April 16,
2018
The
Committee met at 9:05 a.m. in the Assembly Chamber.
CLERK (Hammond):
Good morning.
My name
is Kim Hammond; I'm acting Clerk this morning for this Committee.
This is
the Government Services Committee and the first order of business is to elect a
Chair.
Are
there any nominations from the floor?
MR. KING:
I nominate Randy Edmunds.
CLERK:
Are there any further nominations from the floor?
Are
there any further nominations from the floor?
Hearing
no further nominations, the Member is acclaimed Chair.
Mr.
Edmunds, would you take the seat?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR (Edmunds):
Good morning, everyone.
Traditionally, our next step is to select a Vice-Chair.
I call
for nominations from the floor.
MR. FINN:
I nominate the Member for
Conception Bay South.
CHAIR:
Okay, a nomination for the
Member for Conception Bay South.
Are
there any more nominations?
Any
further nominations?
Okay, I
announce that the Member for Conception Bay South is Vice-Chair of the
Government Services Committee.
This
morning we are reviewing the Estimates of Transportation and Works. I'd first
like to start off by the Government Services Committee to introduce themselves,
starting with the front row.
MR. PETTEN:
Good morning, everyone
Barry
Petten, MHA for Conception Bay South; Transportation critic for the Official
Opposition.
MS. BONIA:
Laurie Bonia, Researcher,
Official Opposition.
MS. MICHAEL:
Lorraine Michael, St. John's
East - Quidi Vidi.
MR. MORGAN:
Ivan Morgan, Researcher, NDP
caucus.
MR. LANE:
Paul Lane, MHA, District of
Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. FINN:
John Finn, MHA
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR.
KING:
Neil King, MHA for Bonavista.
MS.
HALEY:
Carol Anne Haley, MHA, Burin - Grand Bank.
MS.
PARSLEY:
Betty Parsley, MHA, Harbour Main.
CHAIR:
Thank you to the Government Services Committee, and now I'd like to ask the
Minister of Transportation and Works and his staff to introduce themselves.
MR.
CROCKER:
Good morning, everybody.
Steve Crocker, Minister of Transportation and Works.
MS.
KING:
Tracy King, Deputy Minister, Transportation and Works.
MS.
ENGLISH:
Tracy English, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Corporate Services.
MS.
MCCARTHY:
Charlene McCarthy, Departmental Controller.
MR.
MORRISSEY:
Patrick Morrissey, Budget Manager.
MR.
DUNFORD:
Joe
Dunford, Assistant Deputy Minister of Operations.
MR.
GRANDY:
Cory Grandy, Assistant Deputy Minister for Infrastructure.
MR.
SCOTT:
Brian Scott, Director of Communications.
MS.
ANDERSON:
Eilanda Anderson, Executive Assistant to the minister.
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you for all the introductions. The plan is to conclude by 12 p.m. at
the latest. We will go in rotation, 10 minutes for the Official Opposition, 10
minutes for the Third Party and, at intervals, we'll open the floor up to the
Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
CLERK:
1.1.01.
CHAIR: Shall
1.1.01 carry?
Minister.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll
start with some brief comments. Budget 2018-19 marked the fourth consecutive
year that Transportation and Works has not requested any new funding. In
2018-19, the department identified pressures totalling $8.9 million, and again
we were able to absorb these pressures and address them from within.
These
costs increase are the primary results of tendering and contracting increases,
utility price increases and demand-driven material usage pressures from such
items as salt and sand and the rental of heavy equipment. To find ways to deal
with these pressures, the department has undertaken an in-depth salary review
and operational budget review to absorb these costs and review the individual
program areas in 2018-19's Estimates books will reveal a significant number of
funding increases and decreases.
These
changes in funding levels are primarily the result of the re-allocation of
existing funding to properly reflect the financial requirements of the
department's new organizational structure. The department moved from a
regional-based structure to a functional-based structure in 2018 and '19.
The
2018-19 salary budget was reduced by $1.26 million to reflect government's
attrition plan. These savings will be achieved through the elimination of
positions as employees retire or leave their positions for other reasons. The
2018-19 salary budget was reduced by a further $427,000 to reflect the
annualized impact of the new departmental management structure. No additional
lay-offs will occur in the 2018-19 year to achieve these savings.
A
comparison of the Department of Transportation and Works total budget from
2017-18 of $573 million to the 2018-19 budget of $549 million shows a funding
increase of $24 million. This apparent increase in the Department of
Transportation and Works budget is somewhat misleading. To increase operational
efficiencies, responsibility for all government leasing spaces and the majority
of government's vehicle fleet have been consolidated into the Department of
Transportation and Works. Funding of $18 million for leases and $3.1 million for
vehicle operations costs have been removed from various other core government
departments and re-allocated to Transportation and Works.
The
apparent increase in the Department of Transportation and Works budget does not
represent an increase in government's overall spending. In 2017-18, the
department made a commitment to host the annual Transportation Association of
Canada conference. Each year, the province assigned to host this conference
agrees to send a higher number of delegates to this conference. As a review of
the Employee Benefits expenditures in 2018 in the Estimates book, it will show
that the amount spent throughout the department on TAC registration fees is much
higher than it would be in a normal year. The department identified one-time
savings to fund these additional registrations.
Budget
2018-2019 numbers: budget approved $274 million for operating, including $93
million for salaries; budget 2018-19 for current account infrastructure is $69.7
million, including salaries of $5.3 million; and budget 2018-19 for capital
account infrastructure is $143 million, including salaries of $10.2 million.
Mr.
Chair, I just wanted to give a brief overview of some of the things that have
happened, which reflect the things that you will see in the Estimates today. I
look forward to the questions from the Members opposite and we'll endeavour to
answer every question we can. And if there are some questions that need further
research, we'll certainly do it.
Just as
a side note, as our staff from TW introduce themselves, Charlene said yesterday
in a meeting that she's been to many, many of these meetings and this will be
her last one, so feel free today to throw some extra hard questions at Charlene
because she has no intentions of returning to Estimates next year. I think she
has a much better plan next year than spending a Monday morning in Estimates.
She'll enjoy her retirement.
Again,
thank you to the TW staff for all the work they've put in to preparing for
today's Estimates so that we can endeavour to answer your questions to the best
of our ability.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you.
Before
we turn it over to questions, I'd just like to state that when a question is
deferred to one of your staff that they introduce themselves just prior to
answering. When we ask to carry the heads, we shall wait until we've completed
then carry the whole Estimates and accept them.
So with
that, I'll turn it over to the Opposition.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What
sections are we doing there now?
CHAIR:
We're going to start off with 1.1.01 and work our way right through.
MR. PETTEN:
So we're just starting,
there's no end – you just got the one that you're opening, okay.
CHAIR:
Yeah.
MR. PETTEN:
Minister, section 1.1.01
under Salaries, there's an increase of $45,000. It's not a huge amount from last
year's revised amount, but what's included? How many positions are in this
salary $242,000?
MR. CROCKER:
That would be the Minister's Office, so there obviously would be the minister's
salary, the executive assistant to the minister. About halfway through last
fiscal year, we hired a ministerial liaison in the department and that salary is
approximately $44,000 a year. It reflects the salary somewhere around the
political level of a constituency assistant.
This
position is to be used, and is being used, to do some work around – primarily
working with municipalities because one of the areas that we've identified as an
office that we feel there is some work that we can do to help streamline some of
the inquiries – because, as you probably would be well aware, there are quite a
number of inquiries in Transportation and Works.
I think
one of the efficiencies that we're hoping to achieve in the department is not so
much a better working relationship, I guess, with municipalities because I think
we've always had a good working relationship, but there is a consistent
pipeline, I think, is important with municipalities.
MR. PETTEN:
Yes, communication is very
important; there's no doubt.
Under
Employee Benefits, there was an increase in the amount budgeted under Employee
Benefits and the revised amount. What was the increase again? It's a small
amount but just –
MR. CROCKER:
That was the $100?
MR. PETTEN:
No, $2,100. It went down.
MR. CROCKER:
Oh, I am sorry.
MR. PETTEN:
It was only a small amount,
but it's just –
MR. CROCKER:
That's the TAC conference. That's the one we mentioned where we hosted this
year, so there was an extra cost.
MR. PETTEN:
Memberships.
MR. CROCKER:
Pardon?
MR. PETTEN:
Memberships or …
MR. CROCKER:
Registration fees.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under 1.2.01, Executive Support, there's $25,000 more in
Salaries than budgeted last year. This year you're estimating to spend almost
$50,000 less. What is this variance?
MR. CROCKER:
Yes, that's a reduction due to the change in the pay level of the new
communications director. So I guess that would be a step increase – step issues.
The new director came in at a lower step than the previous director.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
So there
are no extra positions there, that's just a pay scale –
MR. CROCKER:
Yes, and there were some severance costs in that expenditure as well.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
1.2.02,
Administrative Support, there's a significant change in the description of what
is included under Administrative Support this year compared to last year. There
are huge increases in the numbers from last year's Estimates. For example, last
year's Estimates allotted just over $1 million for Salaries under this section,
yet they listed here for Budget 2017
just over $4 million. Likewise, the total voted for in Administrative Support
last year was just over $3.4 million, but here it states almost $6.6 million.
Can you
explain what occurred (inaudible) or what changed in these budget numbers?
MR. CROCKER:
That was the departmental restructuring. You'll see these fluctuation's
throughout the Estimates, like I referred to in my opening remarks where we
changed our structure. There were big jumps in some areas and some big decreases
in others.
MR. PETTEN:
What kind of restructuring
happened there?
MR. CROCKER:
I'll turn that over to the
deputy.
MS. KING:
There are a couple of things
going on here. This salary now funds financial operations, corporate safety, and
planning and accommodations. In last year's budget, the corporate safety manager
wasn't in the right place in the structure. So the movement of all of the safety
folks from one part of the organization to the other, as well the other piece
that's changed in here is the departmental attrition number for this year is in
here and then, as the year goes by, it will be moved to where it needs to be.
The
other piece that's in here is that there are some clerks and a receptionist that
are voted in here this year that wouldn't have been there last year. So it's
just a small change but when you add it to the departmental attrition number, it
looks a bit larger as an impact in this branch.
MR. PETTEN:
Salary numbers are up by over
$400,000. Is that all to do with the extra positions that were –?
MS. KING:
From the revised?
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah.
MS. KING:
Again, the manager of
corporate safety's salary is in here but the funding for this position last year
was under a different number, so that's been moved here. There were four
positions in here that didn't have the funding allocated and we moved, so that's
corrected for this year – two clerks and a receptionist that were here, as well
as an OHS officer. That's what's going on here –
MR. CROCKER:
And there was some severance
–
MS. KING:
And there was some severance.
MR. PETTEN:
– in here as well.
MS. KING:
Yes.
Thank
you, Minister.
MR. PETTEN:
So there were four positions
included in this amount?
MS. KING:
Uh-huh.
MR. CROCKER:
Four positions and severance.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
Employee Benefits, what is included there?
MR. CROCKER:
Under Employee Benefits?
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah.
MR. CROCKER:
Funding for such things as
workers' compensation, claim costs only; TW departmental staff; as well as
provisions for professional development; and membership fees for the Corporate
Services division.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
Supplies, last year you spent $17,000 less than was budgeted for supplies, yet
this year you're budgeting almost $16,000 more. What's the reason for this
fluctuation?
MS. KING:
The difference last year was,
really, we made a concerted effort to keep our supplies and our paper down. As
well, with the reorganization, we've readjusted all of the budgets so that this
year, our first full year under our reorganization, I think will give us a
better picture as we head into next year if we can make the permanent reduction.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
And
under Purchased Services there's a similar fluctuation. There's $50,000 less in
your revised, yet you're budgeting again $50,000 more this year. What's the
reason for that?
MR. CROCKER:
So the $50,000 in savings were on shredding and advertising costs.
MR. PETTEN:
On what?
MR. CROCKER:
The savings – shredding and advertising costs.
MR. PETTEN:
But it's gone back up again this year.
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah, mostly due to advertising costs being down this past year and the budget
stays there for this coming fiscal year.
MR. PETTEN:
In anticipation?
MR. CROCKER:
Well, in the event it – yeah. We didn't take it out of the budget, I guess. We
didn't use it last year but, you know, it's there this year if it needs to be.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
Transportation and Communications, what's the increase of almost $80,000? What's
the reason for this?
MR. CROCKER:
What number?
MR. PETTEN:
Transportation and Communications under 1.2.02.
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah, that's reallocation again. Funding provided for T and C for corporate
services employees throughout the province, corporate safety planning and admin,
regional administrators and this also is associated costs with postage and
envelopes for the department. It's a reallocation issue, taking from another
division of the department and brought to this division of the department,
again, as a result of restructuring.
MR. PETTEN:
Under your Revenue – Provincial, what's included in this? I know last year the
numbers have been from 2017 to revised to this year. What is this? What's
included here?
MR. CROCKER:
Increase in revenues due to the increased number of insurance claims during the
year including a Western Memorial insurance claim, a Churchill Falls River
bridge insurance claim and an MV Veteran
insurance claim, and as well another insurance claim for the
Flanders.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
1.2.03, Strategic and Support Services, there's a significant change in the
description of what's included under this section this year compared to last
year, and there's a huge increase in salary numbers and all other categories
from last year's Estimates as well; $3 million in Salaries alone from last
year's budget amount, there's an increase.
So
what's included here and what are the reasons for this?
MR. CROCKER:
So what line was that?
MR. PETTEN:
That's under Salaries,
1.2.03.
MR. CROCKER:
This funding provides salary
costs for employees under policy and planning, mail services, tendering and
contracting, building security and overtime and other earning requirements.
MR. PETTEN:
So that's an amalgamation of
all the divisions that weren't there last year, correct?
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah, so the additions in
that section would be mail services and security.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
Salaries, too, there seems to be a steady decline in Salaries, almost $200,000
revised, another $65,000 for this year. Why is that a downward slope, even
though you have more stuff added, why is that?
MR. CROCKER:
This variance is due to a
number of changes, including the manager of corporate safety being improperly
budgeted in the 2017-18 budget. This has been allocated in 1.2.02,
Administration Support for 2018-19 and a manager of evaluation and research
being replaced who is in a lower scale. Security services overtime requirements
have been reduced and various other changes to the salary plan, including step
changes, attrition management and vacancy factor for this activity.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
In last
year's Estimates, there was a section there for Mail Services with a budget of
$671,000. So did all of that go over into that, that and the full budget go over
into this new section, this Strategic and Support Services?
MR. CROCKER:
It would have, as the Mail
Services were moved in the Estimates, they would have brought their budget with
them.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
There is
also a section for Administrative Support associated with the purchasing of
capital assets that the minister said he was keeping on the advice of Finance,
just to keep the account open, but that's no longer there. Any idea what
happened to that?
MR. CROCKER:
Charlene, can you –?
MS. MCCARTHY:
Yes, if there are tangible capital asset purchases that we didn't know about
when we did the budget, then this account allows us to find one-time savings,
move it in to buy those essential items. Without this account, we wouldn't have
a place to put that money and we wouldn't be able to address these issues within
the department. So that's why the Department of Finance wants this account kept
open.
MR. PETTEN:
Under your Grants and Subsidies, what is included there in that line?
MR. CROCKER:
Funding is provided for FPT
contributions, FPT Ministers of Transportation, a TAC membership for the
department, TAC scholarship fund, World Road Congress membership for the branch
and other grants.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay, I'm going to ask just a
couple of quick questions there now in the last minute of my block.
How many
people are employed in the department today, from this year to last? Last year,
it was 1,165, which was 23 less than 2016 according to the minister at the time.
Do you
have a number on how many people are employed in the department now?
MR. CROCKER:
Well, yeah, I do have a
number as was prepared at the snapshot of Estimates. Transportation and Works is
a hard department to capture numbers in because of the nature of the business
and it's a snapshot in time.
These
Estimates are prepared on 1,555, but if you want to go to Thursday, it will
probably be somewhere in the half, in that neighbourhood, or half of where the
department is because, obviously, on Wednesday of this week we switch from
winter to summer maintenance and we'll layoff hundreds of employees as we change
that. So it depends, it's a snapshot in time in this department.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay. Are contractual
positions included in that number?
MR. CROCKER:
In that number? Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
They are. And what about
13-weekers?
MR. CROCKER:
So, currently, there are 67
13-weekers in the department and that number will fall in half or better on
Thursday.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
My time
is ….
MR. EDMUNDS:
Okay, thank you.
We can
go to the Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Good
morning, Minister, and all your staff, and congratulations on the potential
retirement.
I will
just start with 2.1.01.
Before
that, Minister, just so – because it determines how many notes we take – can we
expect to get the briefing book again this year?
MR. CROCKER:
You will, but it will be in
electronic form.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's okay.
MR. CROCKER:
Anybody over here with a binder this morning had to buy their own paper.
MS. MICHAEL:
I was noticing the iPads.
That's
great, we don't care what form it's in. The information is the important thing.
MR. CROCKER:
And I apologize this morning, I won't take any amount of your time, but if you
see me flicking around about I had to switch from electronic to this on Friday,
I think, because I was getting too confused. So my apologies if I'm seen
fumbling around the binder this morning.
MS. MICHAEL:
If I were in your position,
I'd have a binder in front of me.
MR. CROCKER:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
2.1.01, obviously, in the
Salaries line there's a variation. Could you explain the variations from last
year's budget to the revision and then to this year's estimate?
MR. CROCKER: That
increase is due to a more realistic salary recharge rate for infrastructure
projects. Salary variances reflect the 2018-19 departmental salary plan. This
salary plan reflects ongoing attrition management plan, fund requirements for
step increases and reallocation of salary resources based on changing
departmental priorities.
MS. MICHAEL:
Were any positions moved somewhere else? Because it is $421,400 less, so it's a
fair bit of money. Was there a movement of positions?
MS. KING: When
we restructured, the department employees reporting to the director of
Maintenance and Equipment were moved to that activity. Those salaries were all
reallocated as well. So it's not a decrease in funding.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
Under Purchased Services, last year the budget was $645,000
and it was revised upward by quite a bit to $819,500, and this year it's just
$48,500 under Purchased Services. If we could have an explanation of all of
that, please.
MS. KING: Sure.
Again, this isn't a budget decrease but it's reallocation of funds for the new
structure. The funding for our road weather information system and our new AVL,
sorry, our vehicle locators were reallocated to Maintenance of Equipment
administration account.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. So that's why we're down to the $48,000.
MS. KING: That's
right.
MS. MICHAEL: Did
you have extra expenditures, though? You did spend more money last year under
the revision.
MS. KING: This
overrun is mainly due to expenditures with our new GPS tracking system. We
implemented it more quickly. We were able to do it quicker than we had
anticipated.
MS. MICHAEL: Oh
good, great.
Thank you very much.
Coming down to 2.1.02,
and it's under Revenue. The Provincial Revenue is estimated at $150,000
and this year it's maintained at $150,000; although, last year it was down by
$50,000. Where exactly does that revenue come from?
MR. CROCKER:
That would be primarily our TODS, our tourism directional signage. If a tourism
operator wants to purchase a sign, and there's an ongoing rental we achieve from
that as well.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right, okay.
Thank
you very much.
2.1.04
under Salaries, we do have a slight drop under Salaries. Can we have an
explanation of that, please?
MR. CROCKER:
Well, I guess that's our winter maintenance salaries. Is that correct? Yeah.
So there
is a salary variance on this. This is one that fluctuates with winter weather
conditions. The amount primarily, I guess, it would be overtime. Because in a
core situation we pay our staff a core salary or core work hours, but this would
be associated with overtime costs when it comes to snow and ice control.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Thank you very much.
Under
Supplies, last year the revision was up by $4.3 million from the budget. Could
we have an explanation of that increase? Because you do expect to come back down
this year again.
MR. CROCKER:
That was a reallocation of funding to offset the increase in salt and sand
costs. Some of this is due to the new sections of the pavement on the
Trans-Labrador Highway.
Again,
this is one of those fluctuations you'll see in this department due to usage of
salt and sand. Because really we don't get – our salt and sand savings come from
the previous year, we don't see it. We would have started this season with no
inventory, whereas next season we may have some inventory, and that would be
reflected in the – it's how much we got left in stock and what we got to
purchase in the next fiscal year.
MS. MICHAEL:
Sure, understood.
Thank
you.
Just a
couple of questions, Minister: Does the department have a way of counting how
many times the plow tracker is accessed, and do you have numbers on that?
MR. CROCKER:
Yes, we can see that. I don't have those numbers this morning. I'm not sure,
Joe, if you could speak. Do you have –
MR. DUNFORD:
(Inaudible.)
MR. CROCKER:
We can certainly get those numbers. I can tell you, there has been a significant
uptake and we were able just a few weeks ago to make this now province-wide.
Again, there was a question earlier that referenced an increase in expenditure,
and that was because we were able to find a way to get this done province-wide –
island-wide, I should say – as quickly as possible.
We're
working to make it available in Labrador. There are some different challenges
because in Labrador we contract our snow and ice removal, so we have to work
with the contractors to make plow tracker available.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
Is that
the only place you have contractors?
MR. CROCKER:
Well, yeah, as primary providers.
MS. MICHAEL:
As primary.
MR. CROCKER:
Yes. We use contractors all over the province –
MS. MICHAEL:
Well, that's what I thought.
MR. CROCKER:
– to supplement our crews,
but in Labrador we do have two contractors providing the majority of the
service.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Thank you.
There
was a review being done of the tow-plow pilot project. Has that been completed?
Do you have the results of that?
MR. CROCKER:
We haven't got the final
results of the success because I guess some of that review would go down to be
as technical as the size of engine required in the truck. We did announce in the
budget a couple of weeks ago that we will be adding to the tow-plow fleet this
year. So we are confident that it has been successful.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
And will
that information be in the briefing book, do you know?
MR. CROCKER:
I wouldn't think so.
MS. KING:
No, it's not in here.
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah, no, it's not. No,
sorry. It's not in here, no.
MS. MICHAEL:
But if we wanted it we could request it.
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah.
MS. MICHAEL:
If we needed it.
Thank
you very much.
Coming
to Building Maintenance, Operations and Accommodations – that's 2.2.01. Here
again it's a salary issue, and this may be reallocation of positions. I would
like an explanation because this year we see an increase of $791,100 over last
year's estimate. It's down slightly from what the revision was because the
revision went up quite a bit. It was $1,012,800 over the budget. So if we could
have an explanation of that line.
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah. I guess the 791
increase is due to more realistic salary re-charge rates to our infrastructure
projects. Salary variances reflect the 2018 departmental salary plan. The salary
plan reflects ongoing attrition management plan, funding requirements for step
increases and the reallocation of salary resources based on changing
departmental priorities.
The
second question around the revised and the $1.012 million includes severance
payments of approximately $457,000 and a lower-than-anticipated salary re-charge
rates to our infrastructure projects. As a part of the annual salary plan
estimates, salary re-charge rates are used to prepare the yearly salary
allocations for the department. These recharge rates are estimates only and the
level that's actually recharged varies based on the number and scope of the
infrastructure projects we do and complete annually.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
I only
have 24 seconds left so I'll stop, Mr. Chair. I only have 18 seconds left, so
I'll stop.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Okay, we'll go back to the
Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like
to go back to 2.1.03. Under Purchased Services, what amounts are included in
this? What's included here?
MR. CROCKER:
This funding is provided for
machinery rentals to supplement our equipment: sealers, rollers – sorry,
spreaders, rollers, tampers, long-reach excavators; equipment that we normally
wouldn't have in each and every one of our depots. Obviously, this is obtained
from various suppliers. The road maintenance of the Trans-Labrador Highway – and
this would also include our brush-cutting program and our calcium chloride
program.
MR. PETTEN:
What about the asphalt
recycler cost with maintenance – is that included in this section?
MR. CROCKER:
It wouldn't be, would it,
Joe, because that's a –
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. CROCKER:
That's a piece of equipment
that was actually purchased previously, so it's actually in our inventory. It's
not something that we're going out to rent or –
MR. PETTEN:
Under 2.1.04, in Salaries, is
overtime included in this? Does this figure include overtime for this past year?
MR. CROCKER:
Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
Do you have any idea of what
your overtime was? How much overtime there actually was? Do you have that broken
down?
MR. CROCKER:
Sorry, if you could, would
you mind asking the question again and I'll get Joe to take the question.
MR. PETTEN:
Do you have a breakdown of
the overtime cost this year for your winter maintenance, snow and ice control
from last year?
MR. DUNFORD:
I don't have that here
offhand at the moment. That's something we can get, absolutely.
MR. CROCKER:
So the deputy can get you
that information. The overtime was $3.8 million. Labrador region was $150,000;
Clarenville region was $751,000; Avalon region was $1.1 million; Grand
Falls-Windsor was $800,000; and the West Coast-Deer Lake region was $1 million.
MR. PETTEN:
Has that increased from last year? Is that an increase over last year's amount?
MR. CROCKER:
No, we've held our estimates on Salaries steady. So the last year budgeted was
$20 million, revised was $20 million, was equal, was the same, and our estimates
this year are at $20 million again – $19.9 million. So the overtime is in that
number.
MR. PETTEN:
And under your Summer Maintenance, 2.1.03, the cost associated with the
potholes, pothole repairs, would cold patch fall under this? Would that be
included in this section?
OFFICIAL:
In Purchased Services or just overall, Barry?
MR. PETTEN:
In that section, probably under Purchased Services. That's what I'm kind of just
basically generally asking. Is that cost included in this section?
MR. CROCKER:
That would be practically the same answer I guess as the Summer – no, I'm sorry,
2.1.03 –
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah.
MR. CROCKER:
So this is the funding for equipment rentals?
MR. PETTEN:
Well, I'm asking the general question –
MR. CROCKER:
Oh.
MR. PETTEN:
– is there in that section? I'm asking you I guess is that cost associated with
that in there?
MR. CROCKER:
Oh, okay, sorry. Stuff like cold patch and stuff?
MR. PETTEN:
Pothole repair, yeah, for all your costs.
MR. CROCKER:
Yes, in Purchased Services, because our cold patch would be (inaudible).
MR. PETTEN:
So how much did cold patch cost the department last year, this year, do you
know?
MR. CROCKER:
Typically between $500,000 and $600,000.
MR. PETTEN:
Five hundred thousand dollars and $600,000 per season?
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
And what
kind of results did you get from the cold patch this year?
MR. CROCKER:
I guess any time you're patching potholes there are always challenges with
weather and other things. But it's been, I guess, similar to other seasons.
MR. PETTEN:
In the 2.2.01 section, under your Salaries, 2017 estimates Salaries at $3.814
million and this year's budget shows them at $2.589 million, and it starts off
in the budget being $1.798 million, but last year's Estimates show that it was
$3.8 million. But the heading remains the same under Administration. So what's
would the change for this – that's a fairly substantial amount. There is
obviously something removed.
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah.
So this
increase is, again, more realistic salary recharge rates for infrastructure
projects; salary variances reflects the 2018-19 departmental plan; and the plan
reflects ongoing attrition management, funding requirements for step increases
and the reallocation of salary resources based on changing departmental
priorities.
Did you
ask the revised question on that as well?
MR. PETTEN:
No.
Well, I
know last year was $3.8 million and this year we're down to $2.5 million, and
even though in your budget that line is showing $1.798 million, last year's
estimate show $3.814 million. I'm asking what the drop is for. Like, what's
missing?
But the
heading doesn't change. Administration is just the same as last year's.
MR. CROCKER:
Engineers have been removed.
MR. PETTEN:
What?
MR. CROCKER:
The engineering staff has
been removed.
MR. PETTEN:
Removed from this section?
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah.
MR. PETTEN:
So where are they now?
MR. CROCKER:
Charlene.
MS. MCCARTHY:
We've consolidated all of our
engineering services under the one activity and I think it's 3.1.02.
MR. PETTEN:
3.1.02? Okay.
Minister, I've got a couple of minutes left in this round. I'm going to just ask
a couple of general questions I guess.
To go
back to the positions, I finished off the last time talking about the attrition
plan. Are you still following the attrition plan? Do you still have the
attrition plan? Are you still –?
MR. CROCKER:
Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
As a result of the attrition
plan, how many positions have been eliminated?
MR. CROCKER:
Do you mean, like, since the
previous administration brought in the attrition plan?
MR. PETTEN:
Well, or if in the last year – because I think I had the figure from last year.
MR. CROCKER:
Charlene, could you speak to
that, or (inaudible)?
MS. MCCARTHY:
Are you talking about in '18-'19 reductions, upcoming?
MR. PETTEN:
Well, yes – or to date,
really, from year over year. So I'm talking pretty well since we met last year
to this year, what reductions have been found, or have there been any reductions
in the last year? And I guess any plan for the coming year.
So just
in –
MS. MCCARTHY:
Okay.
For the
coming year there is no plan to reduce any positions, except for ones where
people are retiring and we do not have to fill them. So there will be no bodies
going out through the door, as such.
So as
positions become vacant, the department will be looking at individual
requirements for that position and making judgment calls on whether we should
fill that position or leave it vacant.
MR. CROCKER:
I guess just to add to that,
if you look at how Transportation and Works actually operates as a department,
every time you look at attrition plans, and, I guess, that's why attrition has a
number, a percentage or a value works better for a department like this one, is
the fact that we don't apply any attrition when we look at snow plow operators,
for example. That's not something were we would see an attrition opportunity.
That's frontline services.
We look
for attrition opportunities in more of a senior role or a role that doesn't
affect our frontline employees because, really, our primary focus, I think, is
providing safe highways for our residents. That's not somewhere we would look
for attrition savings.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
One
question in my last few seconds. How much have you spent on snow clearing this
winter, to date? How much has snow clearing costed?
MR. CROCKER:
That would be just a shot in
the dark because the reality is we still have snow clearing costs. We still have
our snow clearing costs up until Wednesday. We already know that we are
extending the West Coast beyond – we had a severe winter event on the West Coast
last week. Those costs wouldn't be tallied at this point in time.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
If we
look at 2.2.02, Building Utilities and Maintenance, just a quick question with
regard to the Salaries because the Estimates for this year are $432,200 less
than last year's budget.
MR. CROCKER:
This variance is mainly due
to the reallocation of salaries to reflect again the new departmental structure.
Regional engineers, senior engineers and technical service inspectors were moved
to come under director of Building Design and Construction, which we'll see a
little bit later in 3.1.02.
MS. MICHAEL:
3.1.02, if I get that one I
won't ask you the question then when we get there, except maybe to ask how many
engineers there are in that department.
MR. CROCKER:
I'll be deferring to Cory.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
Under
2.2.03.
MR. CROCKER:
Building Rentals?
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, Rentals. We have large
numbers here, of course, but we see an increase of $523,000. Could we have an
explanation of that under Purchased Services?
MR. CROCKER:
Yes, that's an increase of our rent at Atlantic Place.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. It's that white
elephant.
Thank
you.
MR. CROCKER:
The gift that keeps on giving.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, right.
All
right, that was 2.2.03; 2.2.04, that's the Salt Storage Sheds. Under Purchased
Services the revision was downward by $200,000 and the budget for this year is
down to $800,000. That's a big jump down. Can we have an explanation?
MR. CROCKER:
On the $200,000, it was
saving on expenditures in '17 and '18. Coming down even further is over the last
number of years the department has been successful in a lot of new construction
of salt sheds and we're really getting to a point where our salt sheds are
reaching a good place, I guess. I can't take all the credit for that but we do
have some good infrastructure now when it comes to salt sheds.
One of
the things we'll be doing this year when it comes to salt sheds is replacements
in Lethbridge and construction of a foundation and a new building at White
Hills.
One of
the successes that new salt sheds bring to the department is savings in salt
because, obviously, if our salt is not stored outside, we don't have the erosion
caused by precipitation, wind and other factors.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Thank you.
Some
municipalities, my own included, probably needs a look at the salt storage. We
have a few –
MR. CROCKER:
We're addressing our issue just this year in St. John's at White Hills. So
that's one of the ones we'll be constructing this year.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, but the one down on the
Waterfront, is that municipal or provincial?
MR. CROCKER:
No, I think that's actually – that's where we buy it. Well, not necessarily we
buy it from, but that's Harvey's storage.
MS. MICHAEL:
Oh, that's right, it's
Harvey's.
Thank
you.
Just a
couple of general questions, Minister. In your mandate letter you were required
to further reduce the government's building footprint, and I know there have
been some efforts taken on that. Can we have an update on what's going on?
MR. CROCKER:
Yes, as of today, since 2016, we've been able to reduce government's footprint
by slightly over 90,000 square feet and we will continue. I believe in
The Way Forward we – we are ahead of
our targets, actually. We are now moving to the over 100,000 square foot
reduction number.
MS. MICHAEL:
Could we have some examples of how that's being done with buildings?
MR. CROCKER:
If you look no further than West Block, AES just came into a new space on the
first floor. We're using new standards. We've adopted, I guess, the standard
used by the federal government with work space requirements. So that's one here
in the building that we've done.
So AES
moved, I think, off Kenmount Road to –
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. CROCKER: So,
as an example, the AES move has a savings of $273,000. That was they came off
Kenmount Road, and others, we'll have a tender actually that – sorry, an RFP –
closes, I think, later today for our leased space in Corner Brook. We're going
to reduce the space used primarily by Fisheries and Land Resources in Corner
Brook by approximately half.
MS. MICHAEL:
And would that AES move in particular, would that have included frontline
workers access to the public or more administrative?
MR. CROCKER:
The function that's now located over there that came off Kenmount Road was a
call centre, so I guess receiving in-bound calls, primarily.
MS. MICHAEL:
All calls?
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
Also,
still related to the government-owned buildings, you've been mandated to make
sure that they are energy efficient and environmentally sound by pursuing the
BOMA BEST certification. So can we have an update on that as well?
MR. CROCKER:
So, yeah, obviously any time we're contracting for construction of new
buildings, we're looking for LEED certification, any opportunities we find for
switching. Government will have a part of the new low carbon fund and that will
be to help retrofit some buildings, not only here in the city but throughout the
province. Any time government looks for space now or does things to our own
properties, energy efficiency is always in mind, no different than it would be
for any of us.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
With
regard to new construction, we do have construction coming up, for example,
under the Department of Health. Well, of course, you're in charge of the
construction.
MR. CROCKER:
Mm-hmm.
MS. MICHAEL:
So would the calls for
proposals include this as an essential part of proposals?
MR. CROCKER:
So any of our requests for proposals that we put out, there is scoring, I guess,
points for your energy efficiency and we look for LEED Silver now in all of our
builds. That's something we're looking for. In everything we build, we look for
LEED Silver.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, and will that be the same as well for any buildings where you're going to
be using the P3 model for construction, for example?
MR. CROCKER:
Absolutely.
MS. MICHAEL:
And government is in control
of those RFPs?
MR. CROCKER:
Yes, absolutely.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you very much.
I'll
just move on to – that's all the general ones I have at this moment – 2.3.01,
Equipment Maintenance.
MR. CROCKER:
Okay, yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Again, it's a salary
question because the Salaries have gone up by $415,500 over the budget of last
year.
MR. CROCKER:
Yes. This is, again, due to
restructuring. Employees reporting to the director of maintenance and equipment
were moved to the maintenance and equipment administration activity, which is
2.2.01. This is administrative support for roads and as a result the funding
associated with these employees has been reallocated, and this does not reflect
in this increase,
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
Under
Purchased Services in the same head, we have a variation here as well.
Do you
have that? That's still 2.3.01.
MR. CROCKER:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. So the variance here is
$581,500 more budgeted for this year over last year's budget. Do we have an
explanation of why that big jump?
MR. CROCKER:
Again, some of this answer
will be repetitive, but this is due to the restructuring in the department, and
employees reporting to the director of maintenance and equipment were moved to
the maintenance and equipment administration activity. As well here, Purchased
Services funding associated with these employees was reallocated and this would
primarily include the funding that's used for the road weather information
system.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
Just out
of curiosity, is there a chart showing the restructuring of the department?
MR. CROCKER:
Yes, we can certainly get
that. Absolutely.
MS. MICHAEL:
He'd love it actually.
Thank
you very much.
Okay,
I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I don't have any on that one (inaudible) on line by lines. My
colleagues are doing a good job at getting through those, for sure.
I have
some more general questions. The first question goes to 1.1.01 under Minister's
Office, and you talked about a ministerial liaison –
MR. CROCKER:
Yes.
MR. LANE:
– to deal with
municipalities. I'm assuming where that's in the Minister's Office, that's a
government appointed position as opposed to a public service position that would
be through the Public Service Commission?
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah. No, that is a political
position. It's compensated, like I said, around the constituency assistant
level.
MR. LANE:
Okay, thank you.
MR. CROCKER:
It's not wholly for
municipalities but it is one of the, I guess, interest –
MR. LANE:
The impetus for doing it,
perhaps.
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah, and I guess it's a lot
more. Our stakeholders – we have a lot of opportunity I think to work with
municipalities, not only municipalities but other groups as well. It's sort of
to get some more emphasis on co-operation.
MR. LANE:
Okay, thank you.
My next
question falls under 1.2.02, it's just a very general question. There was one
item there that somebody asked about, I think it was Professional Services,
where it was $131,800, it went down to $81,800 and then still back up to
$132,500. When asked about it, I think you said you saved money on shredding and
advertising costs but the explanation for continuing was we just decided to keep
it the same as what it was the year before, even though we didn't use it.
Just a
very general question on that. Based on that response, I'm just wondering, is
government still using the zero-based budgeting or has that been abandoned?
MR. CROCKER:
Absolutely not abandoned, and
you'll see lots of times when you look through these Estimates you will see
minor tweaks of 100, 200, 300, 400.
MR. LANE:
Okay.
MR. CROCKER:
That's zero based, but when
it comes to advertising in this department and why we would want to keep that
budget is occupational health and safety is a huge concern of this department.
One of the things we're – public awareness, for example, around construction
zones and some of the issues we see in construction zones, it's really important
that we have the ability to advertise and partner with others when it comes to
advertising, whether it's a construction association or others because awareness
of drivers, I guess all the time, but during construction season is a concern of
ours. We feel it's necessary to keep our advertising budget. You'll see it this
year where we'll have an advertising campaign or some more focus around employee
safety and contractor safety.
MR. LANE:
Okay, good.
Thank
you.
The next
one I guess would fall under 2.1.02. Again, it's a general question because it
relates to signage and so on. I'm just wondering, there was a sign strategy,
TODS I think it's called. I can remember it back in my days of being on the
board of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, I think when it was first –
five or six years, or probably eight years ago now it was brought forward. I
know there was some push back about having this sign strategy, if you will.
I'm just
wondering, is that something that's still on the radar or has that concept sort
of been abandoned and we're just going to stay as we are?
MR. CROCKER:
No, it certainly hasn't been
abandoned. Actually, it's part of my mandate to work with the Minister of
Tourism to get a strategy that works. One of the things that I think we need to
do – maybe a little bit different than it was approached previously – is we need
to work with, primarily, Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador.
There's
no doubt about it, we have significant sign challenges in this province but a
solid strategy is something we're working towards. I met with the Minister of
Tourism just a few weeks ago actually to discuss this very topic, and I know the
Minister of Tourism has regular communications with HNL on this.
No, it
is certainly something that hasn't been abandoned, but we want to do it in a way
that's respectful to business owners. We need to preserve their right to
advertise but we need to do it in a standard of a format as possible.
MR. LANE:
Okay, thank you.
I'm glad
to hear that because I know there was push back at the time. I understand why
there perhaps would be, but I'm glad to hear you're not abandoning it because I
really do think it's the right thing to do, so good.
2.1.03;
again, it's nothing specific but I guess it would fall under there. There's been
a significant issue, as you know, as has been raised by one of my colleagues
about potholes and so on, and I know it's ongoing. It has nothing to do with
who's at the helm or whatever, a pothole is a pothole. It's a challenge, there's
no doubt.
I do
want to thank, by the way, Mr. Dunford here because a number of times I've had
to reach out for him on the ramps going in and out of Mount Pearl. They've been
pretty accommodating, and I realize the challenge. So thanks for that.
I'm just
wondering, have you looked in to or has the department looked in to any
potential new technology or whatever that relates to potholes?
I
mention it because I've seen something on social media recently. You may have
seen it. I don't know if that's even realistic in our climate. I don't know what
the costs are. It might be a pipedream, I don't know, but it looked pretty good
on the computer. I know that's totally different from doing it in practice.
MR. CROCKER:
Yes.
MR. LANE:
I'm just wondering, have you
been looking at, whether it's that technology I'm referring to or other
technologies to try to deal with and keep up with potholes? Because what we've
been doing presently doesn't really work as great as we'd like.
MR. CROCKER:
It's a good question, actually.
We're in
the process, I guess, of finalizing, updating our pothole patching procedure.
That doesn't sound like a very big procedure to update but the last time the
pothole patching procedure was updated in this province was 1994. A lot has
changed in the way potholes are addressed. You're correct, there is equipment
out there today that does that. I'm not sure it works.
One of
the things that we've been successful in this season, I think – and this has a
lot to do with weather conditions – is more and more use of our hot asphalt
recyclers. We have four hot asphalt recyclers and what we did a few weeks ago –
at this point in time the West Coast is not to a point in the season where they
can use their hot asphalt recycler so we brought that one in. We have two in the
Avalon region right now trying to keep up. I think the hot asphalt recycler is
out today.
There is
work around procedures and I guess it comes down to two things. I'm sure we're
all familiar with the Bruce Street potholes this year in the intersection.
MR. LANE:
Absolutely.
MR. CROCKER:
We went there on a number –
number, number and number – of occasions and actually used cold patch. Then, we
found a window, went in there with the recyclers and that was successful. If you
look at cold patch versus the ability to use hot asphalt, I personally think
it's like chalk and cheese, but anywhere we get the opportunity to use it.
To go
back to your point, we're always looking at ways to improve that procedure. If
there are technologies out there we'd certainly be interested again. Some of
these technologies we see like the Python 5000 are probably not really conducive
to our climate and the fact that we're maintaining potholes on 10,000 kilometres
of roads.
MR. LANE:
Okay, thank you for that.
I'm glad
that you're at least continuing to look into it because, as we all know, I'm
sure there's not one Member of the House of Assembly that hasn't gotten numerous
calls about potholes. It's an ongoing issue for sure, as well as municipalities.
Minister, I'm just wondering, I know under 2.1.03 it talks about brush cutting.
How are we doing on brush cutting in terms of keeping up with it to deal with
the moose situation? Are we maintaining the amount of brush cutting that we've
normally been doing and we're planning on continuing?
MR. CROCKER:
Absolutely, we are
maintaining. We budget approximately $2 million a year for brush cutting. When
we're doing larger summer construction projects, we'll also include brush
cutting in that.
There's
always a need for brush cutting because, obviously, it's just the nature of
growing. It's going to be a continuous cycle, so if we're ever fortunate enough
to get to a place where we can keep ahead of it – our engineering staff and our
regional staff are always asked to compile hotspots, I would call it. So we
address it in that way. If we identify a hotspot with moose, for example, we'll
put a priority to it.
Yes,
we're still working with SOPAC. We do some funding with SOPAC. We were able to
continue that coming into this fiscal year for their public awareness campaign
and some of the great work they do around awareness and their hotline. Any time
we can give motorists a heads-up or some knowledge of where there's a moose
incident or a moose opportunity or an incident, it is worthwhile doing.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Minister.
I see my
time is up so I'll defer.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Minister, we've gone through
the road maintenance section but there are a couple of questions, outstanding
ones that I'd ask before I move on to another section.
The list
of roads, of course, for the province, there's been much conversation over the
last year or so since you implemented the five-year Roads Plan. It's meant to be
an open and transparent – issuing of all roads, of course, for all of our
provincial roads, the 10,000-and-some-odd kilometres we have. I've asked many
times for a list of roads but I've never received them. Is there an official
list of all the roads and where they score somewhere in the department?
MR. CROCKER:
Understanding the process of how we get to where we are with our Roads Plan, the
first level of feedback comes from our local staff. Our local staff would go out
and identify in their region this road, this road and this road. Then they bring
these roads to our regional engineers and they bring it to our senior engineers.
Then, in the late fall we have public input and then we finalize.
We're at
a point right now where we're only updating 25 per cent. This year, of a
$64-million roads budget, we had about $16 million to put – because we'd already
committed. You can go online this morning and see that 75 per cent of our road
projects for next year are there. They are planned, we see it and that's an
input.
There
isn't a database that has every single piece of every 10,000 kilometres of roads
in this province in it because, obviously, by the time you got to there, it
wouldn't be a five-year Roads Plan; it would be a 20-year roads plan. The
reality is our engineers go out, we look at traffic counts; we look at local
roads versus Route 1, 2, 3, 75, our trunk roads.
We need
to leave that flexibility of that 25 per cent, for example, going into next year
for emerging priorities because I can tell you, you see things deteriorate fast.
Especially around bridges and stuff, you see quick deterioration. This is a
snapshot in time and that's why we leave the number of 25 per cent for the next
construction season.
MR. PETTEN:
My point – and I don't want
to belabour it because I've asked this many times as you're well aware and I'm
sure officials in the department are well aware. But from my standpoint, and a
lot of people's standpoint, that's not what was advertised, that's not the way
it was introduced. It was a five-year Roads Program; it was taking the politics
out of paving.
I get
that. I wasn't opposed to that when it was announced. Actually, I didn't think
it was a bad plan. But I've always argued, and you've heard me say it many times
– and I say it in all sincerity – where is this list? It was said there's a list
but there's no list.
I'll use
examples. You've heard me talk about Route 60, and most – Joe, I'm sure, has
heard me say it a million times and I'll keep saying it because it's one of the
busiest roads in the province. All the criteria for you rating a road, Route 60
is the poster child for it. It's probably the fifth busiest road in the province
– you're looking at use, population, needs, what have you – but it's nowhere to
be found. I've never ever been able to find where that road ranks on the list
MR. CROCKER:
And that's fair, but I think
– and our approach to that is if you look at Route 60, we look at it as a local
road. Government's mandate for –we look at ones, twos and threes. That's our
priority.
Government built Route 2, Peacekeepers Way, in a way so that we would relieve
ourselves of the responsibilities of local roads like Route 60. This is one of
those roads that we want to work with the town on and finding a way going
forward. There are many advantages and, I guess, if you talk to the town there
are many disadvantages of municipalities taking over roads like Route 60. But
some of the best sections of Route 60 you'll find in Paradise.
If you
look at that section in Paradise, it's the stuff that's maintained by the town.
This is a road that when Mount Pearl, for example, took over Topsail Road from –
when government starts building Outer Ring Roads and Harbour Arterials,
traditionally roads like Route 60 are devolved down to the town.
Our
primary focus in that region of the province would be Peacekeepers Way and we
have investment again going into Peacekeepers Way this year. I do understand the
conversation you and I are having here, your frustration on Route 60. It's
something we met with the town as recently as last week to keep the conversation
going, but it's important to us that priority is given to our ones, twos and
threes, our main trunks in the province.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay. We'll continue on with that one. To be continued.
MR. CROCKER:
I'm sure.
MR. PETTEN:
Under 2.2.02 in the Building Utilities and Maintenance section. Is that where
our government assets are located? Is that where –
MR. CROCKER:
2.2.02?
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah. It's the revenue, I guess, is probably what I'm asking. Is that to do with
– is that any of our government assets? I know it's government-owned buildings.
Is that where our government assets are stored, any buildings or used or
unoccupied, I guess?
MR. CROCKER:
So you're asking about the revenue here?
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah, well, I guess. So what's the revenue, basically?
MR. CROCKER:
It's revenue from rental of government buildings, sale of steam heat, parking
meters and revenue from, I guess, our agreement with even the cafeterias here in
Confederation Building. There is revenue that comes back from the operator of
the cafeterias.
MR. PETTEN:
So what have you received in the sale of government assets to date?
MR. CROCKER:
In Transportation and Works?
MR. PETTEN:
I guess, yeah, well that usually falls under –
MR. CROCKER:
I don't have that list right in front of me. I know, for example, we sold the
Holyes-Escasoni Complex.
One of
the things for Transportation and Works that we really focus on is our reduction
in footprint. As I said earlier, we've reduced our footprint by 90,000, with
substantial more footprint being reduced. Again, FLR closes today and we're
looking at reducing government footprint by probably another 20,000 or 30,000
square feet on the West Coast. So that's where we see it.
Our
number of assets at TW are somewhat limited when you think about it because the
sale of, for example, old school properties. That sale is done by the
Newfoundland and Labrador English School District. So some of the properties
that government would have would be primarily health facilities. I know, for
example, right now we're in talks in Lab West with bringing that building off.
One of
the things when you talked about the sale of government buildings, it's one
thing to look at the dollar figure you receive for a building, the other thing
is to look at the liability you're getting off the books because in lots of
cases many of these assets don't really have a lot of real estate value but they
have a big value to us in savings that you would see in heating costs, security
costs, insurance costs and just all liabilities associated with it.
MR. PETTEN:
Minister, also the Budget Speech mentioned Asset Management Framework. Can you
offer any details on that?
MR. CROCKER:
That is actually being lead by the Department of Finance, but, I guess, in a
smaller piece, if you want to look at this department, two things that did
happen in the budget that are management tools, and not so much on the asset
side is – well, they are assets obviously – the entire government fleet, light
vehicle fleet resides in Transportation and Works, where previously each
government department would have so many cars, for example.
We did a
very extensive review of that and found that what happens in lots of cases – and
I'll give a couple of examples – is, for example, Tourism wouldn't be using
their cars in the winter as much as they would use them in the summer. Other
departments use cars more in the winter.
What
we're in the process of doing now is setting up a method or a management system
where a government employee or a government department requiring a car for
tomorrow, you phone up and you book a car. That's how we'll determine how many
cars we need in our fleet.
We've
already determined that we're going to reduce our light vehicle fleet this year
by 10 per cent. What you'll quickly start seeing is when you look at cars and
government owned vehicles, you'll no longer see the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador, the department of works, services and transportation, you're going
to see Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on the vehicle fleet.
We've
done the same thing this year. Previously, departments came to Transportation
and Works and said: We want some space here, we want to keep this space or we
want to do that. Really, we were just the key holder, but now Transportation and
Works actually has all the leases for government in the department. We'll be
able to make the final decisions on where departments are located and how their
space is allocated.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Coming
to 2.3.02, Maintenance of Equipment. Okay?
MR. CROCKER:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Under Purchased Services in
that head, the Purchased Services went up in the revision by over $633,000.
Could we have an explanation because it's back down again for this year, but
there seemed to be a big bump in last year's expenditure?
MR. CROCKER:
Yes, that was an overrun primarily due to outsourcing of repairs for winter
fleet preparation. Costs can vary on availability of in-house staff, the
complexity of the work we're into and, obviously, labour and material costs.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
In the
same head under Revenue, 02, provincial revenue, you maintained $82,000 there
although it went down by $30,000 last year in the revision.
What is
the source of that revenue? That's going to be question I'll be asking
consistently. What is the source of the revenue there?
MR. CROCKER:
The source of that revenue is the sale of old equipment and all OH and S-related
expenditures for equipment maintenance are 100 per cent covered by WorkplaceNL.
So there's revenue that comes back from WorkplaceNL.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
I'd like
to ask a question so that I don't forget it. It goes back to something that was
asked by Mr. Petten.
When the
school board sells property, does that revenue stay within their revenue
coffers?
MR. CROCKER:
I asked that same question last week and the answer that I got was – it's best
asked to Education, but my understanding was it's quite possible that it stays
with the eastern school district, but I wouldn't want to be quoted on that. I
think that's more of an Education question, but what they do is that sale is
done by Newfoundland and Labrador English School District.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right. Okay, well then we have Education tomorrow morning, I'll make sure
I ask that question then.
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
Coming
back now to the line items here, 2.3.03, Equipment Acquisitions. Again, under
Property, Furnishings and Equipment, which is, of course, what the main line is
there. There was a big increase last year of over $490,000. This year there's a
big jump downwards, spending $884,000 less.
So could
we have an explanation of that whole area? What the equipment is that's provided
there. Well, it's the heavy equipment and light vehicles, I see.
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah, so the deficit here can be mainly attributed to cost of two brine tankers
that we were trying to secure and two new snowplows because, unfortunately, on
January 7, we had a fire at the Bellevue depot and we lost two trucks. So we had
to find ways within the department to go out as rapidly as possible to replace
those two vehicles. That's why you see the difference here.
MS. MICHAEL:
The big difference, right. Okay.
And just
out of curiosity, what kind of tankers? What were they?
MR. CROCKER:
Brine tankers. So what we do on our larger highways is, in anticipation of a
snow event, we actually lay what I'll call a saltwater mix before the storm and
it helps with the initial cleanup.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, so B-R-I-N-E tankers.
MR. CROCKER:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
Again,
under 2.3.03, there's provincial revenue. What is the source of that revenue?
Last year we got more than we expected?
MR. CROCKER:
There's $28,000 that relates to one-time revenue from Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro – just imagine, government getting revenue from Hydro – as a reimbursement
of costs of a vehicle required for post-transmission line construction
monitoring south of Bay du Nord Wilderness Reserve.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's the kind of thing that
–
MR. CROCKER:
That would be if we are able to achieve revenue from someone using our
resources, our vehicle, we would charge them.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
Moving
on then to Highway Design and Construction, 3.1.01, my only question here has to
do with Purchased Services. There was an expense that seemed to be maybe a
one-time expense because it's $45,000 more than what had been budgeted.
MR. CROCKER:
This overrun is primarily due to higher electricity costs related to the
electrical systems and traffic lighting that TW is responsible for. We need to
find efficiencies to offset some of these electrical costs.
We've
done some work here; for example, at Confederation Building and other places
where we're looking to LED lighting. There are opportunities but getting to more
efficient lighting, for example, takes time and, unfortunately, it takes money.
These are things that we're going to need to do as we go forward for savings
when it comes to electricity costs.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
Related
to that, what happened this week though with regard to taking down light
standards in our parking lots here? That was more related to the wind, was it,
or …?
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah, that was related to an ongoing issue. Back a few weeks ago we had a pole
that actually fell, so we immediately, for safety reasons, called in an outside
company to do some non-destructive testing. What they found was deterioration in
a number of our light poles here at Confederation Building.
Last
week, after we received that independent advice, we immediately removed all the
poles that were of immediate threat. That's something we'll work in the next
coming little while to get replaced but, again, we'll be looking to – there may
even be more come down yet because we're going to make sure that all the poles
are safe. If we're doing the job, it's just as well to make sure we do as much
of it as possible.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right, because right now we
have temporary lighting, I think, don't we.
MR. CROCKER:
We do have temporary
lighting. Our safety staff have reviewed that and made sure there is ample
lighting. We're somewhat fortunate to the time of the year, but it's important
that we have the lighting. We'll maintain the safety with temporary lighting
until such a time that we can get the poles replaced.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Thank you very much.
Coming
down then to 3.1.02, this is where we have the engineers. I'm not going to ask
why we have the jump in the salaries because I'm assuming this is it for 3.1.02,
Project Management and Design. It has a big variance of $601,500.
MR. CROCKER:
You're correct. That is the
reallocation.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's the engineers, right;
the reallocation. How many engineers are on staff?
MR. CROCKER:
Cory doesn't have that number
right there with him this morning, but he can certainly get that number for you.
It is a large number of our staff because we have regional engineers, then we
have our senior engineers and we have some junior engineers. We have a large
engineering staff.
MS. MICHAEL:
I would imagine the answer to
my question is, yes, but does the government have to really try to keep salaries
in that area at industry standards?
MR. CROCKER:
We do. To be quite frank and
honest, we struggle competing with the private sector lots of times when it
comes to engineering staff. There's no doubt about it, it's a struggle keeping
those professionals within government. There are lots of opportunities outside
of government for engineers. It's an ongoing battle.
MS. MICHAEL:
Ongoing battle, right.
Thank
you.
Under 01
of that section, Purchased Services; there was a big variance last year
downwards, actually. Do you have that there now, the Purchased Services under
3.1.02?
MR. CROCKER:
Right, one of the variances
was reallocation of funding for rentals to rightsize the budget and resultant
increases in the accommodation and leases. That would be something you would see
show up in other parts.
There
was another. Some of that savings was on building insurance. This is demand
driven and can vary depending on the number of claims during the year.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CROCKER:
That was the variance in the
revised. In the '18-'19 budget the $153,000 is mainly due to reallocation of
funds to other areas of the department's budget.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Before we carry on, we're going to take a short break and reconvene in seven
minutes.
Recess
CHAIR:
Okay, we'll get started
again.
We shall
go to the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Under 2.3.03 in Equipment
Acquisitions you had said about the vehicle fleet, a reduction of 10 per cent
and whatnot. How many vehicles were there to begin with?
MR. CROCKER:
1,121.
MR. PETTEN:
Good. How many were purchased this year, or will be?
MR. CROCKER: I
don't have that information – how many were purchased?
MR. PETTEN: How
many were purchased this year, yes.
MR. CROCKER: I
wouldn't have that information; I can certainly get it for you. It might take a
little bit of time because last year – or we don't know that?
OFFICIAL: No, we
didn't have it.
MR. CROCKER: It
will be a little bit easier next year to tell you because it's all going to be
TW.
In the previous fiscal year, everybody would have had their
own vehicle acquisition. One of the things now is that we have a central
acquisition. This hopefully will be a way to achieve some savings also. We can
get those numbers of how many vehicles were purchased in the previous year for
you.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
One other thing I skipped to mention, 2.3.01, just above
it, you mentioned about outsourcing of repairs. Mechanics; how many vacancies
are there now? How many mechanics are in the province?
MR. CROCKER: In
heavy equipment technicians?
I was expecting this question so I got the number this
morning. The current number is 18.
MR. PETTEN:
Eighteen mechanics on staff?
MR. CROCKER: No,
vacant positions.
MR. PETTEN:
Vacant positions. Wow.
MR. CROCKER:
That's province wide.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. CROCKER:
Just to add quickly to that,
we constantly have an ad looking for heavy equipment technicians. We have six
jobs posted today and if we fill those six, we'd post six more.
MR. PETTEN:
So 18 from how many? How many
are on staff? What's the normal staff count?
MR. CROCKER:
105.
MR. PETTEN:
What?
MR. CROCKER:
105.
MR. PETTEN:
105 mechanic positions in –
MR. CROCKER:
In the province, yes.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay and we're down – 18
vacancies?
MR. CROCKER:
We have 18 vacancies.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. CROCKER:
Unfortunately, that number's
been consistent for quite some time.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
Equipment Acquisitions, you've referenced this tow plow. Is there a new tow plow
being purchased?
MR. CROCKER:
We have plans to purchase at
least one, maybe two. We haven't really finalized our acquisitions plan for
heavy equipment yet this year, but it is our intention right now to purchase
another, maybe two more tow plows.
MR. PETTEN:
Even though the budget has
dropped this year from last, do you still plan on purchasing out of that?
MR. CROCKER:
We do.
Some of
the budget decrease here you would see, too, is we're anticipating savings from
– the light fleet is in here as well. We're going to reduce the light fleet this
year by 10 per cent. Not only that, we feel there are savings to be found with
consolidation of the light vehicle fleet.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay, one more question on
that.
Recyclers, you say, seem to be somewhat successful. Are there any plans to buy
any more?
MR. CROCKER:
What was that, sorry?
MR. PETTEN:
Asphalt recyclers; are there
any plans to buy more?
MR. CROCKER:
We haven't set out our
equipment infrastructure plan for this year, but it's certainly back to the
Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands' question or comment earlier about always
looking for technology. That's something that we do. That's in this budget.
We'll look for – if there is equipment that helps, for example, with potholes,
we're certainly open to looking at that equipment.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Next
we're going back up now to 3.2.02. We're on Infrastructure under Road
Construction. I have a couple of more general questions for that area as opposed
to probably line by line.
MR. CROCKER:
Okay.
MR. PETTEN:
I'm going to go back to your
bridge inspections. When are they carried out, yearly?
MR. CROCKER:
The mandate on bridge
inspections is every two years.
MR. PETTEN:
Every two years?
MR. CROCKER:
Every two years, yeah.
MR. PETTEN:
I know there's been some
recent attention paid to one particular bridge.
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah.
MR. PETTEN:
The Mutton Bay Bridge on
Route 10 that was supposedly assessed in 2015.
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah.
MR. PETTEN:
Was there another inspection done in 2017 on that bridge?
MR. GRANDY:
That was likely to be inspected this winter again. So the next time we post
bridge inspection results – I would think you would see the updated report for a
bridge that was inspected in 2015 posted now after we get our website updated
with the new bridge inspections completed over the winter season.
That's
usually when the bridge inspections are done, during the engineering downtime
over the winter period. Then you can see it updated in the next year.
MR. PETTEN:
When would you expect an updated report?
MR. GRANDY:
It will be sometime this spring or early summer when we would put that up.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Minister, the Team Gushue Highway; there's $13.7 million announced in the
budget. What's the status of the project? Where are we with the project now?
MR. CROCKER:
Obviously, the contract was awarded about a year ago. The contractor is still in
place. We've had conversations with the contractor as recently, I think, as last
week. They anticipate an early mobilization. We've seen some early mobilization
throughout the Avalon region; we actually have summer road construction projects
happening.
There is
activity on Team Gushue right now. The company that's doing the Topsail Road
overpass is on site and the roadbed contractor anticipates to be on site within
the next couple of weeks. The next step right now at Team Gushue is the concrete
median and the installation of the above-ground lighting. There were some
challenges that, I think, we have worked through with the city with regard to
stormwater tie-ins on – what's the road – on Brier Avenue. We've addressed a lot
of these concerns and it should be full steam ahead once the contractor is able
to get back on site in the next couple of weeks.
MR. PETTEN:
There's $2 million in the budget for brush cutting along provincial highways.
Have you decided where that work would be done yet?
MR. CROCKER:
No, we wouldn't have gotten the assessments back yet I wouldn't think.
Wholeheartedly, the reality is our staff right now is focused on the summer
maintenance program. We do have the opportunity this year, actually I think, to
have the earliest brush-cutting tenders ever out.
But as
most people here would be aware, brush clearing is an activity that we can't do
between May and the end of August. The 1st of May until the end of August we
can't do brush clearing due to some environmental concerns. There's fire safety
risk as well. Once we get past our Roads Plan and our construction plan, we'll
get on to brush-cutting.
MR. PETTEN:
Under 3.2.04, there are a number of agreements and funds over the next few
pages, but could you perhaps give some overview of the status of these
agreements?
MR. CROCKER:
Tracy, would you like to do that? Could you go through the funding agreements?
MS. KING:
So if we look at these, there are a series of federal agreements that are coming
to a close. The first one being the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund. This
year you'll see the last of that agreement, just some clue up and final receipt
of revenue from the federal government and then that program will be over.
The next
agreement you'll see is the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Infrastructure
Framework Agreement. From here this is largely where we are paying for Team
Gushue, right? Yes. Team Gushue largely comes from this section.
Then we
move into the current and the program most active right now, which is the New
Building Canada, and this is one of the funds that we use most heavily. The work
on the TCH that we did last year would all be from here. We have close to $20
million from New Building Canada each year that contributes to the Roads Program
in current and capital.
So those
are the pots of federal funding. As well, the Trans-Labrador Highway you'll see
here separately with federal funding. Then there's the new Investing in Canada
plan, which is the federal government's newest infrastructure program that's
just starting to come on stream. So you'll see a small amount of money in the
budget this year in anticipation so we can be ready for the new federal program.
So
that's just an overview of how the federal programs kind of fit together.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay, thanks.
I
slipped in the last few seconds. Back in 3.2.02, under Purchased Services,
significantly less was spent than was budgeted from last year, almost $9.3
million actually and almost $8.2 million was added again this year. Can you
explain why this is?
MR. CROCKER:
That line is related to the South Coast rain event, the Thanksgiving storm. So,
obviously, when we have these events, we budget an amount, when the snow goes
you get down and see it, and then this was just an exercise of being
overcautious or budgeting more than, actually.
The
reality, when you look at these numbers, it's not a number that we can actually
reallocate because there's a revenue offset on this. So this one would be – at
this point in time when you get into those type of numbers – 90-10 with the
feds, but it's obviously not money we can access for anything else because
obviously it's related to this one, I guess, insurance claim against the
disaster fund.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Okay.
The
Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
(Inaudible) catch up to see
where I am.
So that
was 3.2.02, let's stay there for a minute then.
MR. CROCKER:
3.2.02?
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, 3.2.02. Looking at the
salary line, the salary line is going up by $237,000 this year over last year's
budget.
MR. CROCKER:
This just simply reflects the
salary requirements for the Provincial Roads Plan. That's a standard percentage
allocation, so when we look at each one of our roads projects, we allocate a
certain percentage of staffing allowance. This is why there's a fluctuation in
this. It may be something that didn't require it, sometimes it may require it.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, so knowing what you
want to do this year, it looks like it's going to (inaudible).
MR. CROCKER:
Right, and that fluctuates
with any project. If a project, for example, takes longer than anticipated, our
staffing costs go up. If a project is shorter than anticipated, our staffing
costs will go down.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right, thank you.
You've
given an answer to another question. So I think all that's been taken care of.
Okay, the federal question has been taken care of.
I'm
trying not to repeat.
MR. CROCKER:
No, that's fine.
MS. MICHAEL:
You gave answers to some of
my questions so I want to be careful not to repeat.
In
3.2.06, here my question is about the Salaries. I note that the budget last year
was $1.5 million and only $686,000 was spent and then this year up to $1.1
million, so an explanation.
MR. CROCKER:
This is Project Management
again. So it reflects the costs with major roads projects.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, so it relates back to
what you just explained.
MR. CROCKER:
Right.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
Under
3.2.08, would be the same answer with regard to Salaries? It looks like it might
be.
MR. CROCKER:
It is the same answer. It's
related to the projects in question.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Will the
briefing book have a list of the various projects under here?
OFFICIAL:
It does.
MR. CROCKER:
It does.
MS. MICHAEL:
It does. Okay, so I won't ask
for that.
MR. CROCKER:
If there's a question that you don't – feel free to reach out.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you very much.
All
right, I'm going to ask a couple of questions related – well, one actually. The
Auditor General, as you know, was quite critical of the department's road
maintenance and construction efforts and in June last year the department issued
a statement recognizing the problems. You noted the department is working on new
initiatives and you've talked about that already today somewhat.
I do
comment positively on the Five-Year Provincial Roads Plan. That's something I've
always said we should be doing and delighted government is doing that.
Has the
final report on the night construction pilot project been done because I was
really interested in that?
MR. CROCKER: Yes,
it's something that, if you don't mind, I'll take a minute to talk about.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. CROCKER: We
haven't put the final pen to paper, and that being, we wanted to continue the
conversation with the Heavy Civil Association. It's their membership that did
this work.
As you would have noticed in this year's Roads Plan, we
haven't planned for a nighttime project.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right.
MR. CROCKER: The
reason we haven't planned for it is to make nighttime construction, I guess,
practical and affordable, we need projects of a certain scale. The reality is –
and one thing I think that we learned last year – in order to do effective
nighttime and safe nighttime paving, I think the idea of using road closures and
detours is the safest, most practical way of doing it. So now when we look at
our projects coming into the season, we have to find areas where – safety is
always first – there's a detour available.
We're finalizing that report. The construction association
has had a lot of input in it. To be frank, we found some safety concerns,
certainly not from the contractors or from government side last year, we found
some concerns from some actions of the general public.
I can tell you I was on site one night, Cory and I and some
more department officials, and even with the road closure we had – in the hour
or so we were there – three vehicles that actually ignored the road closures and
came on through.
There are things that we have to make sure – for safety
reasons – that are all in place. We should have that final piece of paper ready
really soon, but I think the general public appreciated the nighttime
construction. It's something that we totally plan on doing again in the future,
but, again, it would be project by project.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Thank you.
That makes sense knowing our road system. It's a bit
different than the 401 in Toronto.
MR. CROCKER:
That's right. Exactly.
Really, there's only a few places in the province where
traffic demands would really accommodate nighttime,
and it's really here –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah, because it's really
here on the Northeast Avalon, and it carries a premium price. We pay for it. If
you do nighttime construction you're paying for it.
I think
one of the things it did give us a pause to look at is even if you look at
daytime construction, are there opportunities to be using detours? Because
safety of our employees, safety of contractors' employees is of the utmost
importance and efficiencies.
I think
it did teach us, too, and you'll see some more wording in contracts this year
about making sure contractors are off the road in peak hours so that we're not
creating traffic problems.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right, thank you.
Minister, certainly the Five-Year Provincial Roads Plan was something that, as
I've noted, was a great move forward. Can you give us an update on what you're
doing with regard to remediating some of the other problems identified by the
AG?
MR. CROCKER:
I think I'll turn that over
to you, Tracy, because you're –
MS. KING:
Yeah, and I might actually get Cory to take us through because it's a bit
technical and I just as soon let the engineers kind of talk to the response to
the AG.
MR. CROCKER:
(Inaudible) or just the AG's
report as a whole?
MS. MICHAEL:
Well the maintenance and
construction, I think, were some of the key areas.
MR. CROCKER:
Right. So –
MS. KING:
I'll do it.
MR. CROCKER:
Okay.
MS. KING:
In response to the AG, I
think one of the big things, of course, was the five-year plan because it really
looked at how we do project selection. One of the other pieces that the AG's
report highlighted was late tendering and then issuing tenders very late in the
season when you knew it was impossible to get the work done.
Again,
that's another benefit of the Roads Plan, and we're seeing that. We've been
having those discussions internally. Getting your work out in a reasonable time;
not setting up the expectation that you're automatically going to carry projects
over in to the next year. We've done a lot better on that and we see it both for
the benefit of the contractors, of course, and to the department's bottom line
in being able to get more work done in a given season if people can start early
and doing a better job of our upfront planning to know what we're asking people
to do.
The AG's
report also highlighted a number of concerns about how we manage our pavement
and how we assess, more technically, where some of our weaknesses are. That's
one of the issues, frankly, we're still trying to work our way through in how
we're going to enhance our pavement management system and what that looks like.
So that's an ongoing discussion in the department about how we can use more
evidence-base to inform our pavement condition information and analysis going
forward.
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah, I guess even to that
point, one of the pilot projects we did last year was the test stripping on the
Trans-Canada.
MS. MICHAEL:
I was just going to ask that.
MR. CROCKER:
We've laid down some test
strips. We'll do an early analysis of that now, actually, in the coming weeks.
We don't suspect we'll see very much in that.
One of
the other things we've decided to do this year in consultation with the industry
– last year we consulted with the industry of different formulas of how to do
this. Actually, we're going to add one additional test strip this year, and I
can tell you the industry is quite pleased we're laying them, because we hear
consistently from an industry that are all competitors – they feel that some of
the pavement quality is not there. So they've actually asked if they could lay a
test strip of a mix that they, as a group, have come together to say we think
this is the best formula.
We have
seen success, I think – and it's hard to gauge it, because we're doing so much
mill and fill and so many lane kilometres, but credit where credit is due. In
2014, the department on its high volume highway started using polymer in their
mix. We're seeing results with the use of polymer that are positive, without a
doubt. The general public wouldn't actually see it, but we're seeing our testing
primarily on the Outer Ring Road and Route 2 that polymer is working.
MS. MICHAEL:
Would that be related to the
rutting that we get, that would be improved with the polymer?
MR. CROCKER:
Yes. What we're seeing early
– again, the department started putting polymer in their tenders in the summer
of 2014, and we're seeing some of that asphalt that was laid back – sorry. It's
even like our test strips, we're really not going to see significant results in
this probably until next year. We're finding that the pavement that was laid in
2014 with polymer is standing up.
MS. MICHAEL:
Oh, good.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Okay.
The
Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you.
Mr.
Minister, just a quick follow-up on the question you're already answering there.
Is it possible, I wonder, that as opposed to just the mix and what's in it,
could it be related to thickness? That's something that's been suggested.
I know
sometimes you see areas where there was rutting or whatever, and you can
actually see the asphalt that was there and you get like a hole or whatever. It
would appear to the naked eye that it's really, really thin. So some people seem
to have the impression that it's a case of making it thinner so that it goes a
greater distance, as opposed to doing it right the first time. Is that something
that's …?
MR. CROCKER:
I'm going to give you my
answer as a non-engineer –
MR. LANE:
Yeah.
MR. CROCKER:
– and then I may turn it back
to the engineers, but an interesting question.
One of
the first questions I asked when I came over to TW back in late July was why is
this in – we always lay in lifts, regardless of how many lifts there are, so
you're going to see that. We'll typically lay in a 40 mil or a 50 mil lift. So
you would still see that result no matter how thick it is.
If you
look at, for example, the Outer Ring Road, you're probably dealing with nine or
10 inches of pavement on that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER:
I don't know if it's that much, but it's several inches, yes.
MR. CROCKER:
It will probably be six
inches or greater of pavement now on the Outer Ring Road. So it's a raveling
effect. What we have found is if you cut down through and take a cross-section,
it's not an impact, it's actually raveling. Many reasons why, I guess
contractors will tell you it is air voids, it is different compaction levels and
how we mix our pavement.
One of
the other things that some people actually – and this usually sparks a good
argument – is we have the highest level of studded tire use in Newfoundland and
Labrador as you have anywhere in North America, or certainly in Canada and the
northern US. We use studded tires more than anybody else. Some would argue it's
a factor, some would argue it's not. We'll argue that it is a factor.
That's
some of the reasons for it. I don't know if someone wants to add to more of a
technical –?
MR. GRANDY:
The minister did a pretty good job of describing, actually, in terms of how the
pavement deteriorates. It's not as if the pavement is deflecting. I think if you
were to sort of paint that picture you're talking about, if the pavement was
thicker people would have an image that it wouldn't deflect as much, but that's
not actually the problem as it happens.
The
minister used a term pavement unravels, it's a raveling effect. The parts of the
asphalt that bind it together seem to be coming undone and it allows the
pavement to wear in that fashion as opposed to deflecting. If we were to remove
all the asphalt, we see that the roadbed is not deflecting. So it's not a
roadbed problem. It's more in that wear layer, that top surface coat of asphalt.
MR. LANE:
Okay.
MR. GRANDY:
So the test stripping we talked about, or playing with the asphalt mix design,
several variables that go into that and experimenting with that mixture to find
out what mixture works best in our environment.
MR. LANE:
Okay.
Thank
you.
I know
there was a bunch of questions asked on the Team Gushue Highway. I did miss a
little bit because I had a constituency emergency that just sort of came up, but
I don't want to be repetitive. I'm glad to see that we're getting back on track
but, obviously, that impacts my general area.
Minister, on the Team Gushue Highway I guess I'm wondering – this is not
something I would have normally raised when it was the district of Mount Pearl
South. Now it's the district of Mount Pearl - Southlands so it becomes more
relevant to me in my constituency.
I was a
member of the Mount Pearl city council at the time that absolutely,
categorically refused to have anything to do with covering any of the costs,
capital or operational, on that section of the Team Gushue Highway. I felt then,
as I feel now, it's a provincial highway and it's really linking up two
sections, Robert E. Howlett and the current section, that are already maintained
by the province. All you're doing is connecting the one road. It's the same
highway whether it goes through the city or not.
I think
the City of St. John's made an ill-advised decision to ever agree to taking on
the maintenance of it. I understand they're having second thoughts now, which I
knew they would. You talked about secondary roads, Route 60 and so on. This is,
without doubt, a major highway. It's no different than Veterans' Memorial,
Torbay Bypass. So what, it goes through the city. Big deal, it's still the same
highway.
I have
to ask this, I suppose, more so as my role as a constituency MHA and people in
Southlands having to pay for this. Is there any opportunity to revisit that
decision?
MR. CROCKER:
It is our anticipation that once Team Gushue is completed it will become the
property of the City of St. John's. We realize that, as an example, we have to
turn it over in a certain – up to a good standard. That will involve some work
on the existing part of Team Gushue. We would not expect the city to take Team
Gushue in any form of disrepair. When we turn it over we want to turn it over as
a new highway, but we anticipate turning Team Gushue over to the city.
MR. LANE:
But, Minister, once this is
completed, it's going to be one highway, right? It's going to go from the Outer
Ring Road to Bay Bulls Road – or to the Goulds, Middle Pond, whatever. It is one
road.
Is what
you're anticipating going to happen? Works, services, transportation are going
to plow the snow from the Outer Ring Road up to Kenmount Road and then the City
of St. John's is going to plow it from Kenmount Road to Heavy Tree Road area and
Ruby Line, I guess. Then the provincial government is going to plow it again.
Doesn't that seem a bit ludicrous on the same road?
MR. CROCKER:
I guess the reality on that
we're really talking a conversation that happened a long time ago, and a
conversation that will happen a long time ahead, because by the time we get to
Robert E. Howlett that's quite a time from now.
We're
going to continue to have a conversation with the city and we're having good
conversations with the city now. I don't mean at all to deflect, but if you look
at – we're having good traffic and good road construction conversations with the
city and this is one we'll continue to have. The road was built on the premise
that when Team Gushue was completed, the province would no longer maintain it,
it would become a city-maintained road.
I think
this opens up an opportunity for a lot of conversations that we need to have
with municipalities when it comes to servicing roads. It's not necessarily about
the province saying: Here's your road, go away and look after it. We have to
find ways. We all have resources and how do we get the best value for all those
resources, whether it is snow clearing or pothole patching.
I think
we have a lot of work to do with municipalities when it comes to roads
throughout the province, whether it's St. John's, CBS, Harbour Grace or
somewhere on the West Coast. If there's a conversation around roads,
municipalities and us, let's find a way to work together on it.
MR. LANE:
Okay, thank you for your
response, Minister. For obvious reasons we'll agree to disagree on your
decision. I still think it's ludicrous but they signed up for it.
Minister, the other question I had now – this is a specific one because I have
only a couple of minutes left. This is very specific. The Outer Ring Road,
westbound ramp going in to Mount Pearl, you go down and you have this stop sign
and then you can turn left to go towards Donovans or you can turn right to go
towards the Paradise roundabout there on Kenmount Road. That stop sign situation
and trying to make a left-hand turn there, I'm surprised I haven't seen
accidents there. Surprisingly I haven't. I'm sure there must be because it's
absolute madness there in peak hours for sure.
Generally, I'll go and make a right turn, take the roundabout and go and come
back again basically. I think some people started doing that. But there was talk
at one point, I had heard, about maybe some traffic lights or something going
there to try to alleviate that situation. I'm just wondering are there any plans
to do anything with that particular ramp that you're aware?
MR. CROCKER:
I agree. I've done the exact
same thing as you've done. I think it's a conversation we'd have to have with
the city.
Now that
you say it, so that officials are listening, there's the exact same situation
ever since we had the new development on Kelsey Drive where Suncor has moved
into those two new office buildings and you have 300 new cars on Kelsey Drive
every day. When you're coming down off Team Gushue now to make a left-hand turn,
say, to go onto Goldstone Street, you're running into the same challenge. We'll
certainly take that away as – I've done both and you're right, the traffic
volumes on both are concerning.
I'm not
sure. It would have to be a conversation we'd have to have with respect to the
cities.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Minister.
I just
wanted to put it out there for the record and for your attention.
MR. CROCKER:
No, it's a good point. Yeah.
MR. LANE:
It is, indeed, an issue for a lot of people –
MR. CROCKER:
It is.
MR. LANE:
– in my district and I'm sure throughout the whole region.
Thank
you.
MR. CROCKER:
The same thing with Goldstone Street. It's terrible in the afternoon.
CHAIR:
The Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, under 3.2.12, Land Acquisition, what's the increase in $3 million from
last year's budget? It's gone back to $2 million now so, obviously, there was a
$5-million acquisition.
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah, this was the result of a legal settlement regarding an old file on
expropriation for Team Gushue.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
3.3.02, Low Carbon Economy, have you done an analysis on the cost of the carbon
tax cut and what impact it could have on your department? I'd say Transportation
and Works may be the most affected department by this.
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah. If the feds do institute the carbon tax on January 1 as they said they
will, for the last three months of this fiscal year, January, February and
March, it's something that we're confident we can absorb within our existing
budgets. But it will certainly be a budgetary consideration as we go into our
planning for fiscal '19-'20.
We feel
comfortable we can absorb the three months of this year, this fiscal, but after
that it will be a conversation we'll have to have going forward. You are
correct; TW will be the department, in all likelihood, affected most when it
comes to being a landlord and building owner.
MR. PETTEN:
Any analysis on that will be done as the year progresses, I'm assuming, will it?
MR. CROCKER:
Yes, as the year progresses, as we go into budgetary planning for fiscal
'19-'20.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
3.4.01, School Facilities, it's self-explanatory in some of the adjustments
there that you said so I won't go there, but I wanted to ask some questions
regarding the school construction.
The
Mobile school extension, is that still on target?
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah, on time and under budget. That tender is awarded – or whatever, I think it
was an RFP. That's been awarded and we expect to see construction activity
pretty much as soon as the contractor mobilizes to go on site. I would think
that will happen in the coming weeks.
MR. PETTEN:
Is it still anticipated to be completed late fall?
MR. CROCKER:
That's our plan. I think the
anticipation is that – typically, we don't do a whole lot of moving children
around in the fall semester, or whatever you want to call it, but typically,
yeah, we would anticipate they'll move in there after Christmas of the next
school year.
MR. PETTEN:
What about the Bay d'Espoir
Academy, Minister?
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah.
MR. PETTEN:
The $13 million for insurance money, apparently, but what's the plan for that?
Is it going to be –?
MR. CROCKER:
Obviously, budget '18-'19 announced a full replacement, a full new school. We
will start the design – well, we have funding this year to start the design
process and that would lead to construction on a timeline that would see it into
a heavy construction mode by next construction season.
MR. PETTEN:
The $13 million insurance
money where does that go? Does that just go back in general revenue?
MR. CROCKER:
That would go back received
in general revenue. We would expend it through the life of the project, and this
project won't be $13 million, unfortunately.
MR. PETTEN:
It won't be what?
MR. CROCKER:
It won't be $13 million. It
will be substantially more than $13 million.
MR. PETTEN:
Right.
MR. CROCKER:
The commitment is for a new,
full replacement of that school.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Minister, on the Low Carbon Economy, I neglected to ask on salaries, there's
$100,000 there. What's this for one position or –?
MR. CROCKER:
Like, if you go back through
any of our programs, federal contribution programs where we have cost-sharing
programs, it's the cost associated with staff to administer said program.
MR. PETTEN:
What about the grants –
MR. CROCKER:
One engineer, apparently.
MR. PETTEN:
Pardon me?
MR. CROCKER:
I'm being told it's
practically one engineering position.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
What
about the grant section there, $1,093,000?
MR. CROCKER:
That's the money that
Transportation and Works would have to have, and it's anticipated to be an
application-based program. For example, if it's a health care facility somewhere
in the province that feels they have a good case for an upgrade, you know
something energy efficient upgrade –
MR. PETTEN:
takeCHARGE?
MR. CROCKER:
Pardon?
MR. PETTEN:
It's probably takeCHARGE is
it? Is that what you mean?
MR. CROCKER:
No, no, it will be building
renos. For example, a health care clinic can make application for funding
through this fund if their renovations are related to energy efficiency.
The
grants are to other public institutions. Unfortunately, TW doesn't qualify as a
landlord. So it would be other public institutions outside of TW's envelope of
buildings.
MR. PETTEN:
Has that ever been announced,
publicly announced?
MR. CROCKER:
Not yet. The parameters are not finalized, the program itself. So this is
anticipation, but we're getting down that road that we know what this should
look like.
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah, and I realize it now. I
was curious.
Minister, under 3.6.01, Investing in Canada Plan, the $10 million, is that
federal money? Is it provincial money? What's the make up of that?
MR. CROCKER:
That's provincial money. Because this is, again, a new plan that hasn't been, I
guess, finalized, signed off on. This is in anticipation of us so that we're
able to – once this plan is signed off on –
MR. PETTEN:
Right.
MR. CROCKER:
– that we have revenue available from our side to take advantage if there are
projects in the province this year that qualify for this new federal funding
program, infrastructure program, that we'd have revenue on our side of the
ledger to make sure we can leverage the federal funding.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
On to
Air and Marine Services, one question I have while that's there. First off, is
the Fogo Island airstrip – I know it's been in use recently. I was hearing
something was in use. Does the province put any money into that? I know there
have been proposals made over the years before.
MR. CROCKER:
No. No, we haven't.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
There's
no provincial funding?
MR. CROCKER:
No, we have a responsibility for airstrips on the North Coast of Labrador, and
one of our priorities – when we talk airstrips, one of our priorities as a
province is the airstrip in Nain. That airstrip needs some work. That's our
first priority when it comes to airstrips, it would be the airstrip in Nain.
MR. PETTEN:
How many airstrips do we
presently have in the province? Randy?
CHAIR:
Seven.
MR. CROCKER:
Yes, the province maintains Nain, Postville, Makkovik, Hopedale, Rigolet,
Cartwright, Charlottetown, Black Tickle, Mary's Harbour, St. Lewis and Port Hope
Simpson. So the only airstrips that the province maintains are actually on the
Labrador portion of the province.
MR. PETTEN:
Under 4.1.02, this is Revenue
- Federal. It looks like there was more spent last year than was received from
the federal government.
MR. CROCKER:
Is that William's Harbour?
No.
MR. PETTEN:
Sorry, 4.1.03.
MS. KING:
Oh, 4.1.03.
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah, that could be William's Harbour.
MR. PETTEN:
Sorry about that.
MR. CROCKER:
In revenue, or –?
MS. KING:
That's just the current capital split.
MR. PETTEN:
Yes, 216 is the –
MR. CROCKER:
Okay. It's the current
capital split between the projects federal/provincial.
MR. PETTEN:
What's that?
MR. CROCKER:
It's the current capital
split from the projects. Do you want a better –?
MS. KING:
So you see more spending in Current account dollars this year than on Capital.
Overall it's the same. It's just the way the funding splits between Current
funding and Capital funding.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
What's
included in that? What would be included in that amount?
MR. CROCKER:
Resurface.
MS. KING:
This is maintenance activities really, in Labrador. So this year in Hopedale
we'll install a new septic system and the same in Makkovik.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
4.1.04,
why is there nothing budgeted in this year's budget?
MR. CROCKER:
Pardon?
MR. PETTEN:
In 4.1.04 under Airstrips,
why is there nothing budgeted for this year in the Operating Accounts? You're
probably looking at a different sheet than I am, but under Transportation and
Communications, Property, Furnishing, Operating Accounts?
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah, we're finalizing the
Current Capital allocations of the LCARP for 2018. As a result, the full
allocation of the – yeah, the full allocation for LCARP is in Current this year
versus Capital.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
All
right.
CHAIR:
Okay.
We'll go
to the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I would like to come back to 3.3.03, Development of New Facilities.
Under
Salaries, the budget last year was for $270,000 but only $54,700 was spent, and
this year it's going up to $320,000. Can we have an explanation of salaries in
this context?
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah. So the surplus is due
to lower-than-expected construction projects, and this is due to unanticipated
delays in construction.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. What construction would
that be, do you know?
MR. CROCKER: The
number is primarily related to the Portugal Cove terminal facility, but there
was a haz-mat issue that delayed the process. It's primarily related to the Bell
Island ferry terminal in Portugal Cove.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, and then these would be jobs that are all connected directly with
construction.
MR. CROCKER:
With the construction.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, great. Thank you. That
explains that.
Coming
down to 3.4.01, School Facilities - Alterations and Improvements to Existing
Facilities, there's no money allocated this year under Salaries and yet there
are expenditures. Operating Accounts has quite a bit of expenditure going on but
no Salaries. What's happening here?
MR. CROCKER:
The funding for Salaries related to the project management here is from the
Alterations budget. Again, I think, and I could stand to be corrected, but it's
a project-by-project management cost. A lot of these projects are very much
smaller projects that would be administered by a contractor.
All the
engineering staff that would be used for this are consolidated over in the
department itself, unless it was a bigger project that we had to hire outside
management.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, so this would be mainly
for the engineering work and that will be done where the engineering is located.
MR. CROCKER:
Yes, and this work stretches from everything from $5,000 for a new fence to $1
million for a major, fairly substantial renovation.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. So where then in the
whole structure – who then monitors these expenditures under School Facilities?
MR. CROCKER:
Yes, so we work with the Department of Education and the English School District
on the plan. I guess, if it was a major product – the English School District
has a maintenance staff that could certainly monitor smaller type projects but
if we were to get into a bigger project, we would use our engineering staff.
MS. MICHAEL:
Under Professional Services
and Purchased Services, who is in charge of the determination around those
needs?
MR. CROCKER:
Our director of buildings and
design.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. That's what I'm trying
to get a handle on, how this is managed.
MR. CROCKER:
Yes, right.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, great.
Thank
you very much. That's helpful.
Okay, I
think they were asked. As I said, I don't like repeating questions.
Coming
to the Airstrip Maintenance, 4.1.02, I'm not sure if this direct question was
asked or not. Under Salaries, it's down quite a bit this year from what was
budgeted last year. Last year was $812,600 and this year the estimate is
$678,200.
So why
do you think that's realistic, especially since the revised last year was also
over $800,000?
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah, so this is mainly the result of changes to the salary plan including a
reduction of overtime and vacancy factor for this activity. This will be our
first full fiscal year with William's Harbour being removed from the airstrip,
our inventory of airstrips.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CROCKER:
So there will be savings in William's Harbour as well.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Great.
And that
would show then in some of the other line items, like the Purchased Services, I
would imagine.
MR. CROCKER:
William's Harbour would show throughout this section.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Okay. Thank you very much.
4.1.03,
you may have answered this already, but it looks like there isn't much expected
this year. You do have the money that will come in federally, but you have
nothing allocated for Salaries. Last year, there were no Salaries estimated
either but there was $10,900 spent. I'm curious around all of that.
MR. CROCKER:
So, yeah, the salary costs you're seeing there, the $10,900, is a salary cost
that was charged off due to some specific projects. That's why we would've spent
the – we wouldn't have budgeted it last year, we wouldn't have budgeted it this
year because that's related to projects themselves.
MS. MICHAEL:
And once again, who manages this whole area, because you do have an operating
account and you purchase the services to do the work, I'm assuming.
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah, our director responsible for roads would be director responsible for
airstrips.
MS. MICHAEL:
For that. Okay, thank you.
I think
everything is answered on Airstrips.
Coming
down then to the Marine Operations, 4.2.02 is what I'm looking at; 4.2.02,
Island Ferry Operations.
Under
Salaries this year, $321,900, so almost $322,000 more has been estimated under
Salaries. Can we have an explanation of why?
MR. CROCKER:
This was a reallocation to
help offset some mandatory backfill costs. The salary plan reflects an ongoing
attrition management plan, funding requirements for step increases and the
reallocation of salary resources based on changing departmental priorities.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
I take
it some of that change happened then between last year and this year because
last year it was revised up by almost $2 million.
MR. CROCKER:
Yes, we always find to have
pressure around the marine services and it's certainly something we're doing our
due diligence to try and address.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, well, I think probably
everybody in the province, whether they use the ferries or not, are aware of the
problems.
The
issue around people with disabilities on ferries, especially Bell Island. Are
you dealing with that? What is being done to try to accommodate?
MR. CROCKER:
Right now, I guess, in late
fall we reached an agreement with the ferry-users committee on Bell Island to
actually have an independent third party come in and do an assessment. We would
with inclusionNL and other groups. We expect the results of that independent
report at the end of this month, at the end of April, and that will inform our
next steps.
We
endeavour to make sure that we have services available for peoples with
disabilities whether it's using our staff or working with other groups, like I
said, we work with inclusionNL.
It's
challenging because our primary concern is safety and if you look at some of the
concerns we've seen raised, I think where we need to be is to ensure that we're
making the accessibility there to get to that deck. I think the idea of staying
in vehicles on these boats is not something that we're comfortable with. We'll
see what the report says, but the reality is if you're on a lower deck and the
lifeboat is on a higher deck, you're accessibility challenges become even
greater if we find ourselves in an emergency situation.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
Okay,
thank you.
I do
look forward to hearing what that report says.
MR. CROCKER:
Absolutely.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Under
4.2.02, one of my colleagues just asked the questions while I was – I just want
to know under Salaries, there's $300-and-some-odd thousand, was there any
positions removed or added? I know reallocation seems to be the theme, but were
there any positions …?
MR. CROCKER:
It's backfilling challenges
if somebody is off –
OFFICIAL:
And new positions.
MR. CROCKER:
And new positions.
OFFICIAL:
There aren't any.
MR. CROCKER:
Oh, sorry, there are no new
positions. When it comes to salaries, we face significant challenges lots of
times because of the structure of the collective agreement, and our overtime
challenges. If you want to think back to last fall when we lost the
Veteran, again, we run into
significant overtime costs because the arrangement that we have is that the crew
of the Veteran, which primarily would
be a crew that would be typically based in Bell Island, had to move to Fogo
Island. The parameters, the start and finish times of the Bell Island schedule,
becomes the start and finish times of the Fogo Island schedule.
In some
cases, this just doesn't work. So we're put in a situation where we have to
start earlier, which creates some overtime cost. So in lots of cases – and this
would be year over year – the overruns are caused by these pressures.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Professional Services under 4.2.02, there's a one-time cost there, $80,000.
What's that for?
MR. CROCKER:
That's the Bell Island risk
assessment.
MR. PETTEN:
What's that?
MR. CROCKER:
That's the Bell Island risk
assessment.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. CROCKER:
And I say the Bell Island
risk assessment, but this is greater than the Bell Island risk assessment. We'll
apply this risk assessment to the entire province, but it came from our
discussions around the issues on Bell Island. And other regular training costs
are in here as well.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Minister, what's the status of the RFP process with South Coast ferries? Where
are we with that?
MR. CROCKER:
We put that process out late
last fall and received it back. There were timeline challenges faced by the
proponents. So we've had an opportunity now, I think, and concluding a review of
the information we received in a way that – we're reviewing the information
blindly of to whom was the bidder. So we've identified a number of different
challenges that we want to address and make sure before we go to the next step
again, we want to make sure that it's a successful RFP process. So we're
evaluating that information pretty much as we speak.
MR. PETTEN:
No timeline on when the new
RFP would be issued?
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah, we're going to get it
back out as soon as possible because we want to provide certainty for the users
and we know that some of the existing infrastructure needs to be updated. But
again, we got to make sure that we get the RFP right and we'll take the time
that it needs to actually get that back out.
MR. PETTEN:
What about the
Earl Winsor, Minister? I know it's still in government possession.
What's the plan for that?
MR. CROCKER:
We went out on two separate
occasions looking for somebody to actually purchase or, I guess to some extent,
take the Earl Winsor out of
government's inventory. We are working right now – I guess we feel we may have
reached an agreement with somebody for the purchase of that vessel. But we're
working towards that and if that's unsuccessful we'll just have to cull the
vessel.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
What
about the Gallipoli, when do you
expect the vessel back in service? Where it's out for a considerable amount of
time, what's the plan for backups? As we know, the ferry season is going to be
kicking into high gear soon.
MR. CROCKER:
So right now we're having
conversations with the shipyard, we're also having conversations with the
relative – our insurance company, the shipyard's insurance company on how we go
forward. We met with the company, and the insurance I guess, as recently as last
week. We do realize the challenges that are facing the people of Ramea. I have a
meeting tonight with their ferry users committee.
Right
now you are correct, it does put some pressure on our backfill ability this
summer, but we still have the Beaumont
Hamel that's available to us and there are discussions we got to have with
the insurer to make sure that the users are affected as little as possible here.
MR. PETTEN:
Any thought of moving vessels
around? Because we have got somewhere else that got pretty modern, newer
vessels. Is there any consideration given to stuff like that?
MR. CROCKER:
We're considering all of our
options at this point. We're reviewing numbers and we want to make sure that
we're – we have a lot of overcapacity in our ferry system. There's no doubt
about it. So we're going to make sure that the vessel fits the run.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
One
other question: Do you have an idea of what the costs of the repairs so far to
date have been with the Gallipoli
refit?
MR. CROCKER:
There were two parts, I
guess, to the Gallipoli contract.
There was a mechanical part where the work was done outside the contract for the
dockyard. Like the engines I think right now are actually here in the city
having it rebuilt. There are other parts that have been – I guess for wanting a
better work – farmed out for rebuilding.
To date
I think somewhere in $1.5 million has been spent with the yard on the refit.
When we actually opened up the vessel as in practically every other case, we
found when doing ferry refits, we found some work that wasn't anticipated. When
you take a vessel that's 47 years old and start removing decks and inside walls,
you're certainly always going to find issues that weren't anticipated.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
4.2.05, Purchased Services, I know there's nothing budgeted this year, but
what's that amount, that $973,000 – what's included in that amount?
MR. CROCKER:
That was the completion of
Sound of Islay refit.
Does
that answer your question?
MR. PETTEN:
I guess. You should be able
to tell me that.
Purchased Services is $973,000, so that was for the
Sound of Islay?
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
4.2.06, Salaries, were there positions changed when it dropped by $78,000 I
guess? Then it was gone back up to, to $200,000 so –
MR. CROCKER:
So that's project management
salaries costs were lower than anticipated, resulting in the surplus since the
individual allocations for each type of this expenditure – salary, travel,
supplies, professional services – are completed on, back to I guess sort of the
roads projects, a standard percentage of the total project cost, with the
exception of variation, original budget estimates.
So
project savings are primarily due to delays in construction projects. Or in this
case I guess refit or – no well, construction projects. This would be related to
the terminal?
OFFICIAL:
It's the terminals.
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah, and the terminal delay
at Portugal Cove would be one of the factors here for certain.
MR. PETTEN:
Under Purchased Services in
this section there's a huge variance there, over $3.2 million less being spent
last year than was budgeted and over $1.1 million extra being allotted this
year.
Can you
explain why that?
MR. CROCKER:
I'm gone too far – no, 206.
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. CROCKER:
Okay, so the budget reflects
the scope of the capital expenditures for next year.
MR. PETTEN:
When you say that, what do
you mean by capital expenditures? What has been in these previous figures? Like
what was spent last year in this? When you say capital expenditures, what in
particular?
MS. KING:
Last year we would have identified – the minister mentioned ferry terminal
upgrades in Portugal Cove and Bell Island as one of our major projects for last
year. As well, we would have looked at doing some capital improvement to some
other terminals and introducing, actually, some refurbished buildings into our
ferry terminals.
Some we
determined – as the Minister mentioned before, the Portugal Cove terminal, the
haz-mat considerations and assessment took longer than we anticipated so more of
that will roll into this year. As well, some of the improvements that we thought
we might have had to do in some of the more rural ferry terminals, we actually
found there were other buildings we could do some minor maintenance on to
achieve a usable building for a ferry terminal.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to
follow up on that, I don't think I've heard recently. Are there any plans with
regard to the ferry terminal in Blanc-Sablon?
MR. CROCKER:
The ferry terminal in Blanc-Sablon is privately owned and privately operated. It
is a concern of ours and rightfully so. There are concerns constantly around
that ferry terminal. It's something that, again, we will be making some movement
in the very near future on the replacement vessel. That's certainly something
that we will endeavour to address at that time.
MS. MICHAEL:
Will the replacement vessel
impact infrastructure at the terminal?
MR. CROCKER:
I guess for physical infrastructure, whether it's wharfing facilities and stuff
like that, we wouldn't know that at the time because obviously we don't know
what vessel we're going to be getting.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CROCKER:
That's something we'll have to take into consideration once that process is
completed and we're informed of what the new vessel will look like.
MS. MICHAEL:
I'm curious then. If, for
example, a new vessel means changes to breakwaters or changes to onshore
facilities, is that then government's responsibility, not the person who owns
the terminal?
MR. CROCKER:
It is. We are responsible for wharfing of our vessels.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
The
actual terminal itself, you actually have to negotiate with the owner of that
terminal to have it. It's certainly not up to standard.
MR. CROCKER:
No, I could not agree more. That's something we have to work with the – we
contract for that. We have to do, from our part, a better job working with the
contractor to make sure that is to a standard that is acceptable.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Thank you very much.
Coming
then to 4.2.08, Provincial Ferry Vessel Refits, is this the one you just
answered for Barry? No, I don't think so.
You have
Purchased Services under Provincial Ferry Vessel Refits. It's gone down. It went
down last year in the revision by more than $1 million and then it's going down
again this year. We're making headway, is it, in terms of refits?
MR. CROCKER:
Last year was lower than anticipated refit requirements. Obviously, there's a
component of refit that's planned well in advance, but there's another component
of refit that is sort of more of an immediate requirement. There's always a
little bit of space in case we find things that were not anticipated.
Typically, any time we put a vessel up for refit, we'll always find something
once you get a boat out of the water and you see things that you can't see when
it's in the water. The change this year has more to do with the current capital
split.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, where money has been allocated elsewhere.
MR. CROCKER:
Right, so this would be capital versus current.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CROCKER:
Some of the original budget of $13.5 million was split between current at $10.2
million and capital at $3.2 million.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Thank you very much.
At
4.2.09, is the loss of money here due to the ending of federal cost sharing?
MR. CROCKER:
That was the Sound. We were successful in obtaining a cost-sharing arrangement
on the refit of the Sound of Islay.
MS. MICHAEL:
Oh, so this has to do with the Sound of
Islay. Okay.
MR. CROCKER:
That refit is complete. That was one-time money for this refit.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, because that shows up under two places then, the impact of that
(inaudible).
MR. CROCKER:
It would because it would show up in revenue as well.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yeah, because it showed up, up above and now down here.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
I guess
we move on to Air Services then. We don't have a lot of time left, do we?
4.3.02,
under Transportation and Communications, last year the budget was $1,750,000
approximately. It was underspent by about $700,000 almost. This year, it's still
down from what was budgeted last year, so if we could have an explanation of
that line.
MR. CROCKER:
I think it was lower than anticipated usage of aircraft charters and water
bombers for the year.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MR. CROCKER:
The demand is driven primarily by the use and offset – actually, $442,000 of the
savings is being used to offset some overruns at marine maintenance, or the
Labrador marine maintenance contract. The other variance in '18-'19 was mainly
due to reallocation of $300,000 to other parts of the department.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Under
Supplies, I know that's basically the same. Supplies are all related to what
happens at any given moment, I would imagine, especially –
MR. CROCKER: When
you're looking at the water bombers, that can change on a –
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Thank you.
4.3.03, these were appropriations provided for capital
investment in the fleet. There is no revision which means nothing was done,
nothing was received?
MR. CROCKER:
Yes, that was the circumstance last year where we have an access, frame of a
water bomber and some water bomber parts that we – it's out of service and has
been out of service for quite some time – went out last year to try and sell. We
weren't successful.
Actually, we're back out right now again in an attempt to remove that from our
inventory. That's the result of a process that didn't end in success with the
sale of that piece of equipment and the remaining parts.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
Minister, overall, the total department is down a fair bit in the bottom line.
The budget last year was $522,320,000 and this year it's $487,154,000. That's
seems like a lot of money.
MS. KING:
The decreases this year, our
budget really – because all the infrastructure funding is in here, depending on
how much infrastructure funding is coming in any given year, it has an impact on
our budget. But you'll see decreases we would have spoken about, decreases on
some of our equipment, acquisitions in self-storage sheds. In salaries, of
course, we would have seen an attrition change of $1.8 million. Another
reduction in the operating funding of $300,000, and then our changes in our
management structure.
So
you're looking at, from our operational impact, I guess, about $9 million to the
minister's point in his opening remarks, that we've seen a decrease there but
we've had increases, of course, because of the leased accommodations for
government and the consolidation of the fleet and the new federal infrastructure
programming.
That's
kind of an overview of the change that we've seen.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
Are
those figures also in the briefing book? What you've just –
MS. KING:
Not the way I just said them
but we can get them for you.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yeah, because that's a nice,
neat package the way you just put it there.
MS. KING:
Yeah.
MS. MICHAEL:
So that's great.
Okay, I
think that's all my questions, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Okay.
I'm
going to go back to the Member for Conception Bay South to clue up with
questioning of Transportation and Works.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you very much.
I just
have a few questions left, too, Minister. Just a couple that I actually skipped
over. We were talking about the schools, the Bay d'Espoir Academy.
MR. CROCKER:
Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
When do you expect tenders to
be called? When do you expect that school to be open? What's your best estimate?
MR. GRANDY:
Barry, if you were to refer
to page 11 of our infrastructure plan were we have the schools, you'll see
funding for Bay d'Espoir Academy starting this year and going out to fiscal year
'21-'22. That's a good indication of how we plan to deliver that project.
We're
just starting the design piece of that right now. We still have some details to
work out with the school district on that, but I suspect there will be a tender
in next year before you see an actual tender being delivered. It could be
towards the end of this fiscal year, but '21-'22 is when the funding stops
flowing. That's an indication of what our delivery plan will be.
MR. CROCKER:
And if you look at many of the schools in our plan next year, or this year/next
year, similar timelines for Coley's Point. And not necessarily, but in lots of
cases when you see the final year of funding in a school – no different than
this year, you see final year of funding for East Point Elementary. Kids have
been in that school now since the beginning of the school year but there's still
funding this year because, for example, in that case we've got to finish up the
landscaping and paving and things.
The last
year of funding, when you look at the infrastructure plan, is typically a clue
up. There are some holdbacks. So any time you look at the infrastructure plan,
the last year is typically clueing up. It's not a big funding year.
The big
funding years are the two in the middle. Year one is really building the design,
building the tender. Year two and three are really the construction projects,
and year four in this type of construction would be primarily just clueing up
the loose ends – holdbacks.
MR. PETTEN:
Minister, (inaudible) on
carbon tax. There's been no analysis to date. Right now, today, there's been no
actual analysis done within the department on the effects the carbon tax is
going to have. Is there any work or preliminary work started?
MS. KING:
The Department of Finance did ask us to have a preliminary look at the impact.
We did some high-level calculations based on some rates and things they
provided, primarily on fuel. The greater impact on our contracts and stuff is
going to be a little harder to do because it's as our contracts come up for
renewal that our providers are going to start downloading these costs on to our
contracts.
So it's
almost a modelling situation where you're trying to figure out what the actual
impact will be and I'm thinking that the Department of Finance is probably going
to take a bigger lead on it with us in the long term.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
In the
health care infrastructure, what's the status on long-term care facilities for
Gander and Grand Falls? It's $3.7 million in the budget. Where are we with
those?
MR. CROCKER:
We're actually in final site selection. The RFQ is closed. We will now, I guess
in the coming weeks, identify our proponents. Then we will go out with the RFP.
This process is on the timelines that we've laid out. So you should see more on
the RFP now that the RFQ has closed.
MR. PETTEN:
Looking down there now, I
just noticed another one, depots. Are there any depots closing this year?
MR. CROCKER:
Highway depots –
MR. PETTEN:
Any highway depots closing?
MR. CROCKER:
Absolutely not.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
There
are a couple of tenders out for work at St. Joseph's depot. Is that an
expansion? At the depot itself.
MR. CROCKER:
It's work to the office.
MR. PETTEN:
What's that?
MR. CROCKER:
Work to the office.
MR. PETTEN:
Just renovations at –
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah, just standard.
MR. PETTEN:
Well, on that note, I think
that pretty well clues it up for me. I want a copy of your electronic briefing
book, I guess –
MR. CROCKER:
Absolutely, unless you want
to go and buy a pack of paper.
MR. PETTEN:
– and the organizational
chart.
I just
want to say from our end, thank you very much for your time and the answers and
listening to our questions and providing your answers. Thank you and all your
staff for bearing with us once again this year.
Thank
you very much.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd also
would like to say thank you to the minister and the staff; a very helpful
discussion this morning.
Thanks
so much.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you.
MR. LANE:
Minister, I have one
question. I do want to again thank you for your answers and to all the staff.
Mr. Dunford, not Durnford, for his help with the potholes. I thank my colleagues
for giving me the opportunity to ask some questions. I do really appreciate
that.
The only
question I have left, and I guess it comes into the Building Maintenance,
Operations area, I suppose. It's more of a general question.
What, if
anything, is being done in terms of providing accessibility for people in
government facilities? I know we have, I think it's a 1984 rule, maybe 1987, but
there is a certain date that buildings don't have to be in compliance with
accessibility standards. I know in the past, government itself has used that
standard, that rule in the law to say: Well, we don't have to be accessible
because of this 1984 rule.
Given
the fact that these are public facilities and should be accessible to all
members of the public, I know we've seen some blue zones moved around here out
by the building, which is great, and we have seen some progress at the Arts and
Culture Centre, but, still, the goal should be, regardless of when the building
was built, if it's a government-owned facility it should be accessible to
everyone. That's not just blue zones, it's also making doors accessible and
whatever else we need to do.
Is there
any kind of an ongoing plan or whatever, strategy, to get all of our government
facilities up to scratch when it comes to accessibility, not just new builds but
existing facilities as well?
MR. CROCKER:
I guess new facilities –
MR. LANE:
Sure, that's a given.
MR. CROCKER:
– I won't say easy, but, yes,
that's a given.
You're
right, every government building should be as accessible as possible. It's
challenging, there's a big footprint. We make changes as we can. You did refer
to the blue zones and we were proactive. We now have our blue zones up to
scratch, what they will be.
Anytime
there's an opportunity, if we're doing a contract, if we have somebody here
working and there's an opportunity to make something more accessible, it's
always a goal. Anytime that we have, I guess, an avenue to make things
accessible, we're more than willing to do so.
We work
– no different, go back to the Bell Island situation – with inclusionNL and
others. We have a continuous back and forth with the office for Persons with
Disabilities and Minister Dempster and Minister Gambin-Walsh at Service NL when
it comes to standards and things.
It's an
ongoing challenge, but one that we all realize is one that we need to face.
CHAIR:
Okay. Thank you.
At this
time, I'll ask the Clerk to recall 1.1.01.
CLERK:
1.1.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.
CLERK:
1.2.01 to 4.3.03 inclusive?
CHAIR:
Shall 1.2.01 to 4.3.03 carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 1.2.01 through 4.3.03 carried.
CLERK:
Total.
CHAIR:
Shall the total carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, Department of Transportation and Works, total heads, carried.
CHAIR:
Okay, I now call for a motion
to adopt the minutes of the last meeting.
CLERK:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates
of the Department of Transportation and Works carried?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, Estimates of the Department of Transportation and Works carried without
amendment.
CHAIR:
Okay, a motion to adopt the
minutes of the previous meeting.
Moved by
Mr. King?
Carried.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
CHAIR:
The next meeting of the
Government Services Committee will be Tuesday, tomorrow, April 17 at 6 p.m. at
which time we will be discussing the Estimates of Service NL and Public
Procurement Agency.
I'd like
to thank the Government Services Committee for their questions. I'd like to
thank the minister and department heads and staff for coming out today.
With
that, I call for a motion to adjourn.
MR. KING:
So moved.
CHAIR:
Moved by Mr. King.
Carried.
Thank
you.
On
motion, the Committee adjourned.