

Atlantic Place agreed, yes, they had no reason to object to it, so we will carry

on. The reason the Department of Education did this, as I understand it is, they

were not quite sure how much space they were going to need because they were in

the process of signing a Federal-Provincial agreement and they did not know how

many more staff they would need; it was a comfortable arrangement and they went

on on a month-to-month basis and operated without having the lease extended in

that way.

Then last year in July the owners of Atlantic Place

came to the Department of Education and gave them thirty days to vacate, because

with the Hibernia hype they had then arranged a long-term rental for the space

that was occupied by the Department of Education. This put the Department of

Education at sort of a disadvantage as they had to move by the end of August.

So, then when they came to our realty department and

said that they had to go, they were being kicked out of their present facilities

within thirty days, you must find a place for us. Our realty division, the

division of our Department that looks after it, as there was no time to call a

public tender, went out for proposals. They obtained three proposals and the one

that was finally decided upon was the space in the REMAX building and they went

for it. The Department of Education moved in there, I think it was the first of

October.

Now as to the niceties of the Public Tendering Act,

the people in my Department have told me that yes, they lived within everything

that was done because the Department of Education was operating in Atlantic

Place on a lease that had expired some two years before and had gone when the

hon. Member's government was there and they had operated on that month-to-month

lease. So, the reporting of the exception - and when I asked the question, why

was it not reported at the time that the transaction occurred, I was told that

it did not have to be until such time as the new lease was signed for the two

year period, you know, the exception to it.

Now, I do not know what else the gentleman asked about

it but that is basically what happened. I will now say to him again as I have

said several times in answering the question, it has not changed any - but what

I will do is I will ask the ADM of Administration if he could give the

chronological order of just exactly what happened. I can either table it in the

House for the gentleman or we will mail it to him so he will have it, to put his

mind at rest. Because if the gentleman is indicating there was any impropriety,

there is none. It was a system that was followed and had gone on from time to

time.

As to the thickness of the Public Tendering documents

on a monthly basis: I would submit to him that this is maybe because of the fact

that we have insisted on the Crown corporations and all the reporting agencies

reporting their exceptions where there had been a slackness crept into it and

they were not reporting it on a regular basis. This is the reason why now we

have said: `Listen, under the Act you must do this.'

Now the other thing I would say to the Member, it is

possibly time that the Public Tendering Act be looked at. As the policy of this

Department, I would say if he wants to have a question to ask me next year ask

me: Did you look at the Public Tendering Act (Inaudible)? It is one of the

things that I think should be looked at. It has been there 1975 or 1976. It came

into being, it was born in a hurry, if I remember. I think it was Judge Mahoney

who put the thing together, and I think there are some inequities in the system

that should be tidied up now and maybe it is time that we have a look at a new

Public Tendering Act for the Province.

But I do not know why the thickness of it other than

in the fact that we are enforcing the rules that are there and asking the Crown

corporations to report, where they were not doing it before.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Aylward. Your ten

minutes is up. I would remind the Members of the Committee that everybody on our

Committee has had the opportunity to ask questions of the Minister on at least

one occasion. I would recognize Members who wish to question the Minister only

if I see a hand being raised. Mr. Aylward has informed me that he wanted to ask

one more question of the Minister. In view of the fact that I had not seen

another hand raised prior to this I will grant him the privilege of doing that.

I would like at this time to officially recognize Mr.

Glen Tobin the Member for Burin - Placentia West. When I say I recognize him I

do not mean that I recognize him as a questioner but just that I recognize him

to the Chamber. I would like to remind, Mr. Tobin, as well as all other members

that our Standing Order 86(

b) states: "Any member of the House who is not a

member of a Standing Committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned

otherwise orders, take

part in the public proceedings of the committee, but he

may not vote or move any motion, nor shall he be part of any quorum." What the

Chair has been doing is allowing Members who are coming here as visitors to ask

questions but it would only be at the leave of the Committee. So, if any

Committee Member has a question to ask the Committee will be given preference.

I think Mr. Tobin has stated that he has a question he

would like to ask. That is my understanding. Is that correct, Mr. Tobin? Do you

have a question you would like to ask the Minister?

MR. TOBIN: I have a couple of district questions I

would like to ask the Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, we have gone from a question to

a couple of questions. I will go back to the Committee and when the Committee is

finished or wishes to give you leave the Chair will entertain your questions.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, if I could have leave, it

will only take a couple of minutes and then I will (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we will go to Mr. Aylward

first.

Mr. Aylward.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Just one short question on the

Public Tender Exemptions: The reason for going without a tender on this REMAX

Building: in your book it says lease renewal extension, renewal of existing

lease in accordance with Minute of Council 1876 '90. If this is a new space, why

are you renewing a lease? That is my main question.

MR. GILBERT: I have explained to you why we were

renewing the lease. The situation occurred because the Department of Education

were occupying a space at Atlantic Place and the lease had expired so they

renewed it on a month-to-month basis with the same existing lease. It was to

accommodate the Department of Education who wanted to keep the space and they

did not know how much space.

So, what they did when they were forced - normally

there would have been a tender call for the Department of Education to replace

what they were occupying at Atlantic Place, but because of the fact that the

owner found a person to lease the space occupied by the Department of Education

who had a one-month lease, he had no obligation to them other than to say that

you are now kicked out as at the end of August. Then there was a great hue and

cry and the Department of Education came to our realty's division and said they

have to have space in a month's time. There was no time to go to tender, so we

had to go to proposal. We asked for three proposals - we received three

proposals. The decision was made to lease REMAX, so, as I say, the niceties of

The Public Tendering Act and what was included in there was the extension of the

existing lease the Department of Education had with the owners of Atlantic Place

and it had been operated on a month-to-month basis for maybe a year, I do not

know.

MR. R. AYLWARD: So, the REMAX contract is the same

as the Atlantic Place contract? That is the renewal. If you are going to renew a

lease you are going to get the same lease.

MR. GILBERT: Basically, I think it was.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Can we get a copy of both leases?

MR. GILBERT: I can ask them to find that out for

you.

MR. R. AYLWARD: They can be tabled.

MR. GILBERT: Oh, yes.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Can we get a copy of Minute of

Council 1878 '90?

MR. GILBERT: No, there will be no copy of the

Minute of Council. As the Member is aware the Minute of Council copy will not be

tabled, but I am sure he is aware of that.

MR. R. AYLWARD: So, we shall have a copy of both

leases before the Committee passes everything I would imagine?

MR. GILBERT: No, I do not think you will.

MR. R. AYLWARD: We could.

MR. GILBERT: Well, you could, okay, but it might

be a while.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It might be a while before it is

passed in that case.

MR. GILBERT: All right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Committee give leave to Mr.

Tobin to ask a couple of questions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Sure.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Do we have to give leave for that?

I thought the Member had a right to ask questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member has a right to ask

questions unless the Committee wishes him not to. It is stated quite clearly in

the Standing Orders.

Leave has been given, Mr. Tobin.

MR. TOBIN: You do not have to bother with the

Standing Orders for the questions I have. I have a question for the Minister,

and we have chatted about it before, basically. First of all it is dealing with

the bridge in Marystown that the Minister no doubt is familiar with. If work is

going to be done the bridge has to be closed down to do the work and I do not

think there is anyone who disagrees with that, Mr. Minister.

What the question is - and I ran into it on the

weekend when I had some meetings there, particularly discussions with the

councils, and I am going to be having more; they will probably be requesting a

meeting with you, by the way, on the issue - is the possibility of having some

sort of a walkway constructed there in that general area while the bridge is

under construction. That is probably a technical question, Mr. Minister, and I

realize that you probably need to consult with your officials. But it is going

to take some people approximately twelve miles. If you are looking into

September, you know, and it is only across the bridge and you are to the

churches, the malls, the supermarkets and everything else within a matter of

minutes in terms of walking.

But I was just wondering if it was possible - and

granted there are going to be times during the construction of the bridge that

it may not be possible for people to walk there. But I will just leave that with

you and see if you can give me sort of a response as to what your position is on

it.

MR. GILBERT: Well, we have already discussed that

with the Marystown Town Council, they were in, before the decision was made to

put the bridge there. That is one of the things that they were concerned about -

what would happen during the construction period and the twelve miles that

people would have to drive. Now, the point that we made to them then, and I

checked as a result of your question to me the other day about it, and what our

people are concerned about, once you are into construction of the bridge it

would be virtually impossible to guarantee the safety of the people if you put

in a walkway. The cost of putting it in safely would be prohibitive. I mean if

we are to get into that, how do you have safety - in any construction project

you try to keep people away from it. So if we are trying to construct a bridge

and you have a walkway for pedestrians there it could cause some problems. So I

really do not think it is possible but I will ask my people to have another look

at it but I would not hold out too much hope.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I am going to be meeting with the

councils tomorrow evening as a matter of fact, so I guess I can advise them then

that you are taking a look at it and at least -

MR. GILBERT: Yes, but I mean, tell them that there

is not too much hope and there is the safety factor. All you have to do is just

look at it from a practical point of view. When you have any construction

project on the go how do you guarantee the safety of people and kids who are

walking, and stuff like that? So it is -

MR. TOBIN: I know what you are saying there. But I

think that it is possible if the walkway is put there that it can - again I do

not know - but I have spoken to some engineers, I have not spoken to safety

people. But to some engineers who told me that indeed it is possible for the

walkway to be there.

MR. GILBERT: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: It may not be accessible at all times

while construction is taking place but I do not think you will have twenty-four

construction on the bridge and things such as that. So I think that after hours

and during weekends - I really think, Mr. Minister, that if there is any way

possible, and there is a way possible from what I have been told, that the

walkway should be put in place there.

I know it is probably the advice you are getting and

no doubt I realize, I am aware, you are getting that advice. But from what I

have been told it is quite possible to put a walkway there without getting into

too much cost. And the walkway would not be always open to the public. There are

times it would not available to the public. But on weekends there may not be

construction, and after hours and things such as that. And it is important to

the people of that area that it be done if it is at all possible.

Having said that - and I know you are looking at it -

I have one other question. The last call I think I received last night was from

South East Bight. They are wondering when you are going to be travelling down,

if you will be travelling, or if your officials will be travelling, and if you

could give me some sort of a ballpark figure of what date you would be in a

position to do it? If you cannot do it I am sure they would not mind your Deputy

or other officials from your Department taking a boat and travelling down.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Chairman, we have had a couple of

meetings set up with the people of South East Bight. For one reason or another

we could not get there but I have asked my Deputy to arrange another meeting. If

they want to come in to see us, we are open. I do not know when we will be

going. The service is going to be put in place by April 12 next year. But I

would not hold out that it would be in the immediate future that we will be

going to have a meeting with them. But we are certainly open to have a meeting

with them in here.

MR. TOBIN: Well, if you cannot make it yourself

would you be able to arrange for your senior executive members to visit South

East Bight?

MR. GILBERT: Not really. I am going to leave that

to the decision of the executive.

MR. TOBIN: Okay then, and I will leave that with

you. Would you be able to advise me within the next few days as to what your

position is?

MR. GILBERT: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Okay, I appreciate it. Thank you very

much, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Tobin.

Mr. Short.

MR. GILBERT: We have already had people down there

by the way.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. GILBERT: They are not going (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHORT: A couple of questions, Mr. Chairman,

but first of all certainly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. AYLWARD: They should go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

Mr. Short.

MR. SHORT: I wanted to pick up on some comments I

guess made by Mr. Barrett about the commitment to rural Newfoundland. Certainly

the Department this year in my district has shown their commitment and I do not

think it has anything to do with politics, but certainly a need in the district.

My predecessor of course was the Minister of Transportation as well. That does

not mean that there certainly are not needs in the district. I believe I have

probably more concrete bridges in my district than anywhere else in the

Province. Something like thirty-two concrete bridges. There certainly is a need

for some of those to be repaired and I have said to some people that I have as

many bridges this year being constructed as Mr. Dawe had in ten years. So there

is certainly nothing wrong with that. But there certainly is a need and when

that need arises it has to be taken care of soon. The commitment to rural

Newfoundland is certainly there.

I had a couple of questions. I remember some years ago

- this came up under the - we were talking about insurance a little while back.

A few years ago there was some idea being bandied about that we should be able

to have better control over people who cancel insurance policies or do not renew

their insurance policies. Obviously they are not allowed to be on the road. Has

the Department looked at any way of - I do not know - tapping into computer

systems with insurance companies or something like that? The system that we now

have, there is a lot of concern I know out in the public about people driving

around with no insurance policies, driver's licence or whatever it is. I do not

know where the idea came from, if it came from us when we were in Opposition or

if it came from the Party that was in power three or four years ago. But it

sounded like an excellent idea to me. There certainly is a lot of concern in the

public about it and I wonder if the Minister could -?

MR. GILBERT: It is certainly a good one and where

I came in contact with it first was when I was president of the Newfoundland

Automobile Dealers Association. It was one of the things that we used to raise

when we presented our annual brief to the Government. It was one of the concerns

that we used to raise. Because it would have made our life as automobile dealers

- that was in my other career - an awful lot easier if we had that sort of

information. At the time, and I have not had it raised to me since I have been

the Minister, the Department was saying that there was just no way you could

control it.

Because what would happen is that a fellow buys a car,

he goes to an insurance company, he gets his insurance policy, he pays his month

down, then he does not pay it any more. The policy is cancelled. The maintenance

of it and to keep it updated would be just impossible. Now that is the

understanding that I was given when I was asking about it as a private

individual or as a person who was concerned with it. I am sure that there is

still a lot of concern out there but I do not think there is any way that we as

a Department can control it for the fact that we cannot stop people from

cancelling.

Then, the other thing that I think we might be

involved in now is the matter again of privacy between the insurance company and

the person who buys the insurance. About why they cancelled it and things like

that.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I thought the insurance companies

automatically reported now when you cancelled your insurance. I know one of them

did on me one time.

MR. GILBERT: Yes, they do I think, they do, but

then you go back to them and someone else will report it and then you follow-up

and then they have insurance somewhere else and so it is just impossible to

control.

MR. SHORT: I am just wondering; it seems to me we

are into a computerized system, not just the Department, but certainly companies

and I cannot for the life of me see why we cannot have, certainly better control

over -

MR. GILBERT: Well I can check it again because it

is the first time I have heard of it, but I will certainly have it checked and I

will get back to you on it.

MR. SHORT: Okay. I have a couple of questions,

very short ones. Going back to the railway property, I guess Mr. Barrett asked

this question before, or was trying to get at it. Do we know when the property

will be turned over to the Provincial Government?

MR. GILBERT: I would not because that is a

question that would be more properly asked of the Department of Environment and

Lands, because they would be the lead Department in that. We sit on that

Committee I think, purely as an advisory one, but that is a question that would

be proper for the Department of Environment and Lands.

MR. SHORT: The other question I had: under the

winter maintenance programme, is it my understanding that the change over with

the winter foremen and so on, that there was to be an evaluation of some type

done at the end of the season, is that what was anticipated?

MR. GILBERT: What has happened with that is that

Mr. O'Reilly, the ADM who is responsible for the maintenance programme has done

a survey of it, checked it out and talked to every one of the foremen who were

involved in that and 73 per cent of them still maintain that they want the

system that we put in place last year. They find it is better for them and they

are happy with it and he has talked to every one of them over a period in the

last two weeks since the season has been over.

MR. SHORT: The last question then had to do with

the National Occupant Restraint Programme, and I understand that there has been

a fair amount of success in terms of figures for seat belts -

MR. GILBERT: That is one we are very proud of, as

a matter of fact. When we started the programme last year there was a lot of

concern about the fact that the usage of seat belts had slipped and we were down

to a wearing rate of 64.4 per cent, so last year, in September, we signed up

with the rest of the provinces under the RTAC Agreement, and we started a

campaign. As a result of it, we have brought it up to - the last statistics we

had for the end of the year, it was up to 82.2 per cent of a wearing rate from

64.4.

Now what this has done and the important thing about

that is that, with the increased wearing of seat belts, there has been a

decrease in the number of fatalities, a rather significant one of 29 per cent

from 1990 over 1989, which translates into twenty-four fewer persons killed in

traffic accidents in 1990 than there was in 1989.

The seat belt usage rate is still up there in the

eighties and the unofficial figures we have to the latter part of April show a

30 per cent reduction in fatalities for the corresponding period for this year,

1991. So it translates again into six lives being saved.

When you see the advertisements telling people to

buckle up - we think it is well worth it. It is not only the people's lives that

we think were saved because of the increased usage but you must take into

consideration the savings in the health care system, with the reduced injuries.

We do not have the statistics on the number of reduced injuries due to people

wearing seat belts. But when you take the rather significant number of fewer

people killed which we attribute directly to the fact that more people are

wearing seat belts, just imagine the thousands or even millions of dollars I

suppose that is saved in health care in people whom we do not have to treat for

injuries sustained in accidents by not having the belt.

So it is one of the success stories of last year and

we continue to advertise the thing and put it in people's minds that yes, it is

important that they buckle up. Like you say, we have gone from 64 per cent to 84

per cent and we are hoping to get to 95 per cent within the next couple of years

of seat belt usage. It will be much better for all of us who are driving on the

highway.

MR. SHORT: That completes my questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Barrett.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like

to get away from the actual Department of Works, Services and Transportation and

direct some comments and questions to the Public Service Commission. I

understand that the Chairman of the Public Service Commission I guess through

the Minister - I do not think it will be an area of policy, it is more about

programmes and details about programmes.

I am aware that the Public Service Commission for a

couple of years now has an affirmative action for disabled adults, trying to

integrate them and ensure that a fair number of disabled adults are employed

within the Public Service of this Province. I guess as one who has been actively

involved in equal opportunities for disabled and disadvantaged adults in this

Province, I think last year there was probably some fifteen disabled adults

working with (Inaudible) Departments or agencies within the Government service.

I am looking at the estimates for the Public Service Commission and trying to

determine whether the money is voted for it this year. But it looks like it is

probably under the Human Resource Services division because I think that is a

Federal-Provincial programme. I notice that there is revenue from the Federal

Government and I guess that is the only reason that the Federal Government would

be financing anything within the Public Service Commission.

So I would like for the Chairman through the Minister

to update us on that particular programme and how it is going. Are we on target

in terms of the objectives of this particular programme? Will the present

layoffs within the Public Service have any affect on this programme? Are the

unions cooperating in terms of this affirmative action? So these are some of the

questions that - I do not know who is going to answer them. I guess the Minister

can decide (Inaudible).

MR. GILBERT: Well, I would ask Mr. Pike to

possibly answer that because it is a technical question.

MR. GILBERT PIKE: Yes, thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to provide information with respect to this

programme.

As Mr. Barrett knows, the history of employment of

people with disabilities in society generally and certainly in the public

service has not been good. Indeed, in 1989 a survey was done within the

Newfoundland Public Service and only thirty-four people, who were identified out

of the 10,600 then employed, who viewed themselves as being disabled and being

employed in the Newfoundland Public Service.

Beginning last year there were fifteen positions

created specifically as avenues for entry of persons with disabilities to the

Public Service. These were identified in various departments of Government and

the plan was that the fifteen positions would be created and fifteen individuals

recruited, which happened through public competition, and at the end of one year

the individuals and the positions they were in would be evaluated, and if deemed

appropriate would be made permanent. Quite a number of that fifteen have now

been made permanent. Indeed, we have funds provided. Of course, when the

position is made permanent the person would go on the staff of the particular

agency or department and then the salary unit which has again been provided is

freed up to provide for the entrance of another person. Within the fiscal year

1991-1992 another fifteen will be recruited through that process and there has

been good cooperation with the union with respect to this matter. The plan is

that these fifteen positions would be maintained as an avenue of entry for

disabled persons only. The disabled persons, once employed in the Public

Service, of course, would have access to all competitions so that if the person

became employed in a regular position, the position left would then be vacant

and be the avenue for another disabled person to be employed.

So, it has worked extremely well with the cooperation

of the Department and as Mr. Barrett has indicated with the Union as well.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I am aware of the programme and

I am pleased that it is being carried on and I guess I also would like to

compliment the staff that is involved in this type of programme like the Public

Service Commission. I think the person providing the leadership there is a

person himself who is disabled and I know that he has shown a great sensitivity

to the programme. I have met some of the employees who are involved in the

programme here in the building and some of the people that I have been

associated with over the years and have provided training programmes for two or

three years ago. I think in this society today we hear a lot of negative things

but as a Member of this Committee today I think it is deserving that the Public

Service Commission and the people - I know that the Social Services Department

and other Departments of Government have been involved in this programme -

involved be complimented, I think it is one of the positive aspects of what is

happening in our society today for the people who are disadvantaged and

disabled. I am hoping that people like Mr. Pike in their future considerations,

even thought it may be a restraint program, I compliment you on being able to

maintain this particular program.

Next, I would like to get back to the roads part of

the thing. I would like to get some update on, I think it is probably part of

the ERDA agreement, when the road from Whitbourne to Hearts Content, which I

think is badly in need of resurfacing, and I heard some rumours this was suppose

to be done next Summer, so probably I can get an update as to whether that is

going to be part of a new agreement?

MR. GILBERT: I do not think it is under the new

agreement and it would then be considered a priority based under our local roads

thing. It is like many other roads in the Province that, as the Member for

Kilbride referred to, a bad paved road is worse than a good dirt one, so that is

one of the ones that was done some years ago. As the Member is aware pavement

has about a twenty year life and when it starts to break up we have to try and

have the money in hand to do the projects as the road reaches the end of its

useful life, otherwise it becomes much more expensive to do and more of a hazard

to drive on. I am sure the people in my Department know the road the gentleman

is talking about, down the Trinity Shore there, and it will certainly come up on

a priority basis. Of course that is a budgetary decision for next year so I

cannot tell him what is going to happen.

MR. BARRETT: The other question, I guess, is again

in terms of planning and I guess to alert the officials within the Department.

As you know the Bull Arm site is in my district, in the area between Sunnyside

and Arnold's Cove, and I note that recently there is a tremendous increase in

the traffic flow in that particular area. Is there any intention to do any

upgrading of the Trans-Canada, is there going to be an off-ramp? I have not seen

the plans and I have some concerns about the safety and the parking of cars on

the side of the road. The traffic is just tremendous. I think we now have only

about 200 or 300 workers but wait until we get up to 2000 or 3000. I know there

is a study being conducted so probably the Department may be waiting until

Knight and Associates complete their study. Has the Department asked the

Offshore Development Fund for any funds to improve the transportation system as

it directly impacts that part of my district?

MR. GILBERT: Our Department has been in contact

with the developers and as the project is completed they will have to conform to

the normal safety standards for exit and entry to the Trans-Canada and it is

being discussed. I guess you will be hearing something in the not to distant

future on that, before it reaches the crisis stage.

MR. BARRETT: I just wanted to alert you to the

fact that there is such a tremendous increase.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Continue, Mr. Barrett.

MR. BARRETT: I brought them coffee earlier so I

anticipate their co-operation.

MR. R. AYLWARD: You did not get me any.

MR. BARRETT: The other thing I would like to say

as a positive thing is the renewal of the driver's licence policy and the fact

that people can go to the banks for their renewals. People in my District see

that as a great asset even though we lost the Motor Registration Division in

Clarenville which used to serve as part of my District. The feedback that I have

been receiving is that they do not miss the Motor Registration, now that they

can go to the bank it is just as good.

I think one of the biggest problems is the retail

sales tax, and we are working on that. Tonight, I shall have a question for the

Minister of Finance in terms of how we can better facilitate the paying of the

retail sales tax and some of these fees that are necessary for the renewal of

licences. I think we need them but I think it is positive that the people in

Arnold's Cove and Whitbourne can go to the bank now and get their renewals.

MR. GILBERT: I think it is positive for the whole

Province. One of the things I am glad you bought up is the matter of fees again

because I indicated to the gentleman from Kilbride that there was a $1.25 charge

but I have since found out that actually the charge goes from 95 cents to $1.25,

depending on the institution. All the various institutions have their various

charges for this type of transaction so, if you go to some of them you can get

it done for 95 cents and some are as high as $1.25 but it is in the dollar

range. I do not think we were out of line. So, it is almost the same price as to

mail a letter so I thought I would pass along that bit of good news.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It does not cost $1.25 to mail a

letter.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well, Mulroney is bad but he has

not gone that far.

MR. BARRETT: That is the end of my questions at

this particular time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Aylward then Mr. Winsor.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Seeing that the Minister brought

up the charges at the bank it is interesting to note that although some of it

might range as low as 95 cent, since the Minister introduced this some six or

eight months ago or when he talked about it at our last meetings last year,

there have been increases. I mentioned at the time and I mention again that he

has lost control of the charges. If there was some type of control that his

department had maintained it would have been even better but just as he has

announced it it has increased some 25 per cent already in less than one year.

There is a problem. I know that $1.25 is not a big fee. If there is a

convenience there people will certainly pay it. But still again, it could be $25

next year. You have no control.

MR. GILBERT: They could then use the mail. I mean

this is put in as an extra convenience for the people. People who live in

Stephenville now do not have to go to Corner Brook, line up and spend $6 on it -

MR. R. AYLWARD: They never did.

MR. GILBERT: They can do it through their bank or

they can mail it in. It is there as a convenience. This is why this was

introduced. I think, the Member will remember when it was introduced it was put

there as another convenience for the people who live in rural Newfoundland.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I hope it works. It probably will

but I just wanted to say to you that we still do not have control over the cost

of it.

I just want to move along to another Division of the

Minister's many-divisioned Department, and that is the Pippy Park area which

operates under his Department also. From some of the statements that are

contained in the 1989-1990 Report of the Pippy Park Commission, I just wonder if

there is going to be a Pippy Park in the next four or five years? When you read

some of the statements talking about the three pond barrens: `This area,

however, is subject to vandalism and littering et cetera. The Commission has

suffered immensely in this area and is unable to provide control service to the

Park due to budgetary cuts, park patrolman have been reduced from five full-time

to one seasonal person.' That is one statement that concerns me in the Pippy

Park Commission's Report. There is another statement when you move on to page

fourteen in the report. It says that: 'the grant in lieu of funding has remained

at the $500,000 to $600,000 level. This level of funding does not keep up with

the inflationary or salary increases over the years.' That again is causing a

big problem. I am not suggesting only the Minister. From looking at the figures,

certainly we were a part of the problem that has been created, but I did not

read it in any of the reports before. One of the other statements here says that

staff has been dramatically reduced in numbers, however dollars continue to out

pace funding levels. Since 1980 the Commission's maintenance and operational

staff has been reduced from twenty-five full-time to thirty seasonal, and the

Commission is having a big problem with that.

The Commission also says: the Commission has had to

cut back on the level of services to the public, in areas such as park patrol

and garbage cleanups which is certainly a big problem in all areas. I guess, we

should be trying to promote garbage cleanups now in this day and age of

environmentally aware people. It says all of these things have to be curtailed

as a result of cutbacks.

It also says here: the state of the Commission's

equipment, buildings, ski trails, hiking trails, and other infrastructure, is a

major cause of concern. Mr. Chairman, when a Commission writes statements like

that in its report, it certainly would give me cause to have concern, if I was

the Minister of a Department that operated this Commission or operated Pippy

Park.

The main question I would like to ask the Minister -

it obviously seems as if the Government does not have the money to handle Pippy

Park. They are not doing the job required at Pippy Park right now, according to

the Commission's report, and have not done so for some time now, including a

part of the time of our administration I would say. Is the Government now

considering transferring the Pippy Park administration to a regional government

system which is being planned for the Northeast Avalon? Is the Minister's

Department considering transferring responsibility for Pippy Park to that

regional government?

MR. GILBERT: I will just fill in for a minute and

then some of the details, you could ask Mr. Balram if you wish.

Just to acquaint the gentleman with Pippy Park,

because I am sure he had sort of indicated that in his government it was a thing

that was forgotten about too. Since it came under this Department, I have

expressed some concern and I have tried to find out exactly the reason for Pippy

Park and why it was there. As I understand it, back in the 1960s the Pippy Park

was set up initially to provide a bank of institutional land around this

building here which would embody Memorial University, and this building and

would provide for future expansion for a Government headquarters facility as

well as the university. It was set up and governed by a Commission which was

going to be made up of a member appointed by the city, someone from the

university, someone from the Province, and then someone from the Pippy Family,

because initially it was a grant from the Pippy Family that got it started,

hence the name.

I agree with the member, that during that time there

has been some expansion, but the amount of financing that the Government has put

into it has remained pretty much the same. Now, it needs to be looked at, and

one of the recommendations that this Department is making, as a matter of fact,

is that we look at the overall structure of Pippy Park as to just exactly where

we want to see it go. Should we as a Province be more involved in it or should

the city become more involved in it? What do we want to do with the

institutional land bank that is here? Again, as the Member is aware, there are

many other concerns. The Ring Road is now causing some concern to the

environmentalists in their concern with Pippy Park. I would like to correct one

little thing the Member referred to, and that concerns the headquarters of Pippy

Park. During the past year we arranged for the Pippy Park headquarters to be

moved to the famous Mount Scio House, so I think that was a very positive move

and shows again the commitment that we as a Government have in the concern we

feel for Pippy Park. I agree there is something we have to look at, and it is

one of the recommendations that I am making, that over the next year we do look

at the make-up of Pippy Park, what is the Government policy, and where is it

going to go.

MR. R. AYLWARD: The reason I mentioned the

regional Government taking over the operation of Pippy Park, one of the reasons

anyway, is we have heard over several years, and particularly lately, from the

City of St. John's that they are paying a lot of fees, and residents outside the

City of St. John's who use the facilities, or who work in the city, are not

paying the same tax structure, or getting away free. Now, what I would suggest

is by Pippy Park being part of a regional Government, and Government taking over

responsibilities for snow clearing and everything else in the Pippy Park area,

which is the University, Confederation Building, and Howley Building areas, is

that it would be one way for the region to pay their fair share of taxes, and

that is the reason I suggest it to you.

MR. GILBERT: We will be looking at Pippy Park but

I do not foresee it being included in any regional Government at this time. I

think it has to be looked at and I will take the Member's suggestion.

MR. R. AYLWARD: There was another report a little

while ago. I attended a meeting, it must have been two weeks ago, called the

ATVs Dealers and Users Association, or something like that. There was a

prominent ATV safety supporter involved it in, Glen Davis, but there were also

others involved. I noticed an

article in the paper about a certain petition that

is being collected. The Minister earlier today, and rightfully so, said they

spent some extra money on trying to promote the use of seat belts. He should

have done it because we were not wearing them as much as we should. Does the

Minister not consider ATV safety to be similarly as important as seat belt use

because there are a considerable number of accidents on ATVs lately? There have

been, over the last four or five years, several deaths involving ATV accidents.

There are very few regulations and no training required that I know of for the

use of ATVs, I mean regulations that the Department of Transportation would

ordinarily require for a person to operate a vehicle. Now, these vehicles might

not be on the highways, or are not suppose to be, but quite often they are. For

a person to have a license to operate, which you do for a motorcycle which is a

modified ATV, or a car, or a four-wheel drive, you need to go through a certain

system to get a license, yet the ATVs, which I understand to be over a $325

million business in the Province,

per year, there are some 60,000 or 70,000 new vehicles

sold every year. I think of some of the statistics like that which are

frightening because in my mind the country will not stand very many more of

them, something has to be done. I know it is not the Minister's responsibility

to look after the environment. I guess wildlife or someone else will have to do

that. But as a vehicular use I would say that the Department of Transportation

should be responsible for at least regulations for safety use or safety training

and is the Minister giving any consideration to some of the proposals that were

put forward with the petition?

MR. GILBERT: Oh, yes. There is no doubt about it,

the gentleman raises some good points, but just how to cure the situation? I

think, basically we have a general budget which we would use for advertising as

we do in the seat belt programme and that is the involvement that we have in the

seat belt one. I think we have from time to time used advertising to promote

safety in ATVs and it is one of the things that we will no doubt be looking at.

Now, as to being involved in the training of the

drivers our policy so far has been that it is the responsibility of the operator

as it is the responsibility of the operator of the automobile to pay for the

instructions that he receives in the operation. The other thing I am sure the

gentleman will be aware of is that there are rules and regulations in place now

for the operation of ATVs, where they are supposed to be operated and who is

supposed to operate them, all this sort of thing, but the only thing about it is

the enforcing of the rules when you are sixty miles in the country. I have made

some statements on that this year. There is no police force that we know of that

could enforce it.

My idea when I was interviewed about it was that the

common sense of the people who operate them is the only thing that we can see

that can enforce the rules. We can make all the laws we like here in this House

but if we do not have facilities in place to enforce them, there is not much

point in making them. The ATV, as you know is only supposed to cross the road

and not supposed to be on it. Now the environmental aspect of it that he

referred to is something that is not in my sphere of influence. He is also aware

that the ATV in rural Newfoundland has replaced the pony, so there is a use

there. Again, for us to police the rules that we have is virtually impossible

because once they go across the public road we do not have a police force that

operates in that area.

The training that Mr. Davis is talking about I think

is great. The same that I think you have to have training to drive a car or a

motorcycle an