June 3, 1993                                      GOVERNMENT SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE


Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Mr. Nick Careen, M.H.A. (Placentia) substitutes for Mr. Fabian Manning, M.H.A. (St. Mary's - The Capes).

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

MR. CHAIRMAN (Oldford): Ladies and gentlemen we are going to get the proceedings underway. My name is Doug Oldford and I am the chairperson for the Government Services Committee. We are here tonight to look at the estimates for the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. I welcome you, minister and your officials.

I want to introduce our Committee, on my left is Roger Fitzgerald. Roger is the vice-chairman and he is the Member for Bonavista South. Over here is Lloyd Matthews, the Member for St. John's North and next to him is John Crane, the Member for Harbour Grace and then we have Nick Careen the Member for Placentia who is sitting in for Fabian Manning who is away on constituency business. Next to Nick is Walter Noel, the Member for Pleasantville and then Jack Byrne, the Member for St. John's East Extern.

The meeting is scheduled for tonight from 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. It could go longer depending on how we get through the questions and answers. The minister will have fifteen minutes to introduce his staff and to make his opening remarks. The vice-chair or his designate will have fifteen minutes to respond or to begin the questioning. In turn, each member on a rotating basis, government member and opposition, will have ten minutes to ask questions and to solicit answers from the minister and his staff. I will ask the officials to identify themselves when they speak for recording purposes. Other than that, I think that is basically how we are going to operate, the same as we have done in the last two or three meetings.

Now, Mr. Minister, if you would like to introduce your staff and lead off, please.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is my pleasure to introduce Mr. Lew White, sitting on my right, the Deputy Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Mr. Harold Stone ADM Finance and Administration. Mr. John O'Reilly ADM Transportation. Mr. George Greenland, sitting right behind me, ADM of Works and Ramona Cole, Director of Financial Operations.

I will just take a few minutes and run through some notes that I have here. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation is the largest department of this government. We provide facilities and service to other departments of government and to the general public. The permanent staff compliment numbers approximately 2,000 and we employ many other Newfoundlanders on a seasonal basis. We operate seven regional offices across this Province. We are involved in programs such as building maintenance and construction, road maintenance and construction, ferry operations, air services, government purchasing and motor vehicle licensing and inspections.

First of all I will take you to some of the things that we do in the road construction. The department's road construction program from `93-94 consist of two federal/provincial cost shared funding agreements in addition to the provincial road program. $30 million has been budgeted under the Trans-Canada Highway initiative. However, my department will be tendering projects to the value of $33 million to ensure the expenditure of $30 million. $20 million has been budgeted under the regional trunk roads agreement and again, as in the case with the Trans-Canada Highways initiative, my department will be tendering projects to the value of $22 million to ensure a $20 million expenditure. Funding of $25.5 million is being provided for the provincial roads program in the fiscal year `93-94. Projects will be carried out throughout the Province and have been allocated by the department on the basis of priority needs.

I shall highlight some of the more noteworthy; upgrading and paving of 3.8 kilometres of road from Little Bay to Beau Bois, as the hon. Minister of Social Services calls it; upgrading of 6 kilometres section of Island Harbour Deep, Bay Road; paving Harbour Mille Road, approximately 11.2 kilometres. Construction of a new access road to Margaree, approximately 2.5 kilometres, the present access will be abandoned when the new access is opened; resurfacing approximately 9 kilometres of Southeast Placentia Road from the beat in Placentia to Southeast including the upgrading and paving of an additional 1.2 kilometres which is built up with housing; resurfacing the main road from the wharf in Norris Point to and through Rocky Harbour to the park boundary, approximately 11 kilometres; paved road to the Great Brehat, St. Carols and St. Anthony, by approximately 12 kilometres; paving of the Route 232 Waterville to Burgoynes Cove, approximately 9.8 kilometres.

Now, you can see that there is no favouritism shown here. There is not one thing about the Port de Grave district.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: In all, my department will be tendering contracts to the value of $80.5 million, this represents a substantial investment, the highway infrastructure. Construction of buildings in 93-94: the department will again undertake $14.1 million in alterations to its existing building inventory. We will also be expending $29.9 million for new facilities; the majority of this funding will be used to continue work on major projects including the Centre for Engineering Technology, the Cancer Research facility and a Clinic Nursing Station at Nain. Funding is also provided for the extension to the St. Anthony Hospital and the Blue Crest Interfaith Home in Grand Bank and for the redevelopment of the Lions Manor in Placentia.

In the Motor Registration Division, during 1992 the Province again experienced a decrease in the number of fatalities resulting from motor vehicles accidents, down from sixty-nine in 1990 and forty-eight in 1991 to a low of thirty-nine in 1992. The decrease can mainly be attributed to government's driver licensing system and promotional programs, and I might say that has been the best numbers of all across Canada, and it has been very successful. The Province seat belt wearing rate has increased to 95 per cent and was also the highest in Canada.

We have this year also been responsible now for mail services and in 93-94 the operation of the government mail service division has been moved to this department and this should improve the efficiency of this valuable government service.

What I want to say without taking up too much time, is that this is a relatively new department for me. My past experience was, as you all know, in the first two years in Cabinet I was in Social Services and then two years later I spoke on fisheries, but it is my pleasure now - and I have only been there a week, but I find it a very interesting department as I said in my opening remarks, it is about 25 per cent of the total operations of the government but it is a totally new field for me and I look forward to the continuing support of my staff, which, I have no doubt I will be getting as I learn the operations of the department and to get a feel for it - it is almost like an octopus, the arms are spread out right across the Province.

I intend as soon as the House of Assembly closes, to do much travelling across the Province, not only to familiarize myself with the organizational structure of the department and meet as much staff as possible, but also to get out in the districts and work with the MHAs in all districts, and try to familiarize myself with the needs of the Province and hopefully, as the minister, then I can come back more experienced in the Fall in being able to deal with the necessary responsibilities as being minister under these restraints and the economic conditions. This department is one of the departments that really has to be very responsible in how it allocates its funding and the decisions that are being made, so I can assure you people that I will give you every opportunity to make you aware of the needs in individual districts and as the year goes on and the needs are being made aware to me as minister, we will try to be as co-operative as possible.

I do not think there is anything else further, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir, short and to the point.

Mr. Fitzgerald.

MR. FITZGERALD: Which is the way it should be.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Being a new MHA, I certainly have not had the privilege of meeting any of your staff and I hope to get to know them and get to know yourself as time goes by. I am certain that if you live up to your commitments, you will work with individual MHAs and the problems in their areas, and there is no reason why work cannot be allocated very fairly and go where the need is greatest. You can be sure that we will hold you to that statement as time proceeds.

A couple of questions that I have noted here: I am wondering how you allocate work, work on highways, and what criteria you use in order to give work the priority that you would classify it as being needed to be done this year or another year?

MR. EFFORD: When you say the work on the highways, are you talking about the federal agreements?

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I am talking about the provincial routes.

MR. EFFORD: Well, it is basically done on whether the department sees the need. The engineering department will look at the highroads and the condition of the roads, if you are talking about the road improvement program, and it will be based on need as any highway would be, as any road construction would be.

MR. FITZGERALD: I do not want to have everybody getting into the problems probably in their own districts because maybe that is not what this type of meeting is meant to be, but I know in the district that I represent, there is a stretch of highway leading from King's Cove to Plate Cove, in the Summertime it's a nice highway to drive over, but if you go there in the Wintertime and you talk to the people who operate the school buses there, you'll find that the school children get sick, they continually break springs off in the buses and what have you, where the road is in such a bad condition. I suppose our weather being what it is the road heaves up. It's a terrible road. I'd like for you to take a note of that, sir, and have a look at it as time goes by.

MR. EFFORD: If you'd look at the amount of money that the department spends on road construction it's not a large amount of money for the amount of road that the Department of Works, Services and Transportation would be responsible for. So what the department must do is to take a look at all the roads across the Province and try to do reasonably well prioritizing the roads that need to be done. Always, no matter even if the particular piece of road that you're talking about, was done up to the grade that you say it should be done, you can name hundreds of other pieces of road, areas of road, stretches of road across the Province, that would have the same complaint.

So it's working within the amount of money that is allocated to the department for that maintenance and upgrading program and reconstruction of roads. If there's a particular problem with a particular piece of road that it's as bad as you say it is, if you went to the regional department of highway depot and spoke to the area manager there, I'm sure they could do some maintenance on it, if it's not to the satisfaction of the people in the area.

MR. FITZGERALD: Salt storage sheds. I understand it's the policy of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation this past number of years to be encouraging, if not demanding, municipalities to vacate the salt storage sheds in providing storage for their own salt and sand for municipal purposes. Are we looking at reducing the number of salt storage sheds that we have on the Island?

MR. EFFORD: Mr. White.

MR. WHITE: No, we have no intention of decreasing the numbers. We have usually an allocation every year. I imagine it's in here. Probably $100,000, $150,000 a year we get for maintaining the existing ones we have and building new ones. We have accommodated municipalities by storing salt or salt and sand mixtures for them when we have the capacity in the sheds that we own. As the road network, more and more of it gets paved, naturally we need more and more salt ourselves. We have had some difficulty in a few places that we don't have the capacity to store indoors for municipalities. We may have to store it on our property and cover it with tarpaulins or something like that. We go out of our way whenever we can to accommodate municipalities. You're probably aware that we go to municipalities and ask them what their requirements are for salt in a particular Winter so their quantities can be combined with ours to get a better price. We cooperate with them that way.

MR. FITZGERALD: So it's due mainly to a lack of storage space with your own space being used up for your own needs.

MR. WHITE: Yes. I mean, wherever we have capacity we will accommodate the municipalities.

MR. FITZGERALD: On page 62 of the Estimates 1993, speaking of the salt storage sheds, if you'd look under that heading there, 2.2.06, it shows Supplies there. The budget for 1993 showed $65,000, the revised budget was $35,000, and the 1993-1994 estimates is $165,000. I'm wondering what those supplies are and why the vast difference from 1992-1993?

MR. WHITE: We build these sheds ourselves so the supplies are the materials that we use to build them. The salaries is the labour that we used in building the sheds.

MR. FITZGERALD: Does that mean there'll be no more salt storage sheds being built?

MR. WHITE: No. The budget for 1993-1994, if you look there, it's $200,000. It's our intention this year to build $200,000 worth, which will probably be close to three sheds. Their cost, if my memory's right, around $70,000?

MR. O'REILLY: The price of the salt sheds now has gone up to about $100,000.

MR. WHITE: Okay.

MR. O'REILLY: Most of this money will be used to repair the existing sheds we have.

MR. FITZGERALD: So it won't be to build new.

MR. O'REILLY: It won't produce any new - we may get one new one out of it, but we do have - the sheds are getting old and we need to carry out maintenance on them. So the $200,000 is to repair what we have as well as build any new.

MR. FITZGERALD: In the particular area that I live, which is Musgravetown, there is a fair amount of talk about a lot of the highroad's depots being closed down and one depot being built to combine the two or three in the particular area. I think of Lethbridge, Southern Bay, and I think it is Upper Amherst Cove. Is there any truth to a combination or bringing together some of those highway depots in one central area right now?

MR. EFFORD: The department is looking at an organizational restructuring of the whole department. There has been no final decision made yet. If the department is ready to move and close down certain areas or change in structure then we will make that announcement at that particular time.

MR. FITZGERALD: Is it being looked at now, Mr. Minister.

MR. EFFORD: The total reorganization of the department is being looked at.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We go to Mr. Matthews.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I am tempted to ask some questions and have a little discussion about the most talked about road in the Province and that is the one that does not even exist, the Outer Ring Road. Being from St. John's North the temptation is all the greater, but I am going to resist that temptation in the interest of probably talking about things that are more significant because they are ongoing in terms of existing roads and that. I would like to ask the minister if it would not seem sensible, given the economic times we are in, nationally and, of course, as a Province, if we could not encourage at least the federal government to enter into some new dialogue with respect to the Rails for Roads money just to ensure that, not to the detriment of this area, but to the further consideration of the whole Province, whether or not some of that money could not be better spent or allocated elsewhere?

MR. EFFORD: There is no doubt about it that the amount of money in the Roads for Rails agreement is not going to address the needs of the whole Province in the building of new roads and deal with the transportation needs of the future. It is government's intention to always have an open discussions with the federal government into whatever changes can be made but you have to remember that if you take money away from a particular area and move it to another part of the Province you are not going to address the needs of the department which you take it away from. It is going to be pretty difficult under the present system to get the federal government to make any major changes, but wherever there is an necessity to do that discussions are ongoing on a full-time basis. I quite agree that there are a lot of areas in the Province where monies could be well spent but if you are talking about, for argument sake, moving some money out of the area of St. John's and moving it to another part of the Province you would get 1000 arguments as to why it should stay and 1000 arguments why it would go, but dialogue is always open and there are ongoing discussions. It is very difficult to get the federal government to make any changes to the original agreement. Have there been any made Lew?

MR. WHITE: No, there have not been any made to the existing Roads for Rails agreement. As the minister said we are constantly pressuring the federal government for more cost-shared agreements on roads. As you all know the federal deficit being what it is and the fact that highways are a provincial responsibility it is not an easy sell.

MR. EFFORD: Unless we were lucky enough to get a more co-operative government in Ottawa. Possibly after September we may see somebody of our own stripe up there and then it might be a lot easier.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Well, you will definitely have a new one to work with but whether the colour be right or not history or the future will tell us that.

In terms of the cost-sharing of road projects generally with the feds, how many agreements are presently in place and what dollars are involved in these agreements? Percentage-wise I am thinking of now rather than in specific cases. Is there much federal money still committed to us as a Province that we are working through programs on?

MR. EFFORD: The only one we have now is the Roads for Rails agreement which was a total of $800 million, is that correct?

MR. WHITE: Yes.

MR. EFFORD: And that is 100 per cent funded federally because, as you know, they took away the railway and under those conditions they replaced it with that amount of money.

MR. WHITE: That agreement will go for about another ten years and it will be $50 million federal money a year, $30 million for the Trans-Canada and $20 million for secondary trunk roads. The roads are all identified as to which ones will be done. Naturally every area wants theirs done first but we can only do $20 million a year. So, it comes down to a selection process each year, some win and some have to wait.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Just one other question at this point, Mr. Minister, and it relates to whether or not - I wanted to ask in a general, in a very general sense, if you could indicate to me, to the Committee, how involved financially does the Province get with the City of St. John's in terms of providing funds for roads within the boundaries of the city?

MR. EFFORD: None, only to whatever the road grant component would be to municipal affairs but other than that - no direct funding to the City of St. John's for any road maintenance.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: If in the event the city or the Province or in combination wanted to do further major work or build another road similar to the crosstown arterial, how is that paid for? How is it funded? How is it cost shared, or is it?

MR. EFFORD: That would not be for municipal, that would be the responsibility of the federal agreements and if not in the federal agreements, provincial, usually you go after the federal money for that. Is that correct?

MR. WHITE: The minister is correct. Most of the work we have done in the past on the crosstown and there was some work done last year down near the CN viaduct, that was shared between the federal government and the city. The funds were through us but it did not cost us any money, we were just a facilitator.

In the past, it was years ago now but the Province and the city cost shared upgrading of the Philip Parkway here but since those days there really has not been any cost shared agreements, not between our department and the city.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I guess the short question I wanted to ask really is, as a Member for St. John's, how can I get some money for my district, for the roads in my district?

MR. WHITE: I think if you look at our records you will not see any expenditures in any of the St. John's districts for years going back, not capital expenditures.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: So, if I get some off the hon. minister I will be breaking history, hey?

MR. EFFORD: If fact, the intention of the department now, has been and will be more stronger into the future, is to try to get consensus from all the municipalities right across the Province to be responsible for all the roads within their jurisdiction because in some areas, in the smaller incorporated municipalities around the Province, Transportation is responsible for some of the roads. There is always a cross section of each other so the intention is to work very diligently and hopefully agreements will be made to get this out of the picture altogether. Municipalities will be responsible and the provincial government will have their own, outside of all municipalities.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Minister and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Careen.

MR. CAREEN: A short question, Sir, continuing on with what the Member for St. John's North had to say, getting into the municipalities - I am going to open a can of worms but you take for instance certain areas where they amalgamate separate towns. If they amalgamate for instance the Dunville, Jerseyside, Placentia and Freshwater areas. I can see those places having difficulties because I am very familiar with this island. I have been lucky enough having worked with the railway for fifteen years to know about a good many places. I wish you luck.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, we are able to convince people. We have a good way of talking, convincing and getting an agreement out of it, natural charm.

MR. CAREEN: Natural charm, yes. I am familiar with that myself. I am not into budgetary things. The more safe things, we all drive in this fog shrouded little island of ours. With the moose population as it is sometimes you have to be watching out for a faded yellow line with one eye and try to drive and look out for a moose with another eye. I would just like to know from the officials, being where we are, is there any kind of a way to handle this? Has anybody been toying with off the wall stuff that we can use to make it safer to drive? Other countries who can afford such schemes have things in the pavement, reflectors, lights and whatever.

AN HON. MEMBER: Kill a moose.

MR. CAREEN: I do not mind killing a moose but I do not want to kill myself or see my neighbours or anybody else from that man's district killed. I am just wondering if there is a safety aspect of it?

MR. EFFORD: Well, certainly safety is uppermost on everybody's mind no matter where you live. As to killing moose I had an experience myself a couple of years ago. I was coming in to work early in the morning and one happened to be stood up in the middle of the road and it moved pretty quick. It is the dollars and cents first of all. Just imagine if you are going to look across the 565 miles, I do not know how many kilometres that is, across Newfoundland and put a light like they do in some of the cities, some other countries, it is dollars and cents. What is happening now in the Province is as much as the Province can afford to do. I do not think in our time you will see the day that the highways will be lighted up to that extend, only in municipalities or in urban centres.

MR. CAREEN: I was talking about the centre line of the highway.

MR. EFFORD: I know what you are talking about, the centre line, instead of using the aluminum paint, the white or yellow paint on the road. I think what you are seeing now is what is going to be there for quite awhile. There are certainly no new plans.

MR. WHITE: A few years ago we tried those reflectors you are talking about and the winter kills them. The snow plows snap them off. They are suppose to go down when the weight comes on them but you know in our temperatures when it freezes. If my memory is right we used them out on Torbay Road or Portugal Cove Road some years ago. We tried them and they did not last any length of time, they snapped them all off.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) hills there on the Trans-Canada as I recall. There may have been a problem with them in the wintertime but they were a big help in the summertime when you get most of your fog. They were quite visible at the time.

MR. EFFORD: What the deputy minister says is quite right, if somehow someone could come up with an ingenious plan to change the weather, get shorter Winter seasons, more sunshine, and less frost. That is one of the major problems, the cost of doing that, and it is not something that is long lasting.

MR. CAREEN: I am not a contractor and never have been. I am lucky enough to make a living somewhere else or whatever. I have been over a good many roads in this island and there is something that has always bothered me. I am not shifting any blame on any government department or whatever but after different contractors have done different roads they do not seem to hold up. I do not know what the contractors are doing with their sand or their gravel, something else, or whatever. I cannot go pointing fingers and I will not point it at individual inspectors but when you pay good money to have pavement done you would think it would last a little bit longer than it does. As you were saying earlier about the lack of money, and you are right, and you are trying to spread it out. If you are talking about a major thing like the Trans-Canada, if they are not being kept up or if somebody is not doing their job, then the little side roads in the little places where we all live are going to suffer because you are going to have to go back to the places that were originally done a lot quicker. Some of the work that has been done, like the Argentia access road in certain places, and I am not pointing fingers, particularly being the one I'm most familiar with, is between St. John's and Whitbourne. So I don't know if you have to shift around inspectors or someone has to keep a closer eye on the contractors.

MR. EFFORD: That was one of the first things, as I said earlier, and as you all know I've only been in the department about a little over a week. Just a week is it now? That's one of the first things and questions that we discussed, because I pointed out in my own particular area where I live the road was paved in 1966, and not until two, two and half years ago, was it ever touched. Now there's a lot of problems with it.

There are a number of reasons for it. First of all, the grade, the thickness of the pavement is what you have to consider, if you decrease the thickness, if the proper drainage is not put in, and with the amount of frost we have, I suspect that's probably what has happened over the years. Everybody is trying to stretch the dollars and get as much mileage as you can out of the amount of money that you have.

There's no doubt about it, it's something that we've all got to be conscious of, and this department now is very conscious of it. We'll be taking a look at that in the future. They have been, by the way. I'm not saying that I'm going to do it, but they have been. But as dollars get scarcer and more demands are made, we'll be making every effort to make sure that the best product is done and we get the best value for the dollar we spend. But there's a little more tightening up, a little more caution, and a little more inspecting has to be done to make sure that the contractors are following the proper, I guess, grades and mixtures.

MR. WHITE: Perhaps I could add. You have to look at where we came from here. When you go back in my earlier years with the department, I mean, the system was pretty well all gravel roads. Everybody wanted pavement. So you had a limited number of dollars every year. As engineers, if we went by the textbooks we wouldn't have done a lot of the things we did in paving these roads. We would have probably gotten two kilometres of good solid road, but instead of that we stretched it to ten. We've made the government aware of these things. But the traffic volumes essentially most everywhere in Newfoundland are very low, relative to anywhere else in Canada. Our population is spread out to many small places. What we've done is stretched our money, okay? There was never any problem with that for the first ten years or so when you paved these roads because they lasted ten to fifteen years, which is pretty well the life of a gravel road anyway without having it resurfaced.

Now we're finding that most of our system is all paved, but it's starting to get old. You're getting these cracks. Once the pavement starts to break, with the amount of salt and that that we use in the Wintertimes, it looks awful bad, at least in the Spring. You've cited some yourself, okay? So it was a conscious decision that the department made some years ago to stretch the dollars. I mean, we put down on most all of our secondary road systems two inches of asphalt. Most everywhere else in Canada puts down three, four, five, six. Some of them even a foot of asphalt. So it's really dollars and cents.

While you look at it now and do some criticism, I think the people were well served by what we did. Rather than have to drive over these desperate gravel roads that we had, I think we got our money's worth out of it. I sound like I'm preaching, but I've been around a while.

MR. EFFORD: Just to add one more thing to that. You have to remember too, since the railway disappeared, was taken away, the amount of heavy transport trucks and the volume of traffic that's on your highways, and all your roads now, compared to what it was ten, fifteen, twenty years ago, is a significant increase, and that certainly has an impact. That's the reason why this money now, the trunk road agreements and the other agreement, is to build the roads to withstand the heavy volume of traffic. I know just driving the short distance I do from Roach's Line in here on a daily basis the amount of heavy tractor trailers that you meet is unreal. So that's one of the big impacts on all our highways, you know.

MR. CAREEN: I wasn't saying that just to be critical. There's a concern there, sir. That's all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Crane.

MR. CRANE: Yes. I haven't got many questions for you. I'm not going to do anything to hurt you, dear, you're too kind. But I'll tell you something -

MR. EFFORD: Don't say that (inaudible).

MR. CRANE: - I have to comment on some of the statements being made. You're saying why the roads are not standing up. Some of the people who we have out there supposedly protecting (inaudible) when these jobs are being done are really not looking after the government's interests. I can guarantee you on one instance in particular where I made an approach to a person who was paving over a water spring in the road. Of course I'm not an engineer. You know I'm not an engineer. I can't draw a straight line with a ruler. But I know when a spring's coming up through the road that it's not going to last if you pave it over. He paved it over even though I asked him not to. Three weeks later the pavement, they had to cut it up again.

I don't know why a person would do that, a person who's looking after the government's interest. I've seen on a couple of occasions out in our area in the last two to three years, since I've been in government, when... I don't know. The fellows are supposed to be engineers and they say they're engineers, but some of the things they do.... On one occasion I had to go get Tom Porter to straighten something out before the contractor left. It'd make you believe either: a.) they're asleep, or b.) they're certainly not thinking about what they're doing. The contractor doesn't give a hang. Once he gets out of the town he doesn't care if you flood out or what happens to you. He has his money and you have your road.

So that's the only thing I'm disappointed in. Some of the people should be looking after our interest. When I say "our interest" I mean government's interest. If you tell them something you see they get awfully upset, especially if you're an MHA. They figure: what are you butting your nose in here for, you don't know what you're talking about. But I know water doesn't run uphill and a few other things. When I say that to somebody I expect them to at least listen. I guarantee you, sometimes you don't get a very listening ear and you're not very well treated when you do make a suggestion.

MR. EFFORD: John, I understand what you're saying, but let me defend the department. I think it need defending. You're talking about a department with 2,00 people

MR. CRANE: Oh, yes, I know that, yes.

MR. EFFORD: - on a full-time basis, and hundreds and hundreds on a seasonal basis. It's a very large department. When you get the amount of road maintenance, road building, that's being done on a yearly basis there's always room for error. If all the staff out there were absolutely perfect then we'd have a perfect world, but they're not. What I would suggest to you, the people in the department are doing I think the best job they can. There's room for mistakes. I would suggest to anybody, if they know of a particular instance where this would be happening - and I'm sure it's not widespread, it's probably occasional - it would be incumbent on yourself to report that to the superintendent, possibly in a written letter. That way, if there is a person with the department, if there is, then the proper action would be taken.

MR. CRANE: Maybe -

MR. EFFORD: But hundreds and hundreds of miles of roads are done on a yearly basis, and sometimes some person could, may very well in error, or a mistake or whatever, or a little bit careless, but if it should be drawn to the attention of the proper authorities in the department -

MR. CRANE: I never did handle it well, right?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CRANE: I guess I should have reported it. So I did a bad job. He was doing a bad job and so was I, right? But in the meantime I assure you I won't let it happen it again.

MR. EFFORD: But on the whole you have to say that the -

MR. CRANE: Oh, the cooperation -

MR. EFFORD: - department is not that bad.

MR. CRANE: The department in Bay Roberts that we deal with is as cooperative as anybody.

MR. EFFORD: On a scale of 1 to 10 I call it 9.9.

MR. CRANE: I won't go that high, I'll go 9.8.

The former minister, advised me before he left office and was so rudely interrupted that he never got back, the Conception Bay North by-pass road was going to start. I haven't seen anything on that since.

MR. EFFORD: The agreement is made, signed, to the satisfaction of all of the people in Conception Bay North because as you remember yourself, you and I were very involved in very heavy discussions with the department last year because of the people in our areas who did not know where they wanted it.

MR. CRANE: They did not know where they wanted it.

MR. EFFORD: Now that agreement has been reached. In fact, just as early as this afternoon, the deputy minister showed me the new route that is planned for the Conception Bay North pass which will meet everybody's satisfaction in that area. I have noticed myself, just driving in over Roaches Line, that there has been a lot of surveying being done. So, tenders will be called in the very near future. You can speak to the amounts.

MR. WHITE: We have a cash flow, I think it is somewhere around $2 million for this year. So, the project when it is called, what we will do is more than $2 million but only $2 million to be spent this year, the rest will come on next year. It will take a number of years before the thing is finished, as you know.

MR. CRANE: Oh yes, but Mr. White, the main thing is to get it started because it usually will get finished if you get it started but if you do not get it started it might never get finished.

MR. EFFORD: That is the key, John, you are absolutely right and being from that area, I know the importance of getting it started. The volume of traffic that is going over that Conception Bay Highway now, is really too much for it to be serviceable. So the commitment is being made, tenders will be called soon and that money will be spent. You are quite right, that once the start is made -

MR. CRANE: Yes. Where does it come off the Trans-Canada, Mr. Minister? Where is it going to come off the Trans-Canada, west of the overpass?

MR. WHITE: Right at Roaches Line.

MR. CRANE: Right at Roaches Line?

MR. WHITE: You use the first kilometre or two kilometres of Roaches Line and then you go off to the left as you are going out the -

MR. CRANE: I see.

MR. EFFORD: As you are coming out, take the Trans-Canada coming up Roaches Line, you come over that first dip, that is where I noticed all the pegs there?

MR. CRANE: Yes.

MR. EFFORD: That is where they are doing the surveying there now and it will be ongoing from that.

MR. CRANE: Yes, okay.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: It should be done and paved in no time, I would say now then, Mr. Minister.

MR. EFFORD: You got that right.

MR. CRANE: Well we will be pushing them. We will not let you forget it, thank you, Sir.

MR. EFFORD: Priorities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crane. We move on to Mr. Byrne.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly would like to wish the minister well in his new department and I look forward to working with yourself and the staff of the department in the years to come.

I am here then to ask you a few questions, the first one is of a general nature, in reviewing the estimates I noticed that a fair number of the sub-headings have salary allotments increased, substantially with some of them. I am just wondering, are some of the people that were layed-off under the government policy last year or the year before, being rehired through this department because the salaries have increased somewhat?

MR. EFFORD: No. On which page are you talking about?

MR. J. BYRNE: Most of the sub-headings - there are a lot of the sub-headings.

MR. EFFORD: Can you be specific?

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, one would be road maintenance 2.1.01, $116,000 increase -

MR. EFFORD: 2.1.01?

MR. J. BYRNE: - I had a note here.

MR. EFFORD: In road maintenance? Well, you are going to get seasonal - seasonal work is there depending on the amount of work that has gone from year to year.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, well the next one down -

MR. EFFORD: Yes, but you look at the salaries. I do not see the increase that you are talking about there. The revised `92-93 was $6,916,000 and then in `93-94 there was just a shade over $7 million.

MR. J. BYRNE: $7 million, yes.

MR. EFFORD: So, there is a very small increase, $100,000.

MR. J. BYRNE: $116,000.

MR. EFFORD: Yes but that is just step progressions here.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, I was just wondering about that.

I have some specific questions now, on page 58, Policy Development and Planning, 1.2.03, section 10, Grants and Subsidies, we budgeted $149,000 in `92-93, spent $148,900 and this year you have $25,400 budgeted, I am just wondering who will be affected by these cuts?

MR. EFFORD: Oh, that is a question I had better get advice on.

MR. WHITE: That was a grant that the Province made each year to the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission and this year the government decided that they would not participate in the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission anymore. So, that is where that grant -

MR. J. BYRNE: Were there any layoffs or anything like that or, is that just to an outside group?

MR. WHITE: It is an organization centred in I think Halifax, and has representatives from Newfoundland from the private sector on it as well as the other Atlantic Provinces, and each of the four Atlantic Province governments, contributed to the operation of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission. We have now ceased so we are having negotiations with them as to see how can they continue to operate, to what level, without any support from us.

MR. EFFORD: You have to remember in a time of government restraints and cutbacks those decisions have to be made and naturally that would be one of the first decisions.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am not criticizing the move; I am here just to ask questions for my own point of clarification to understand what is actually going on within the department.

On page 59, under Support Services, 2.1.02, section 06, Purchase Services. You spent $541,400 last year and you have $439,000 budgeted for this year, what type of services are we talking about there?

MS. COLE: The Purchased Services there provide for electrical costs mainly for the few buildings that were still under the Department of Transportation side of the department. The Public Works side were paying most of the electrical bills and the projected revise went up considerably but in line with the operating reductions that we made, those divisions were told that they still had the same amount of fundings so they have to live within that level of funding.

MR. J. BYRNE: Hopefully.

MS. COLE: Yes, hopefully, try to take some moves to live within it.

MR. J. BYRNE: On page 60, 2.1.04, Maintenance and Repairs, 01, salaries again. Here we have $318,700 cut and I am just curious as to whether there will be any employees cut because of this cut?

MR. EFFORD: Which number?

MR. J. BYRNE: 2.1.04, 01.

MR. WHITE: That reflects a decrease in the salaries that we will have for Summer maintenance on our highway system this Summer.

MR. J. BYRNE: Less people hired on for Summer -

MR. WHITE: Seasonal work, yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: - and under that same section, Grants and Subsidies, $373,900 which was not budgeted before. Now, what would that be for?

MR. WHITE: When the boundaries of St. John's were expanded to take in the Goulds and those areas, the government agreed that this department would maintain the roads for a five-year period. We have negotiated a buy out with the city, and that is what that represents, a portion of the buy out so they will take the roads over earlier than was originally anticipated, and most of that is the road down through the Goulds, the Goulds Highway.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, that is what we were talking about earlier too, in answer to another question about municipalities, the mix-up where municipalities are doing some roads and the Department of Works, Services and Transportation others, so wherever there is a possibility they are turned over to the municipalities and an agreement made and that is going to take place quite often hopefully in the very near future to a lot of municipalities. Transportation will not be responsible for those roads in the future after that agreement is fulfilled.

MR. J. BYRNE: So that leads me to a question now: is it the plan of the government and Works, Services and Transportation in particular, to turn over the trunk roads between, as an example, going from St. John's to Pouch Cove, the main drag going through, is that a plan that Torbay would be responsible for a section, Flatrock for a section and Pouch Cove?

MR. WHITE: No. Let me give you an example. There is a bypass planned for Torbay with which you are probably familiar; I would hope, if and when that is built that we would maintain the bypass and the town would take over the existing road which is basically local traffic then. That's the kind of example I'd use. But the main road through from St. John's to Pouch Cove, no, that would remain as a department road.

MR. J. BYRNE: At this point in time.

MR. WHITE: Well, whichever one it is, but we would only want to maintain one.

MR. J. BYRNE: One. Very good. On page 60, same page, Snow and Ice Control, 2.1.05.04. You have $8,839,000 budgeted and last year you spent $10,088,000. That's $1.25 million cut. I'm wondering, are you trying to take a chance on the weather? Like this year we had a fairly good winter.

MR. WHITE: I'm glad I have these people to help me with all that stuff. No. The amounts are the same as last year. It's just that government has changed the accounting business. Where the departments one time used to pay RST, now we don't pay the RST any more. That basically is the difference. RST and GST and stuff. The quantities are about the same.

MR. J. BYRNE: Very good. On page 61, 2.2.02.06, Technical Support Services, Purchased Services. Like you say, you had to budget $250,000 for 1992-1993. You spent $168,400. Now you have $250,000 budgeted again. I'm curious as to what the services are, and if the government is in the restraint that it says it's in, why would you budget $80,000 more than you actually spent last year?

MR. EFFORD: What was the last part of the question?

MR. J. BYRNE: Why would you budget $80,000 more this year than you actually spent last year?

MS. COLE: That figure is for insurance premium on the building insurance. The rates were much lower last year than we had projected, but we have been advised by the insurance division of Treasury Board that extremely high increases are expected in the premiums again this year. So we were told to leave the same amount in.

MR. J. BYRNE: Very good. Page 63. Good answers, I must say, your spot on. Page 63, 2.3.03, at the bottom of the page. Vehicle Fleet Management for insurance premiums. I was always under the impression - now, I don't know why I was under this impression - that government didn't carry insurance on their vehicles. If they had an accident they would foot the bill for it themselves, type of thing. But here you have, under 06, $630,400 budgeted, and you only had $490,000 last year. Is that for insurances?

MR. EFFORD: Yes. Until about four or five years ago -

AN HON. MEMBER: A bit longer than that.

MR. EFFORD: - probably, government does now purchase insurance for all their vehicles.

MR. J. BYRNE: So that's what that's for. I thought it might be but I wasn't sure.

Page 64. Total there under Heavy Equipment, Equipment Maintenance. You actually have a $2 million cut in that, but I was really surprised to see that there was that much money required for equipment maintenance. I imagine that's for vehicle repairs and that type of thing.

MR. EFFORD: I don't think that's a lot of money for the amount of equipment that this department is responsible for. As you can well imagine yourself, the high cost of purchasing and maintaining equipment today is astronomical. That is not an unreasonable figure.

MR. J. BYRNE: I'm not saying it's unreasonable. I was just kind of surprised that we would be spending that kind of money for maintenance. Something I never thought about before, probably most people don't, you know?

MR. EFFORD: It's like the only one other group of people who would be surprised like yourself would be Treasury Board. But for the department, I think they're doing an excellent job in keeping the cost down.

MR. J. BYRNE: I'm not questioning that.

MR. WHITE: Lew White again. That number as you notice is down this year from last year. We've implemented these preventative maintenance programs in recent years on our equipment and we've found that we've been able to reduce our costs. I know they're significant but they're down as you notice from previous years.

 

MR. J. BYRNE: But preventive maintenance has a saving of almost 10 per cent in one year?

MR. WHITE: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Noel.

MR. NOEL: Has that move from self insurance to purchased insurance proved to be a wise choice? Have you done a study of it? Why was it done? Was it done because you thought purchased insurance would prove to be cheaper?

MR. WHITE: It was basically a decision by Treasury Board as much as by transportation, but we found that without using adjusters and all this type of stuff it took a tremendous amount of internal time of staff of the department to deal with all these claims we had against us, at least in our department, in the Winter maintenance. We are not responsible for all the government vehicles. Each department has their own but in our own case we have found it beneficial. Now, I cannot tell you we have done a lot of studies on it but the work we have done, and we watch it each year, we found that it is a benefit to go the way we are now by insuring than it was by self insurance before.

MR. NOEL: What about buildings? What is the policy for buildings?

MR. WHITE: They are all insured as well. There is a general government insurance policy for buildings, schools, and hospitals, just one big one, and we have another one for our ferry vessels which is in here as well.

MR. NOEL: Was there some question last year about that Harvey Road building being partly insured and partly not insured?

MR. WHITE: That was fully insured.

MR. NOEL: Thanks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fitzgerald.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Minister, I remember hearing a figure one time about putting water and sewer into a single home in Newfoundland compared to Ontario. I think at that time the minister of the day gave me a figure where it cost something like $28,000 to service one home in Newfoundland with water and sewer compared to $2400 in the province of Ontario. I am wondering if there is any such thing as a rule of thumb of expense of what we can expect to pay for the cost per kilometre of road here in Newfoundland compared to other provinces? Have we ever done a study such as that? It would be interesting to know.

MR. WHITE: No, we have not in that unlike the water and sewer it depends on what standard you are building them to, what degree of upgrading, and what thickness of asphalt you are putting in, whereas water and sewer is pretty simplistic, there is just the pipes and go through. We have never done any comparisons there but in talking to our counterparts in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick our money does not go near as far as theirs does because we have so much rock in this Province.

MR. EFFORD: That is the answer I was going to give. With the terrain that we have in this Province and with the bog lands we have going across. To just take an example which is most familiar to all of us, the four-laning of the Trans-Canada between St. John's, Roaches Line and Whitbourne. To look at the amount of construction, the blasting, the digging of the bog and filling in, you could not compared it to a province like Quebec where for hundreds and hundreds of kilometres it is completely level road, you just go with the fill. The problem is where you compare it to another province the fact is we have this terrain and you have to deal with it. The thing, as you mentioned, with the water and sewerage cost is similar, the terrain, but also the widely scattered population compared to a city or a large urban area. In rural Newfoundland it is very, very costly because of that reason.

MR. FITZGERALD: It seems to me that over the past couple of years governments have made many cutbacks and I think you yourself, Mr. Minister, and probably this government - I do not know if it was done in the former administration or not, but I know that all of a sudden government vehicles were taken away from a lot of people. There seems to me to be still a lot of government vehicles within the Department of Transportation. I am not talking about loaders, trucks and backhoes, I am talking about automobiles and private cars. You see them parked by the doors and see individuals driving home in them in the nighttime. It must cost government a tremendous amount of money to upkeep these automobiles and provide transportation for people. Do we need to do that kind of a thing today in order to maintain good employees?

MR. EFFORD: You don't do it to maintain good employees, you do it because the need is there. You have a choice. Number one, you can pay people to use their own vehicles, and you can add in the cost of the insurance, the cost of maintaining a car on the road, the cost of paying a person per kilometre to do that on the road, compared to the cost of keeping your own vehicles or renting vehicles.

No matter how you look at it it's going to be a high cost. It's not done for the convenience of individuals, it's done for the necessity to get departmental or governmental work done. This department and this government are very conscientious of the amount of cost to the taxpayers about the number of vehicles that people use. Although there are some instances probably, like you may have said, there are very strict controls put on that. Most of the people - again I won't say all, as I did in answering a question of Mr. Crane's about inspectors - are very responsible individuals. I would suggest if you know of an individual or individual cases of somebody abusing government property then you should, as an MHA, notify that particular department.

Each department is responsible for its own vehicle operation. We're not responsible for all vehicles. Forestry would be responsible for their own, Fisheries and so on. Anybody abusing that system would be the same way as an MHA or any other employee of government abusing their particular whatever, expense accounts or whatever. It's not right and it should be reported. But when you're operating a large fleet like the Department of Works, Services and Transportation is responsible for, there's always room for something like that occasionally to happen. On the whole, I think have been, from the information that I've gotten to date, and I've asked that question myself, that the way in which it's working is probably for government to keep its own vehicles. It's cheaper in the long run. Would you agree with that, Mr. White?

MR. WHITE: Yes. We've done some studies as to where the break even is between government owning the vehicle and renting some, paying people mileage. You're in around the 24,000, 25,000 kilometres a year. If you're in excess of that our information shows that it's probably cheaper for government to own the vehicle.

Just to add on to what the minister was saying about private - or people using our vehicles. We have pretty stringent rules as to when you can take a vehicle home. Of course, there's no private use permitted of any of them. At any time, when anybody has any complaint on that issue on an individual, we'll certainly address it. You will find in the department that there are more vehicles, say, taken home in the Wintertime than in the Summer, in that our foremen and that that we have are responsible twenty-fours a day, seven days a week. So we let them take the machines home in the Wintertime. In the Summertime, no, they don't need to do that. This business about taking vehicles home is more pronounced in the Wintertime for operations reasons than at any other time in the year, at least in our shop.

MR. EFFORD: You also have to remember too that, as I said earlier, we're only responsible for Works, Services and Transportation. Then you have to look at other government vehicles. You have inspectors on the road, for argument's sake, in Finance, or in Environment and Lands, or in other departments, who would do a lot of travelling. They may have their vehicle at their house because they may be leaving the next morning at 5:00 a.m., 6:00 a.m. and going on, or whatever time, to areas.

So it's not all as it seems up front. Like I said earlier, if there is a concern or somebody should see somebody doing that, especially using a vehicle - like somebody said to me a while ago: I saw this person up in the country on the weekend. Now, they may have been there on legitimate government business. But if there's a concern, then report it to the proper authorities.

MR. FITZGERALD: It's not uncommon, Mr. Minister, to see a private automobile parked in people's driveways. My question, I suppose, goes back to every job that I've had that I've always been expected to get to and from work at my own expense. I'm wondering why other people, because they work for government, should be treated any differently, in a time of restraint that we're going through now.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, but it's not fair to say -

MR. FITZGERALD: I'm not talking about pickup trucks. I'm talking about private cars.

MR. EFFORD: It's not fair to say that government are paying people, or people are using government vehicles to get to and from work. It's only when it's the job that that individual person is doing requires them to have that vehicle to do a lot of travelling and as I used the example in Finance, I see a lot of people on the road and I too, question why would they have the vehicle? When I checked into it, I found that it was very legitimate and that is the reason. It is certainly not the intention of paying people to go to and from work but I know, and I understand what you are saying, in the times constraint and in the times when everybody has to bite and take a little less and take a little less and I think if you look over the last several years and especially in the last couple of years, there is more and more restraint being put on individuals doing that. It is not a perfect situation but it has certainly been improved quite substantially.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Minister, in the beginning we talked about how big the Department of Works, Services and Transportation was and I think you recited over 2,000 employees at that time. The Cape Bonavista Lighthouse I understand is owned by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, and in that building is housed a small area where the Bonavista Rural Development Association operated a small craft shop that employed five or six people and provisions I think, to probably hire on two or three extra this year, and when I say people, I am talking about students where we have an excess of 40 per cent - I suppose unemployment for students today is in excess of 40 per cent, not many opportunities -

Many of those students look forward to jobs and look forward to making some money so that they can go back to post-secondary institutions and pay tuition fees and for some strange reason, because somebody complained - knowing ahead the story - the association in that little craft shop which sold local craft produced in the area, the sales went up over 80 per cent compared to what it was the year before when they were located in another area, was a situation where, many people from all over Canada and in many cases the United States, travelled down to Bonavista because a trip to Newfoundland without going to Bonavista is almost the same as going to Florida and not going to see Disney World.

Bonavista is an unique part of Newfoundland and for some reason, and I understand it was not a justifiable reason, it was because somebody, some local businessman in the town complained that the craft shop was in competition with his business, and the giant Department of Works, Services and Transportation asked those people to vacate the premises without giving them an alternative site to set up their little shop and employ students, and I personally feel that is very, very unfair and an unjust decision that was made with your department, prior to your being the minister.

MR. EFFORD: It is a little bit unfair for you to accuse the giant Department of Works, Services and Transportation for making that decision, but let me first talk about competition or private business.

The one thing that governments, provincially and federally, should not be involved with, is supporting businesses in any sector of the community, of the area, to compete with private business; we should never be involved in that. I have been always a strong advocate of that and as an example, in my own area where an individual wanted to get UI benefits for fifty-two weeks, as a new program the federal government has in supplementing this starting up a new business and there was an identical, same business just a short distance away, and as an MHA - it was one of my constituents - I said no.

How can you expect the federal government and the taxpayers of this Province to support you and supplement your income to take business away from another private entrepreneur, but in the case of the situation in Bonavista, individual departments sponsor different groups and pay the operational or the rental fees for different groups. In that particular case, it was the Department of Tourism and Culture who withdrew their sponsorship for that particular craft store, so when that decision was made we had absolutely no other choice but only to inform the group of the decision that was made; and I guess I would think on the line of thinking, a thought that I had expressed to you that would be one of the reasons why that decision would be made.

I understand that everybody likes to get involved in business and the crafts and the communities groups, but you have to remember that private enterprise comes first and that is the way government should be leaning towards because if we had to support every individual group and organization that comes for money in the government, half the private businesses out there would be out of business because of government's interference.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am wondering if the decision was made because one person complained. I do not want to dwell too much on this here tonight but I know that it was the general consensus in the town and by town leaders, that it was a wrong decision.

MR. EFFORD: How can you say it was a wrong decision? If you have Mr. Smith right here with his own private business who is paying employees and depending on the people of the community to support his business and there is another business right here, Mrs. Jones who has a business on the go and I am going to feed her all the free money - that is putting Mr. Smith at a disadvantage. That is not a very wise decision.

I would say the wrong decision was made in the beginning, in supporting an organization that was going to be detrimental to the survival of a private business. I do not know if one person complained but I would say if that decision was made on that basis, I would not hesitate in supporting it. I do not know if that was the reason it was withdrawn, I suspect it was but you, yourself, you should not go against private business in any community, in any area. I do not know the individuals that you are talking about but I suspect that is the reason why it was made.

MR. FITZGERALD: I fully agree with what you are saying. Maybe I should give you some supporting evidence to why I think it is the wrong decision at a later time.

MR. EFFORD: The sponsoring department for that particular craft shop was the Department of Tourism and Culture. I will listen and you know, expect anytime that you want to talk to me, I will certainly talk to the minister or both of us together. Thank you.

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I will have to say, from my observation over the past four or five years, that the department should be commended to the extent that the roads work, particularly the Trans-Canada Highway work that has been done, seems to be of a significantly higher standard, especially the aesthetic part of it, the banks on the sides of the roads, the medians and that sort of thing. Somebody has raised the standards and I think whoever is responsible for it, and I assume your department is somewhat responsible for it, I think they should be commended to the extent that they were responsible for the better product that we are getting, at least it looks better. I will give you two weeks credit, that is for the last bit of grass that grew John out on the Trans-Canada, beyond that I guess your officials will have to share it amongst themselves.

There is one thing that I have always been interested in finding out about driving in Newfoundland and probably you fellows can enlighten me as to whether or not I have a correct observation or whether I am stunned. I have driven in, as all of you have I am sure - in Europe I have driven - I go from here to Florida in the car and I will not miss a turn because signage is adequate and easy to get me to where I am going but you know I went out to Salmonier Line on Labour Day weekend, you know I only had to go to Avondale, turn around and come back because I missed the turn off. I could not see enough signs to get me up on the Salmonier Line -

MR. CRANE: Now that is what you call stunned.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: - that might be but I have always felt that our road signage has not been up to snuff, as compared to, what I would call North American given standards. Is that, assuming I am correct in saying that our signage is not what it should be, is it a comment or commentary on us who design the signs by virtue of our thinking that we do not need directions and tourist do not need directions or is it that we do not put enough money into it just because we do not have enough money to put into it? But I have always felt our road signs have not been as good as other parts of Canada and North America. What are your observations?

MR. EFFORD: Okay, first of all -

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Do you ever get lost John?

MR. EFFORD: No, I do not say I have gotten lost but I get lost mostly in St. John's.

No seriously, first of all let me say thank you for your kind words towards the department. You are quite right, the level of standards for highways now have greatly improved the environment, and the landscaping. The department is to be congratulated for that, I cannot take any credit, as much as I would love to, for the short weeks I've been there. Hopefully next year this time I'll be able to take a bow.

Anyhow, the signage: Government is quite concerned about that. There's been a lot of controversy and a lot of rumblings within the departments about the highway signage. Government put a committee in place - two years ago?

MR. WHITE: That's more for the commercial signage.

MR. EFFORD: That's more for commercial signage. Because that's one of the things, the complaints from tourists when they drive along the highway, is to where they can go for different services. But there is a standard. Lew, probably you can take over on the national highway standard of signs.

MR. WHITE: Yes, there is a national standard, as the minister says, of signs that everybody follows. We follow those standards, but generally our signs are smaller than are used in other provinces, okay? Plus, I think if you drive much up through the mainland you'll notice that, especially in the nighttime, most of the interchanges are all lit and things. I'm thinking now about up through Moncton and Truro and all those places. We don't have the money to go with lights and our signs are small. It's dollars and cents. We can make them.

As you know, like on the mainland, if you were coming into St. John's you'd have these overhead signs over the highway, lit, on the big aluminium posts and stuff. We'd like to do that but these things aren't cost-shared under any of our agreements. Signs we have to pay for ourselves. Again a choice has to be made. If you go do that with signs then there's that much less pavement we get somewhere or whatever. It's a juggling act with money.

MR. EFFORD: Probably in my first year as minister I might have an opportunity to improve on that. Because I do agree too that the need for better observation of the signs on the highways is certainly needed. It's like I mentioned earlier about the services. It's pretty difficult if you're new to the Province, and especially in the tourism season. There is a set of regulations being put before government right now to get the new signage in place, because of the advantages to the tourism business.

I was quite surprised the other day when the Minister of Tourism told me that last year the volume of people who came into this Province was astronomical. Something like the value of $440 million, and that was an increase over the previous year. We've got to recognize the need to improve all the services on our highways.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I would say the other side to it, Mr. Minister, is that some of them are still here trying to find their way out. I suppose to that extent it's good. We have them here, perhaps they can't go home.

MR. EFFORD: If one of our local residents from the great City of St. John's gets lost we'd better be very aware of people coming into the Province for the first time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman, other than the overall observation that your budget seems to be down from last year, depending on whether you look at the budgeted or the revised figures, anywhere between 5 to 15 per cent. Obviously you fellows are doing your bit to bite the bullet and -

MR. EFFORD: Doing our share.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: - I hope you can do an equivalent job as last year with less money. If you are, Mr. Minister, you'll be minister for life probably of this outfit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Byrne.

MR. EFFORD: One day at a time, John. I learned that.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll continue on with my questions. On page 66, 3.1.04.03, Transportation and Communications. That's a $45,000 increase from what you actually spent last year. Why would it be necessary to budget $45,000 more than was spent last year?

MR. EFFORD: If you look at the budget of 1992-1993 there was -

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I know.

MR. EFFORD: - $191,000 budgeted but only $138,300 spent. I'd better go back to my financial expert.

MS. COLE: I'd like to explain that. The reason the revised is down is sometimes the employees in that section will do travel related to capital projects. When that happens we recharge the costs to the capital projects. There may have been just as much spent on travel in that area, but any time that they did it on capital we recharged it out.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay. On page 67, on the top of the page again, 3.2.03.06. You have $15,594,000 versus $13,200,000 that was spent last year, and $10,149,000 budgeted. That's a 33 per cent increase I believe over what was actually - or maybe a 50 per cent, yes - budgeted for last year. Do you have some kind of explanation for that?

MS. COLE: The total road program is still the same, it's just that it's allocated differently. If you look down below at Road and Bridge Rehabilitation the actual budget for that is down. It's just that the money has been re-allocated to the highest priority areas.

MR. EFFORD: Excuse me, (inaudible), that would be less bridge construction and more road construction?

MS. COLE: Yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, but it's more for purchased services versus the (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) what it is, if you look at the whole total -

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I know that.

MR. EFFORD: - it would be less bridge construction and more money spent on road construction. So it is a changing of the monies from one area to the other, but in the total it comes out the same.

MS COLE: The bulk of the road construction is done through contracting out and that is why Purchased Services would be up.

MR. J. BYRNE: On Page 69, 3.2.08 Subsection 7, Property, Furnishings and Equipment, $150,000 was budgeted for last year, $50,000 spent and $150,000 budgeted for this year. Is that really necessary?

MS. COLE: I do not know in terms of the actual details of why the revise was down. That again is federal agreement money and we allocate it based on what our best estimate will be. We do spend all the money. As you will notice the total revised is up but we may spend it in different areas or in different ways.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MS. COLE: No.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is just the point I am making with some of those questions, the fact that there is a restraint program on and you were spending less the previous year.

MR. EFFORD: Let us not jump and think that we are going to turn back federal money because there is a restraint on. This is federal money and the federal money is given to the Province to spend. There are allocations made out, as you can see, in all the areas and you budget that amount for that particular area. If this were from the provincial taxpayers it would be a different situation but the federal government gives you this 100 per cent funding for road maintenance and road construction. Now, if you budget $150,000 and you only spend $50,000 then there may be some reason which I can get checked into, but you allow the same amount for the next year. It is allocations of different fundings.

MR. J. BYRNE: But instead of the $150,000 this year if you budgeted $50,000, the same as you spent last year, that money could be allocated somewhere else.

MR. EFFORD: There is no doubt about it. There has to be a reasonable explanation and I am sure we can get that.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay.

Under the next section 3.2.09, Special Highway Initiatives. Is this the section that the Outer Ring Road would come under for funding if you were to go ahead with it?

MR. EFFORD: Which?

MR. J. BYRNE: Special Highway Initiatives, 3.2.09.

MR. EFFORD: No.

MR. J. BYRNE: While I am on the Outer Ring Road, and there is no point going into that one now, if it is not it, it is not it, but I have a question on the Outer Ring Road.

MR. EFFORD: Go ahead.

MR. J. BYRNE: I made a presentation to the commissioner back in March, I believe it was, on the Outer Ring Road and if the chairman comes back and recommends that we should go ahead with the Outer Ring Road, when can we expect to see the start-up date? When is he suppose to come in with his report, by the way?

MR. EFFORD: The report will be released in the very, very near future. Whatever the decision or recommendation of the commissioner to the government it will be government's decision then on the recommendations, and when that decision becomes available it will be made public, but that decision has not yet been taken.

MR. J. BYRNE: So, you cannot answer my question?

MR. EFFORD: You can ask me any question you want but what I am saying to you is that government has not yet made a decision on the releasing of that report and until government makes a decision then I cannot comment on it publicly.

MR. J. BYRNE: But if the recommendation is that the Outer Ring Road should go ahead without further environmental impact studies, or whatever the case may be, when can I expect it to start up?

MR. EFFORD: When government makes the decision as to whether or not it is going to start up.

MR. J. BYRNE: I can answer that one but I will not.

On Page 71, 3.3.02, Development of New Facilities, Subsection 6, Purchased Services.

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is for the extension of existing facilities or the construction of new buildings. We spent $17 million last year, or $18 million, budgeted $24,500,000 and this year you have budgeted $27,485,000. Is this actually allocated now for certain buildings? Could you give some explanation as to where that money is actually going?

MR. EFFORD: All that money is allocated. Do you want the list?

MR. J. BYRNE: Not here right now.

MR. EFFORD: We can provide you with a list.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay. I will get the list later.

MR. EFFORD: You can be provided with the list if you wish.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay. On page 77, I am almost to the end now, by the way. Government Operated Aircraft: When you refer to this section, I suppose you would include the water bombers for forestry and all that type of thing?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: Under Grants and Subsidies, we have $2,567,000 budgeted versus,$3,038,000 spent last year on the revised. Why would you be budgetting so much less than what was spent last year and who are the grants and subsidies to?

MR. EFFORD: Basically, because there is less money to spend, so on tightening up departments expenditures, one of the first thing that you must do, you must look through all the areas and say: okay, everybody has to bite the bullet a little bit more and we will allow that much money this year and this is what you must spend. If something out of the extraordinary happens, then you would go over budget but only under extreme circumstances and -

MR. WHITE: Perhaps I can answer that for you. The grants and subsidies are to the Grenfell Mission in Labrador for operating a twin otter on the Coast of Labrador. We pay for it rather than Health, and the reason that the number was higher last year than this year, is that, part way through the year they blew an engine and we had to give them extra money last year for that, that is why, if you notice, the revised was higher than last year's budget; it was the replacement of an engine that they blew in mid-season.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, and you would not, because they spent in excess of $3 million last year, you would not go out and budget that same amount of money.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am just curious as to the answer.

MR. EFFORD: There is the reason, extreme circumstances.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay. On page 80, under Queen's Printer, 5.2.02, the revenues; there seems to be some substantial differences from $800,000 down to $550,000 down to $350,000. Am I assuming that is the revenues that the provincial government takes in through the Queen's Printer? Is that correct?

MS. COLE: The reason the revenue is so high in 92-93 is, that was the year we did a complete reprint of the statutes. It is only done once every twenty years and we charge for that then when we sell it, so we will not see revenues like that again for another twenty years.

MR. J. BYRNE: I see, I see. There are two questions left I believe. Under Realty Services on page 80, 5.2.03, subsection 07, Property, Furnishings and Equipment. You see what I am going to ask you of course, $25,000, $1,977,100 and $25,000 for this year, I mean -

MR. WHITE: We bought Queen's College.

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. WHITE: We bought Queen's College.

Last Winter, just before the end of the fiscal year, the government decided to buy - we had bought the other two, St. John's College and Coughlan, a year or so before that and we bought Queen's College this year.

MR. J. BYRNE: You obviously see how that one would jump off the page at you. The last page, page 81, C.A. Pippy Park Commission, 5.3.01, Grants and Subsidies, cut to what, approximately $200,000?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: Will this cost layoffs within the C. A. Pippy Park itself?

MR. EFFORD: Will it what?

MR. J. BYRNE: Cost layoffs, with people working with the Park?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: How many?

MR. WHITE: There were some layoffs at the end of the last fiscal year in the administration of the Pippy Park. The functions were rolled in to our department and we are providing, in our administration division now, those services which were previously done by the commission themselves.

MR. J. BYRNE: One other question to the minister, and I can assume the answer before I ask it but I will ask it anyway. From the Budget, there is practically $14 million cut, how does the minister feel this will affect the overall operations of the department?

MR. EFFORD: How will it affect the overall operations of the department in what? How much?

MR. J. BYRNE: There is $14 million cut from the department -

MR. EFFORD: In every sector of business and every department of government you have to live within the amount of money that is available. There is no doubt about it, it is going to put pressure on the department because of the lesser amount of money but nevertheless we are living in a time and age where we have all - the difficulty with the economy, I should say, is that we all have to do that much extra. I feel very confident that the department will be able to provide all the services needed - Winter or year round, I should say, for the people of the Province. People understand the times we are living in and people cooperate. I think with extra input from every individual and the cooperation of the general public there will be no less services provided either in work, service or transportation.

MR. J. BYRNE: I would like to thank the minister and his staff for the answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fitzgerald.

MR. FITZGERALD: I only have one, one quick question and it is more for my own information.

Is there any difference in the type sand the Department of Highways uses on the Trans-Canada than that which they use on the trunk roads in the Province?

MR. WHITE: No but on the Trans-Canada we use more salt than we do sand mixture. Again it is an economics thing, the highest travelled roads where the bigger trucks and stuff are and the high speeds, we try to use more of the salt so that we get the ice off quicker and on the lesser travelled roads we use the mixture of sand and salt. I will guess the next thing you might comment on, we have had a lot of complaints this past Winter particularly about the size of some stones in the sand -

MR. FITZGERALD: Exactly, about a quarter inch crushed stone.

MR. WHITE: - okay and we have had some complaints about windshield damages and things like that. We are conscious of that and we are going to try this year, in the production of our sand, to watch it closer and to store the sand such that the loaders do not take gravel as well as sand when we are operating next Winter. We had these complaints generally each Winter but this past Winter it has been worst than ever, in specific areas.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that is the thing that I was concerned about. Prior to coming here I was a local insurance representative and the amount of claims that we had come forward was unbelievable. It almost got to the point that you felt like calling everybody after you had a snow storm or after you had a real wet night and it froze, to tell everybody to stay off the road because you would get people coming back to you wanting paint jobs and windshields broken. If you drove down the road and you met one of those salt trucks or sand trucks, the pebbles were about the size of your - just big enough to be picked up from a tire and hurled at you. It was a terrible problem in the area where we live.

MR. EFFORD: And Apple Auto Glass was jumping with delight.

MR. J. BYRNE: Creating business.

MR. FITZGERALD: But it was a problem -

MR. EFFORD: Oh, there was, yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: - we had complaints from other areas as well. You must have been if you were using the same type of sand.

MR. WHITE: Worse in some areas than others. It was not only your area but there were other ones and as I said, this Winter or this past Winter was worst I think than any I can remember.

AN HON. MEMBER: There will be no problem with salt and sand in St. John's this Winter.

MR. WHITE: No, you did not did you?

MR. FITZGERALD: There was none. I do not have any more questions, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, it is normal practice that we break for a ten minute break now or do you want to carry on?

MR. EFFORD: We can pass the sub-heads now. Carry on, pass the sub-heads now. The hockey game is on at 9:00 p.m.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Carry on? Mr. Careen.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If somebody else has asked any of these questions that I am going to ask, say so and I will skip over to something else, alright?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. CAREEN: 4.1.02, Driver Examination and Vehicle Inspection, Purchased Services, what would that be?

MR. EFFORD: 4.1.02, the $30,000?

MR. CAREEN: Yes. I am just curious as to what would you purchase there?

MR. WHITE: That is the expenditures for repairing the weigh scales that we have on the highways. The weigh scales are operated by the Motor Registration Division, so that is where the funds went.

MR. CAREEN: Just above that in 4.1.01, Purchased Services again, $194,800, I am curious.

MS. COLE: Purchased Services there is mostly for the advertising program for seatbelts and the point system.

MR. CAREEN: Ferry Operations, 4.3.02, again Purchased Services, what is it?

MR. EFFORD: What is the number?

MR. CAREEN: 4.3.02, is that the boats -

MR. O'REILLY: That covers the refits on our vessels, our insurance costs and other related costs, so it is actually the contract type work we get done on the vessels.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, and I do not know if you explained it or not, but the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission? That was explained, was it.

MR. EFFORD: That was explained, yes.

MR. CAREEN: I must find out more from one of the other members what that was. One last point, the other day it was brought up here in the House about the elevators -

MR. EFFORD: Yes?

MR. CAREEN: Now, if the Minister of Health gets his way and the people on either side of the House go unanimous with this smoking bill, probably they will force the likes of us to be in that good health we can run up and down the stairs, but they were saying about looking at changing the elevators, or in this fiscal year you would be looking at making them a little bit better or -

MR. J. BYRNE: More cooperative.

MR. CAREEN: Which of the above?

MR. EFFORD: Well, first of all, those three elevators were put there when this building was built, so there is no doubt about it that the need to change the elevators is now, because when you get on them you do not know if you are going to end on the tenth floor or down in the basement. In fact, that is what happened to us this evening as we were coming in, so I felt like saying that we probably should put something there to beam us all up and down, but tenders are being called now for the work to be done on the beginning of replacing the elevators, hopefully, within the next twelve to fourteen months. We will do one at a time as there is extensive work to be done because as I said, those elevators were put there first when this building was built. Hopefully, with patience and corporation this will be done. There will be some maintenance naturally done in the meantime to stop you from having to kick the doors to get them to close.

MR. CAREEN: The Member for St. John's North, touched on it earlier and that will be my final question. The Outer Ring Road, every now and again it gets to be a sabre rattling one between environmentalists on one side and the people who want to get it done on the other. Federal money is supposed to be there for that, at least we are told it is there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: That was answered?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. CAREEN: Good, that is easy, in nomine patris. That is it for me.

MR. CRANE: I move that we approve headings 1.l.01 to 5.3.02, inclusive.

On motion, Department of Works, Services and Transportation, total heads, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have to move the heads for the Public Service Commission, Page 51, the two subheads.

MR. CRANE: I move that we approve headings l.l.01 to 2.2.04.

On motion, total heads for the Public Service Commission, carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister, thank you to the officials, thank you to the press, and thank you Committee.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.