HALIFAX, TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2013
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY
2:20 P.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. Clarrie MacKinnon
MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister, any time you're ready, we'll reconvene.
HON. MAURICE SMITH: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to be back again this afternoon. As you will note, we have some faces at the table so I'd like to introduce those with me. On my far left is John O'Connor; John is with our Public Works Department. Next to him is Brent Pero who is with our Finance Division, and you have met Bruce Fitzner, our Chief Engineer for the province.
Before I actually get going this afternoon - if I may, Mr. Chairman - I would like to perhaps help set the stage because as I said, there are new people in the room and to reiterate some of the things that I said yesterday in my opening remarks. The reason for doing this is, as I said, I think it does set the stage for the questions that I expect will be coming.
Again I want to say that the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal has a huge - it's a large department. We administer or are in charge of 4,100 bridges in the province. We look after 23,000 kilometres of provincial roads and of those, 1,199 kilometres are the national highway system. In addition to that, we are in charge of or we operate in maintenance equipment, 1,300 pieces of highway maintenance equipment. We have four cable ferries and three self-propelled ferries.
Our department is also responsible for buildings throughout the province. We have 2,400 buildings with an assessed value of $1.9 billion. Our job is to acquire, manage and dispose of furniture, fixtures and equipment assets for the province and that is valued at $320 million. As I suggest, I'm saying that just so that people will get a sense of the size of the department and the range of responsibilities we have. There are over 2,000 employees working for Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal.
Another sort of introductory thing I want to talk about is the monies that get spent on the roads. As I said yesterday, we're going to be spending in this fiscal year, $245.8 million on highway capital. Just again for perspective I want people to know that when we look at repaving of a single kilometre in Nova Scotia, it costs us $300,000. When we upgrade a trunk highway, it costs us between $500,000 and $750,000 per kilometre. To do a twinned highway it's $3 million per kilometre. Again, I give you this information a second time because there are new people at the table but also to put in perspective the kind of range of issues that we have to deal with.
The province paved or resurfaced more than 900 kilometres last year, 100 more kilometres than we had planned to do. In 2013-14 our plan is to do 700 kilometres of resurfacing. Since 2009 we've spent more than $1.1 billion on roads in Nova Scotia, 3,000 kilometres of roads have been paved since 2009. Again, I say that just so that everyone has a sense of what we're looking at.
All of that money had to be spent and certainly much, much more needs to be done because when we came to government in 2009 we were faced not only of course with the financial deficit that we had to look at, in terms of getting back to balance, but we were also faced with a huge structural deficit in terms of our infrastructure.
Our highways - and I've heard this said to me many, many times - are in a terrible state. Lots of people have said to me that nothing has been done on my road for 20 years. I can't disagree with them because I've driven those roads, the deputy minister and I last summer I think spent more time - I spent more time with the deputy minister travelling around than I did with my wife. We went over a lot of the roads and a lot of them need work.
Why is that? I guess I'd have to say it's an issue because there was neglect of the roads. That went on for year after year after year and that's what we're facing, so when we came to power we had to look at what to do about it. What we decided to do is to change how things are done in highway work and we came out with our first five-year plan. Now we're into the fourth addition. The reason for or the background for having a five-year plan is to address this huge structural deficit that we had in highways. The thinking is now different than what it had been and effectively what we're now able to do is we're paving more and paying less for it.
We have a plan out now that we call highway preservation and instead of letting highways deteriorate so that they have to be then again built from scratch at very much more expense, we're taking a highway and putting preservation on it. If it's a 100-series highway, for instance, we might put a single lift of asphalt on it, which will extend the life of that highway perhaps 10, 12, 15 years rather than spending all of our money and working on the worst roads, some of them which really - and we had this discussion yesterday with some of the members. Some of them were agreeing with me that those roads that we're spending money on should be sent back to gravel roads because the number of people who are using those roads has declined in some rural areas and the reason for having them paved in the first place no longer exists.
So the five-year plan was introduced basically for the purpose of trying to address this huge deficit that we were facing when we came on board. That was one of the ways of doing it - was to try to preserve roads so that in the long term we're spending less on rebuilding roads from scratch and more on looking after the roads we have.
Of course, another part of our plan was the introduction of the chip seal equipment, again to enable us to do more in terms of preserving roads and looking after some of the rural roads and in particular in areas where we weren't able to get tenders that were, we thought, appropriately low enough to justify spending that kind of money on them and we're quite pleased with that effort.
Last year, as you all know, we introduced our asphalt plant plan to the province. Again, once that plant got up and running, it was a very successful operation in terms of the quality of the work and the willingness of the crew to go on those roads. Again, I refer to my trip last summer with Deputy Minister LaFleche. We went to areas where - the depots when we were looking for our crew for our asphalt plant and people were coming forward and asking, can I get on that crew? We had 26 crew members in the chip seal and 26 in the asphalt plant. These workers in depots around the province were coming forward and saying, I'd like to get on that crew; I want to get the experience. They were also challenged by the private construction road workers who said, well, they'll never get the job done; they couldn't do it before; these guys aren't going to be any good at that. Well, I can tell you that they took that challenge and they've gone out and they've done good work and I know they'll continue to do good work.
That's the kind of background I wanted to set for the introduction and I say that just because, as I said, we have new people sitting around the table. So I am prepared to take any questions that people have.
MR. CHAIRMAN: When we finished last evening, there were 12 minutes remaining in the Progressive Conservative time so we will now begin with Mr. Orrell.
MR. EDDIE ORRELL: Thank you for the preamble, minister, and I think your wife should probably send the deputy minister some flowers or a gift card for taking you away from her for that long in the summertime. I think that would make her day.
I want to talk a little bit about the Sydney River Bridge that is going to be replaced in the summer. If I could just get an idea of when that is going to start and how long that is projected to take before it's completed.
MR. SMITH: We're waiting for the school year to finish before we actually close it in terms of getting going with that, so it will be open until the end of the grade school year. Soon after that we'll be underway with it. My understanding is that the bridge will be reopened in December 2014.
MR. ORRELL: So plans have been made to accommodate the school next year, when they go back into session, I guess for buses and emergency type vehicles. Are plans being made to accommodate them and make sure that it doesn't interrupt the school year or some of the people who go there?
MR. SMITH: Well there is an alternate route and I believe I was told it's going to be a 12-minute - five to six kilometres alternate route that the school buses and regular traffic will be able to take. But in addition to that, we are putting in place a shuttle service where pedestrians and cyclists will be able to have a bus that will take them around as well. There's not going to be any disruption in the flow of traffic for the time that the bridge is under construction and the work is being done. It will be a five to six kilometre detour and I think somebody told me 10 to 12 minutes to make that detour.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister and member, we're going to have a very relaxed afternoon here. Don't bother addressing the Chair, other than every five or 10 minutes, so for the record there will be something in Hansard, so they know there is a Chair - so perhaps "Mr. Chairman" every five minutes or something. Please continue with an exchange.
MR. ORRELL: This shuttle or so-called shuttle you are going to have, who is going to pay for that shuttle and what is the projected cost on that and how is it going to run? Is it going to run 24 hours, is it going to run eight hours, business hours? Is there any indication where that's going to sit at?
MR. SMITH: Okay, you have several questions there. My understanding is that basically it won't be running 24 hours because it's just aimed at pedestrian and cycle traffic so it won't be running 24 hours. I don't know if we've decided 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. or whatever, I think it will depend on what we see the traffic is.
My understanding is that that project is going to be tendered - we've passed that stage, I guess, there is an understanding with the Cape Breton Regional Municipality bus service that they're going to be the ones that are going to be providing that service for us.
In terms of cost, we anticipate, and of course you have to appreciate that these are somewhat rough estimates - $500,000 from the beginning of the project to the end would be the cost of providing that alternate service.
MR. ORRELL: So is that money coming from the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal, or the municipality?
MR. SMITH: TIR.
MR. ORRELL: And that will cover the full cost of - ok. Because of the stress the municipality is under now, it would be devastating if they had to assume that cost.
I guess the other big question I have is, when then is under construction there are some handicapped individuals who travel that bridge daily in a wheelchair to go to school. Would there be a possibility of putting in a bailey walking bridge there instead of the transportation bus system? Or would it be cheaper to do the bus system? Has that been taken into consideration I guess is the big thing because if the bailey bridge was there and we could eliminate the bus system altogether, it would be a 24-hour solution, it would be easy for everybody, there would be no necessity for the stress on the municipality and/or the government if it was a cheaper alternative. I wonder if that has been looked at?
MR. SMITH: First of all let me start by say that those people who rely on wheelchairs for their mode of transportation, the buses will be able to accommodate them as well, so it's not as if they are not considered part of the plan for the detour.
Initially there was a lot of talk about a bailey bridge being placed actually, as I remember it now, on the footings of the original bridge that was there, to allow pedestrian traffic. There was some thought at one time of that perhaps being left after the project was done, as kind of a legacy piece for the project, for people who were made uncomfortable, I guess, and I can't think of the right word but during the process. We looked at that, but it turns out at the end that couldn't be done because of the navigational issue. You can't put a span across there because of the boats that use that part of the harbour. Ultimately, it was decided that a bailey bridge was not the appropriate way to go there.
MR. ORRELL: Not even if it's the same height of what is there already for pedestrians?
MR. SMITH: Well, we wouldn't be putting it there - that's what I'm saying. We wouldn't be able to put the bailey bridge where we're going to be building the new bridge.
MR. ORRELL: I was thinking more off to the side or somewhere where it wouldn't affect the traffic flow and/or the marine traffic coming through there.
MR. SMITH: I don't think there's a place you could put it that wouldn't affect the marine traffic.
MR. ORRELL: So there has been consideration of marine traffic during the construction? What is going to happen to the marine traffic that is on the other side? Is it still going to be available for them to get through there during construction?
MR. SMITH: I'm misunderstanding the question.
MR. ORRELL: The bridge runs up the Sydney River. Any marine traffic that's, say, on the other side that would have to get out to go through there.
MR. SMITH: If it's able to do it now, it will be able to do it then.
MR. ORRELL: So it will be during construction. I guess another good question I have is, there are a number of businesses on Celtic Drive on the other side of the bridge that rely on a lot of the traffic from the Sydney side - restaurant, construction and building supply companies, businesses that require people to travel through that way. Is there any consideration given to how that is going to affect their businesses and have they been talked to about that and how that's going to affect their businesses?
MR. SMITH: I can't tell you in detail which of the stakeholders were contacted in terms of what our plan is, but I think in the area it's certainly well known that we had an intention to replace this bridge. I think everybody knows the reason we're replacing it is a safety issue. It has reached its lifespan. We were in contact with the schools; with the fire official people - they know what our plan is so there was consultation from them. I'm not sure if I can tell you that there was any individual business that was or wasn't contacted. Again, I think it's well known in the community that this is an effort that we're making. It's going to be a vast improvement to service people on both sides that need to go back and forth.
I guess any time we do construction of this type in a community there are inconveniences and some down time that people appreciate that this is the nature of the kind of work that we do or an effect of the kind of work we do. I think at the end of the day, the people on that other side - on the Celtic Drive side - that will have a new bridge will appreciate that it's an asset to their businesses and will enhance their businesses.
One of the things that this new bridge is going to have is an additional lane that isn't there now for active transportation. There is a going to be a pedestrian and cyclist lane on that bridge that's improving the structure overall.
MR. ORRELL: So you don't know if there was any consultation done with the businesses that are there because for 18 months they're going to be affected. Yes, it's great when they have a new bridge there, but it would be interesting to see what they have to say is the effect that might happen while the construction is going on so they could make other arrangements. I mean, it's 18 months - the traffic that's coming through there that would go elsewhere then it's going to really affect their business and that's traffic that may not come back to them later on. I'm thinking of a building construction company or a business and a restaurant.
There's a Tasty Treat there and a couple of used clothing stores. If these patrons go elsewhere and it gets to be a routine for them for 18 months, that business could end up closing; it could be detrimental to their business. If you haven't discussed that with them, I was wondering if that has been talked about or consideration would be to discuss that with those businesses in that area and see what they're feeling.
MR. SMITH: I guess what I can say to that is that these businesses are not in any way going to be cut off; people who want to access them will have an alternative route to get there. It's as I said, approximately 10 to 12 minutes' drive in the five to six kilometre detour. I'm from Sydney so I know the area and I know where the Tasty Treat is. That kind of business is usually people out for a Sunday drive and that kind of thing so I don't think the five or six kilometres are going to necessarily cut significantly into their business.
Having said that, there is no real way around it. We are providing an adequate detour and I suggest in these circumstances - given where we have to go - a short detour. It's the trade-off we have to make to provide safe and adequate crossing on that bridge, so there really isn't any way around it. There's no way we cannot do the bridge because it has now reached the stage where it has to be replaced.
I understand there might be some concerns for businesses on that side. I guess on the other side, we haven't been approached by anyone that I am aware of who has been complaining about that aspect of it. I suppose signage would be something that could help them, direct people. In terms of communication, we could certainly let people know by way of public communications, the alternate routing and that sort of thing. Certainly I'm sure businesses themselves will be trying to maintain the public's awareness of how to get to them.
Having said that, I don't see that there's any choice around that issue or that problem except perhaps, as I said, good communication around it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That concludes the time for the Progressive Conservative caucus and certainly the member for Cape Breton North is welcome to come back for another round or part of a round. We will now turn to the Liberal caucus and Mr. Colwell will begin the questioning.
HON. KEITH COLWELL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to be sharing my time with my honourable colleague. I have some local questions that some of them have a huge impact on not just my area but on other areas as well. The first thing I'm going to ask about, we have been trying to get the signage changed in East Preston to actually call it East Preston because that's a community. The signs up there now say "Preston".
I know the minister is not aware of the community of Preston but the community of Preston, when it was originally settled, went from the Parklo in Dartmouth out to Porters Lake. Now there's all kinds of new communities in there and everything else so indeed, the community as Preston was doesn't exist anymore. We do have North Preston, which is very clearly identified as North Preston. Really what the signage up that says "Preston" should say East Preston. That's the proper terminology and always has been for that community.
We have sent several letters off to your staff and I believe probably some to you over the years, we've sent so many of them. When can we expect to have these signs properly put up? This is a very historic community and it's very important that they have the right identity. In fact we didn't even have a sign on Highway No. 107 ever on one end, on the eastern side of Highway No. 107, indicating there was even a Preston turnoff, even though the sign is not correct. There wasn't a sign there. I realized one day I was driving in, there's no sign here. Finally, under great reluctance, they finally put the sign up when the last government was in. Unfortunately, it wasn't East Preston on the sign but at least we got a sign. There wasn't even a sign there before.
MR. SMITH: Thank you for that question. I appreciate that issue quite a bit because as you know, member, I'm from Antigonish. We've had a new bypass, the Highway No. 104 bypass of the town and I've probably heard more about signage in the last four months than I'll probably ever hear.
I should say that personally, I haven't - and, as you know, I've only been at this job now since the very end of last May - I haven't had any communication on that particular issue of the East Preston sign come across my desk yet. I understand that you did have an opportunity to speak with the chief engineer, Mr. Fitzner, recently after the Public Accounts Committee meeting and he indicated that they would look into this. He has passed that on to the appropriate portion of the department and they are looking at that, in terms of assessing what the appropriate response will be for that issue.
MR. COLWELL: So if I understand correctly, it will be corrected?
MR. SMITH: What I'm telling you is that they are looking into it to see what the appropriate signage should be for that area. What it will be at the end of the day will depend on the survey and the research they will do.
You indicated that the community at one time, the whole of the community was Preston and now there are sort of divisions - North and East and that kind of thing. I don't how long or on what sort of official maps and things that East Preston is designated so I don't want to say yes, it's going to happen, until the review comes back and they tell me exactly what should be there. I will say this: If it should be there, it will be there.
MR. COLWELL: I appreciate that and I believe you'll find that it should be there because it was always the community of East Preston, that area I'm talking about. It was the overall area of Preston that covered the whole area which really doesn't exist anymore.
I also have - there's a serious problem with lighting at the intersection of Highway No. 107 and the No. 7 highway in East Preston. Where they come together it's a 100-Series Highway meeting what used to be the main highway at one time, the No. 7. There's one light that the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal has up there. I've personally gone through there many times and in an overcast evening or night it's almost impossible to see where the turnoff is, to come off Highway No. 107 to come onto the No. 7 highway.
It's very difficult because cars come over the hill at 90 kilometres an hour and cars are stopped at a stop sign and indeed, sometimes you can't quite see if there's somebody there, if their lights are turned the other way, who may be hauling out in front of you as you're coming along. There are a couple of streetlights put up by the municipality, back from the intersection, but it's not properly lit and it is a dangerous spot. We've had several accidents in that intersection.
Is there any plan by the department to get some proper lighting put up there? I don't think it's a big expense but it not only affects my riding but it affects all the traffic that comes in from Highway No. 107 and a lot of people come through the No. 7 as through Highway No. 107 so it's a high volume area.
From what I understand from the staff in your department, that Highway No. 107 has more traffic on it than Highway No. 102 has. It is one of the heaviest travelled roads in a two lane condition in the province than a 100-Series Highway and it's getting more and more so every day. This is something I've written to your department about several times and indeed, over the past 10 years because it's been a really serious problem.
MR. SMITH: Again - and this is not by way of any kind of excuse or anything - that's another issue that I'm sure you have been writing about it and in touch about but it hasn't, in my short 10 months there, come across my desk as of yet. It is something we will - based on your request today - look at and assess, and have it determined if additional lighting is appropriate for the circumstances there. If you'll give us a couple of weeks, we'll have it looked at and we'll get back to you.
MR. COLWELL: I appreciate that. It's probably the only intersection in the whole province where a 100-Series Highway meets another highway that doesn't have this appropriate lighting. I would say it's probably the only one in the whole province. I appreciate the minister's commitment to have a look at it and see what can be done, that's truly appreciated.
There's another issue that I've been working on for a long time, too. In Lake Echo was have a small bridge that crosses a rather - I would call it a brook. It's not a river but it's a very big brook, almost a river, and they may even call it a river. There's a need for a sidewalk either on the outside of the bridge - probably the only place you can fit it because the bridge isn't very wide. It was built probably back in the 40s or 50s. The bridge seems to be - if I remember right - in pretty good shape.
The reason I say that, normally on the No. 7 Highway, there is quite a lot of traffic and not a lot of pedestrians, but in this case there is a problem because we have a very large mini home park - over 350 families and a lot of homes on one side of the bridge and the other side of the bridge is a community centre and a canoe club. You have a lot of children and a convenience store - so you have a lot of children travelling either on foot or by bike across this bridge to get to one of those facilities, which are very close by the bridge, just directly across.
We've been talking about this for 10 years as well, trying to get some kind of footbridge that you can go either one side or - on one side of the bridge would be enough; it doesn't have to be on both sides - to handle that situation. I was wondering if the minister would have a look at that situation to see if something can be done. Hopefully something could be done there without being a huge expense, but make it safe for the children to cross. We've got a large number of children who cross there on a regular basis, especially in the summertime when they're going for recreational activities.
MR. SMITH: Again, this issue is coming forward. It's obviously an important issue for you and your community. What I will say is that - and I do this to anybody who comes to me with these kinds of requests - I can't promise you that's going to happen quickly, but what I can promise you is that we will look at that particular issue, we'll have it assessed, and we'll determine what the solution is. If the solution you're asking for is needed - we will determine what the best solution is if we determine one is needed there, and do the best we can to accommodate. This is something that is, from my point of view, just coming in now and I can commit that we will have it looked at in terms of seeing how best to handle it.
MR. COLWELL: Thank you - I would appreciate it if you would review that. It would be greatly appreciated and by the residents as well. The other area that I have in particular - one road, Brooks Drive in East Preston which is in deplorable condition. I know you hear this from everybody everywhere you travel in the province and I appreciate the money you're investing in roads. It didn't even make the priority list to be paved. The road is probably about two and a half or three kilometres long - a lot of homes on it. It's probably one of the oldest roads in the province. I believe when the original settlers came there they started with a path and then it turned into a road and everything. Could you have a look at that to see where that might be if there is anywhere at all that it might be paved in the future to upgrade it?
MR. SMITH: You called it Brooks Road?
MR. COLWELL: Brooks Drive in East Preston.
MR. SMITH: Is it presently a paved road?
MR. COLWELL: It's a paved road.
MR. SMITH: It's a paved road that's deteriorated, basically.
MR. COLWELL: Yes and has been for a long time.
MR. SMITH: And you, I presume, have been in touch.
MR. COLWELL: Corresponding, no question. There was even a petition presented in the Legislature.
MR. SMITH: I guess what I can tell you is that when we have a paved road that needs work, we have to assess it in terms of really how badly off is that road today? Is it one that a single lift might enable it to be okay to be used continuously? Or does it have to have a double lift? Is it a situation where we have to take up everything there and kind of go from scratch again? That's the kind of work that would be done on a road like that. It very much depends on assessment of what the need is in that particular area.
One of the determinations on what kind of work is done on a road is the volume - the number of vehicles that use it. For instance, if the usage is more than 500 vehicles a day, then that would be a candidate for asphalt treatment. If it's under that, depending on the range, it might - they're assessed for this in this way. So again, the commitment I can make to you is that we can have it assessed, do a traffic count on it, have someone look at it in terms of seeing what's the appropriate work that needs to be done, if it's single chip or double chip or reconstruction or whatever. Then, of course, you have to get in the queue.
I presume that would be considered a local road so that would be something that, as you said, the residents have come forward with a petition and I presume you've made your concerns aware to the local area manager and the folks on the ground there. All of those things are used when we assess what kind of work can be done on a road and certainly the number of homes, if there's schools or churches on it, businesses or recreation facilities, those kinds of things, all of that plays into the determination of prioritizing roads for work that needs doing. We will assess that road and get back to you on that.
MR. COLWELL: I appreciate that. I know you have a tremendous number of roads to look at so it's very difficult to choose. I've saved my biggest question to the last; where East Preston, when you come out of East Preston from the No. 7 highway onto Highway No. 107, there's been plans for a long, long time to build a bypass road and indeed, the province had bought a lot of the land over the last several years. The plans, I've actually seen the physical plans to make a bypass so you don't have to go through Dartmouth, you can bypass and go out through and meet up with the Montague Road, actually over the Montague Road and on to another part of Highway No. 107.
This has been planned for years and years. They've actually acquired most all of the land, if not all of it by now. What is happening is in that area where I'm talking about - I don't know if you've heard about any of the bad accidents on the Ross Road, Salmon River Drive and the No. 7-Highway No. 107 intersection - it's all tied into Highway No. 107. We've had several fatalities, we've had a lot of accidents and they continue on a regular basis because people are coming through there on Highway No. 107 at pretty good speed and people are trying to turn on and it just doesn't go together very well.
It's all part of - the lighting I talked about earlier about the East Preston turnoff and Highway No. 107 is an intermediate cure until this whole thing can be fixed. That interchange is very important to the community and according to what your own staff have told me verbally, just verbally, this is one of the highest if not the highest single-lane - or not single-lane but non-four-lane highway in the whole province and the volume is growing exponentially. There's a discussion now actually on planning 1,000 new homes east of this intersection that would be travelling pretty well every day, I would bet, because most of the homes would be people of working families. Those would be built over the next two to five years if the developers get a go-ahead from the municipality and it looks like that is going to happen, two separate developments and probably more.
So the volume on this road is going to go up extremely quickly. It is one of the least-developed areas in all of HRM that's immediately close to the core. It includes Lake Echo, Porters Lake and Musquodoboit and that whole area, so every time you build a new house there it means more traffic on that road and there's no real reliable bus service at this point.
This has been planned for a long time. I know it's a very expensive project. It would take a tremendous amount of pressure off Main Street in Dartmouth and some serious problems we've had there with the Ross Road. HRM just made an upgrade to the Ross Road-Highway No. 107 intersection but they didn't do it properly and it still a very dangerous one and there's been some very bad accidents, even since that has been supposedly fixed but they didn't do it right.
I was wondering where this thing is on the priority list. I don't see it on your five-year plan. In reality, you talk about traffic, we've got the traffic. We've got accidents, we've got all the issues that would probably put this at the very top of the list to be done in the province, when it comes to improving the traffic flows. It would mean that you could come from the Eastern Shore part of it and people travel on a daily basis as far as 100 kilometres away to go to work in Burnside and in Halifax-Dartmouth. They hit this area and then the traffic slows down and it doesn't disburse.
It would allow people to get into Burnside very easily, take a lot of pressure off the smaller roads that they have to travel on now and also make it a lot safer. It's only going to be a matter of time before we have another fatality there and we've already had several. It could be a very serious one with the volume of traffic we're getting.
Is there any plan at all to move this forward? I've seen the actual drawings for it a few years ago, had the staff out. At that time - it was before you were in government - they said that internally in the department they would like to get this job done. Of course it's all based on what's available to spend and do all these sorts of things but it's one of the things that internally, from what I understood a few years ago and again, before your government went in place and would have changed priorities, that that should be done for safety issues and also for traffic flow issues.
I can't remember the number of cars travelling through there now but it's several thousand each day, on a return basis, so when you go Highway No. 107 now it doesn't matter if you're going into Halifax or out of Halifax, there's a steady stream of traffic on both sides of the road, going both ways, rush hour now is both mornings and evenings and rush hour starts as early as 5:00 a.m. and it goes through until after nine o'clock in the morning and in the evening it goes even longer.
MR. SMITH: I understand that this is a project that we're certainly aware of and it's not something that we don't want to do. Like any of these bigger projects, they come with a big financial cost as well.
I do know that area and I do know that it's increasing in the traffic that goes through there on a daily basis. We are presently at the very early stages - as you know, the Building Canada Fund is coming to an end in about a year's time and we are already now in process of beginning negotiations with the federal government for what's going to come next, in terms of infrastructure support from the federal government.
Something will replace the Building Canada Fund. Whether or not that project is eligible for those funds I don't know at this particular stage but it would be something that I would be prepared to look at. Certainly if it is eligible for federal contribution towards that project, I would certainly put that on the list for discussions with Minister Lebel and his people, in terms of trying to get that moving forward.
It really is a cost issue at this stage. I can't give you any timeline because I don't have the money to do it. But having said that, I do understand from talking to department people here, it is something that has not gone off the horizon or it's not even on - I won't say it's on the back burner, it's just that we know it needs to be done, we don't have the resources to do it is what I'm telling you today.
There are possibly some openings that might come through the Building Canada Fund if that project was one that the feds were willing to entertain.
MR. COLWELL: Did you ever consider talking to the municipality, maybe some cost-sharing with them, because it will take some heavy traffic burden off Main Street in Dartmouth that goes through there now that they're having a terrible time with. It may also help there.
Now they may not be interested in doing 50-50 but if you could get some cost sharing from them and, like I say, with cost sharing from the federal government it makes a project that may be doable and everybody kicked in some, it may happen. I don't know if the municipality has ever been approached on this or not.
MR. SMITH: It's not unheard of. We do some cost sharing with the HRM on some projects. I think often they're ones that they have a bigger interest in than we've come to them on. Again, I'm sure this would be an interest of HRM because they would be aware as well of the circumstances there, so it's an avenue I think we could explore.
I just wanted to get back to your question about the intersection lighting on Highway 107. I see a letter here dated April 12th addressed to you from me, so we have responded to your most recent request. I guess you don't have the letter yet, obviously.
MR. COLWELL: No.
MR. SMITH: I'll read the letter out, if you don't mind.
MR. COLWELL: I'd appreciate that.
MR. SMITH: The letter reads:
Thank you for your correspondence of March 11, 2013 concerning intersection lighting at Exit 17 on Highway 107. Staff have reviewed this intersection and advise that lighting improvements are warranted. To facilitate this project, staff will prepare an estimate, prioritize this work and try to incorporate it into this construction season. If you wish to discuss this matter further or have any additional questions, please contact . . .
It then gives you a name and the area manager and his contact information. So it worked - your letter worked.
MR. COLWELL: That's good. That's an efficient minister. I do truly appreciate that and so will the many residents who travel both roads on a regular basis. It will help alleviate some very serious concerns that are there and hopefully avoid some accidents, which would be great.
First of all, I want to thank you for your direct answers to my questions; I'm not used to hearing that anymore here. I appreciate that very much. I look forward to receiving the information back from you on these things. Just before I turn it over to Mr. Gaudet, I want to also put on the record that the local highway garage that we work with from Chezzetcook that looks after my area, does an excellent job with the resources they have to work with. They respond to our questions and anything they can do they do. If they can't do it, they tell us why and they give the same information to a constituent if they call us because we usually put them in direct contact with the constituents as well as follow it up.
I just want that to go on the record, as you hear so many complaints about the highway garage all the time - it's just nice to work with somebody who cares about their job and we see some very positive things. One snowstorm we had a couple of complaints, but overall it has been very good, and they had some very bad driving conditions this year that they had to contend with. They did remove a truck and a grader from there, but even with that the department did an admirable job and they met all the criteria for snow removal at the right time and ice control.
The other small things that are so important to individuals they've either fixed them properly or they've told the individual why they're not allowed to fix them. To me, that's very commendable and I just wanted to personally tell you that on behalf of my constituents and my constituency who were very happy with the professionalism that was shown by the garage.
MR. SMITH: I want to thank you for that because, as you said, often times all the workers at that level hear are the complaints and they don't often get these accolades that I think they deserve. I'll make sure that your thanks get moved along to these people and we very much appreciate your offering those thanks. It's important for morale and for these people to be recognized for the good work they do.
I don't want to let you go before I comment on your bit of aside about losing the couple pieces of equipment. We have made some rearrangement with some of the equipment that we've had, but the purpose in doing that was to better use it and to make sure that there was a more even distribution of the assets that we have for our roadwork across the province, but the guarantee that we gave to people when we undertook this is that no one's services are going to be reduced because of these changes and I want to reiterate that, that's not going to be an issue.
Again, you weren't here yesterday so I want to just kind of go over because I think it's an important issue that people know; we now have a plan and a policy on how we handle snow removal. I guess I want people to know what our standards are.
MR. COLWELL: I don't want to interrupt you, I'm very familiar with those, I can probably read them off without you reading them.
MR. SMITH: Okay, I guess what I'm saying is that people should know that they have - their road is going to be done on the basis that we've established for the kind of road that it is. My understanding is that this is working across the province so I'm not going to sort of allow it to be suggested, perhaps, that because we've moved some equipment around that any one service has been in any way negatively affected because I'm assured that it hasn't.
MR. COLWELL: I'd like to thank you for that and again, we even have those standards up on our Web site so we make it very clear. It's a lot easier to deal with a constituent when they know what the rules are and how it is supposed to be done. Again, I say that we haven't had an incident at all in the last 10 years that I've been a MLA in Preston that they have not met the standard, not once.
I also want to mention, and I'm finished at that point, how professional the engineers are we work with the area manager and all the way through the system, they're very helpful, go by the book every day, which is what we appreciate because we know what the rules are, they know what the rules are. They are also incredible to work with. If they can do something for us, they will; if they can't, they'll tell us why and their answers are always accurate. They've never told us anything that hasn't been done properly.
I'd like you to also, if you would, to pass that on to them as well. We're very, very pleased with the service we do get from the department, if you get these other little things fixed. Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Colwell, you've done a very good job in just equalling sharing the time, it was 29-plus minutes so we certainly have 30 minutes remaining for Mr. Gaudet, so a perfect division of your hour. Mr. Gaudet.
HON. WAYNE GAUDET: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to continue where I left off last evening. We were talking about Highway No. 101; I still have a few questions. When we left off last night we were talking about interchange, exits along Highway No. 101.
In the government's five-year plan, on Page 16 and I remember the minister talking about an exit or an interchange of Highway No. 101 at Granite Drive. I guess my first question to the minister is, where is this exit located in Kings County?
MR. SMITH: I'm not sure but we will get that information for you before the end of the day and let you know exactly where it is.
After our discussion last evening I got some briefing on Highway No. 101 so I have some additional information that might be helpful. You are absolutely right - that 26 kilometre stretch that you talked about, I think between Weymouth and Digby. That's apparently the only - the Highway No. 101 is a 300-kilometre long stretch of highway and that section is the only one that has not been upgraded to the 100-Series standard, to controlled access standards. Apparently it's being planned for a four-lane highway, but it's going to be constructed initially as a two-lane highway and the cost approximately will be $96 million, so that's the plan. Ultimately a four-lane; going to start off with two at a cost of $96 million.
It's part of the national highway core system so that makes it eligible for cost sharing with the federal government. So again, as I said I think last night - I know for you it's a big project and you were talking about how much the cost it's probably up to now made it prohibitive but, again, with the new Building Canada Fund - I'm calling it that but I don't know what the name of the new fund will be. That puts it in something that we could raise with the federal government in terms of possible shared costs.
Again, you talked about this being on the horizon for a long time. I had my notes tell me that there was a public meeting, an open house, back in March 1999, so it has been on the horizon for a very long time. They actually went so far as to do an environmental assessment report and that was completed in 2002, but because that's so dated now that a new one would have to be done.
We do have the approval, I guess, to proceed and they're doing survey planning, design, land purchases in the area. I think I mentioned that last night - we're doing some land purchases. We will have to get formal approval from the Department of Environment for the work there, and that's because of the long-range nature of the project.
I guess I can say that this is something that hopefully in our lifetime we'll see it done. It should give you a little more comfort in knowing that it isn't as remote as possibly my comments last night might have lead you to believe. It's a project that needs to get looked at.
MR. GAUDET: Wonderful - I appreciate the update. I have one final question on that Granite Drive interchange. I know it's a project listed under 2014-15. Does the department have a sense or a plan on when work will be starting and when that whole job will be completed? Do we have a time frame?
MR. SMITH: The anticipation is that actual construction will start next season. I don't mean this one that we're just getting into, but the next, and that it is likely - because of the size of the project - to spill over into the next year as well, so the two-year season.
This intersection, Granite Drive, it's New Minas at the Boston Pizza on Commercial Street.
MR. GAUDET: The honourable member for Kings West asked me to ask you this question. It is regarding the Waterville area. Apparently there is some major concern regarding tractor trailer traffic moving through Coldbrook, Cambridge and Waterville area. Apparently your department has a plan on your books somewhere for a direct exit off Highway 101 into Waterville for direct entrance to the Michelin plant. My question to you is, is the department looking at building an exit anytime soon to allow that heavy traffic to basically leave Highway 101 and go directly to the Michelin plant?
MR. SMITH: Yes, there is, at this stage, very preliminary planning being done and the First Nations community there are also involved. They have an interest in where it should go. At this stage - and it would be an interchange - we're probably two years out from design work and that kind of thing. Planning will go on for another couple of years for that. Then, of course, even once you get to that stage, you've got to find the money, so it will very much depend on what assets are available and how things get prioritized in terms of which one is going to go first, that sort of thing.
It is a concern that we're aware of and we're actually planning towards having something done there.
MR. GAUDET: Before I leave Highway No. 101, I want to talk about the carpool parking lots. I know there are carpool parking lots on many of our highways. I recall a few years ago being told that the department was working on developing a policy that would deal with the design and maintenance servicing of our carpool parking lots.
I guess my first question, is the policy completed and available to the general public?
MR. SMITH: The answer is yes, we do have a policy. It has been completed and we can get a copy of it to you.
MR. GAUDET: Thank you. This is a special treat this year; we haven't done TIR estimates, I think, for the last three years so I'm just trying to get caught up with some stuff. I'm very grateful, minister, that you actually - we have a new minister and he agreed to do estimates this year so thanks again.
I guess the fact that we had a very mild winter this year and I'm sure that especially rural MLAs often hear from constituents but I did get calls in previous years. I believe the department's policy as far as plowing these carpool parking lots is that when all the roads have been cleared, then staff basically go into clearing these parking lots. I guess I'm trying to find out, is that the policy, that basically staff are being told to clear the roads first, one the roads are clear then go into the parking lots. Let's start off with that one.
MR. SMITH: That's a question that I could have answered myself, without asking for advice, but I always like to double-check because I've had an issue in my own community recently where I had a complaint that somebody's church yard was being cleaned before the streets were being cleaned so I found out what the policy was and I just confirmed that, in fact, the policy is that roads get priority and it's only at the end of the roadwork - when we're doing the kind of cleanup work, I guess you'd call it - that most of these parking lots are on our right-of-ways, at intersections and that kind of thing so they are our turf. Obviously you can't get to the parking lot until the road is done so they are at the end of the list, I guess, in terms of where we would put our priorities.
MR. GAUDET: The reason I raise this, I've seen it, I've heard from constituents as well who are using these carpool parking lots, unfortunately in the morning when they arrive the lots aren't cleared and what do they do? They park on the side of Highway No. 101. So again it becomes a safety issue. To me it sounds quite reasonable that in order to get those vehicles off the side of Highway No. 101, which has a lot of traffic. Let's clear the parking lots as the snowplow operators are going by. To me, an ounce of prevention certainly will go a long way here. I know we haven't had any accidents so far and I hope it continues that way, not just for our area but right across our province.
I guess my final question to you, minister - doesn't it make sense that in order to prevent any problems or accidents from these motorists who are parking alongside, especially provincial highways, wouldn't it make sense for the operators to clear these lots when they are going by, rather than doing all the roads and then coming back and sure enough, there's a number of vehicles lined alongside that road. I'm just looking for maybe something that the department has reviewed, has heard from the general public, has heard from people who are using these parking lots.
We've been blessed, I guess, in recent years where we haven't had an abundance of snow but I know in the past at home where we have seen cars parked alongside or near these carpool parking lots which weren't plowed, so I guess I'm just curious.
MR. SMITH: It's a bit of a balancing act, really, as I see it. As I said, to get to the parking lot you have to have a cleared road. I've had people calling me complaining that you're doing a private property - I'm thinking of the church yard again - when my road isn't plowed, but I understand what you're saying around the safety issue and that kind of thing.
It also very much depends on when the storm happens. Sometimes there are cars in there when the storms come and we can't get in to plow because the cars are there, particularly if the storm happens during the day, so we have to wait until they go out, that kind of thing.
I suppose if there's a storm overnight and someone is fortunate enough to get on the road in the morning, it means that obviously some plowing has been done and if that lot isn't done, they leave the car on the side of the road. Again it's a balancing act, really, and I suppose as the plowers, they know their own districts and areas, I can't see there would be any willfulness one way or the other, in terms of someone saying well I'm not allowed to plow that. If they're there and it's obvious a time to do it and the thing is clear, perhaps that's the best way of doing it.
I think that leaving that up to judgement is probably the best way to handle it. I wouldn't want to come out with a definite policy one way or the other, in terms of ordering someone when they can do that but I take your point; it's an important one. Safety for us is one of the main issues in TIR. We have to make sure that Nova Scotians are safe on the roads. Hopefully there will be as few as possible people leaving their cars on the side of the road because they couldn't get into the parking lot.
I guess I have to say that the parking lots are on the right-of-way, it's provincial property. We appreciate that people need to park their cars and we try to do the best we can on that front.
MR. GAUDET: I want to turn to the estimates on Page 21.7. I want to start off with bridges. As the minister indicated last night, the department is responsible for somewhere around 4,100 bridges across our province. The minister talked about the condition of the infrastructure across the province . . .
MR. SMITH: Excuse me, can I just interrupt you for a second? I want to make sure I'm on the right book. Did you say 21 . . .
MR. GAUDET: Page 21.7. We know some of these bridges are quite old, some of these bridges as a matter of fact are over 100 years old. We know some of these bridges don't meet current weight and traffic volume standards. We know that some of these bridges need to be replaced, we know some of these bridges need extensive repairs, but at the same time with the money that we have to work with, of course, there's not enough to do everything that needs to be done. At the same time we see some bridges collapsing around our province and I just want to share one story with you, Mr. Minister.
Back in 2003, at home in Clare, the Meteghan River Bridge on Highway No. 1 did collapse in the river and luckily, nobody was seriously injured. Looking back at this bridge collapsing at home - and I know there have been others around the province, we're not the only ones that had this misfortune - often you ask yourself if this accident could have been prevented. I know people at home have been asking me - they know bridges are inspected on a regular basis, but yet, why did this bridge collapse? I guess my question to you, Mr. Minister, is can the department explain why after some bridges are inspected and determined they are safe to drive on, why these accidents happen?
MR. SMITH: Can I just ask again the name of that bridge and when it was . . .
MR. GAUDET: It was the Meteghan River Bridge in 2003, it has been replaced, but I remember hearing that comment many times, why did it happen? I'm sure across the province anytime a bridge does collapse many people do ask that very same question. They know bridges are being inspected by your staff, they feel these bridges are safe and then these accidents happen.
MR. SMITH: As you remember my saying, we have 4,100 bridges in Nova Scotia and many of those bridges are inspected on an annual basis and some of them even more frequently if it's one we're watching kind of thing. Obviously the newer bridges, we wouldn't be paying as much attention to them to start.
There are three possible reasons why a bridge would collapse after there has been an investigation or examination of the bridge. One of them might be as a result of a transport truck with a load that is heavier than the allowable limit for that bridge, so they could come on the bridge and cause damage as a result of that. That could happen between an inspection and we wouldn't have known that truck had gone over with a too heavy load for that bridge. Another possibility is either winter conditions or Spring flooding conditions might weaken abutments which would be something that could happen after our inspection occurred.
Of course, the third thing is unfortunately sometimes these infrastructures, these bridges are struck by vehicles and that could cause a movement or weakness in the structure itself. There are three kind of main reasons why even although we've been out to inspect a bridge it might result in stress to that particular bridge and that sort of thing. I hope that the one in Meteghan in 2003 was the last one, I don't know, in the province, you said you've heard of others.
I know in my own area of Antigonish at Loch Katrine there was a bridge that we closed for safety reasons and it's amazing the way people think, but they'd rather have a bridge that isn't safe than no bridge at all. They're quite willing to - I've used that for 50 years and it's going to fine for another 50 years, but anyway, we're fixing that one, similarly the one we heard about last evening that the Inverness MLA spoke about a bridge in his area, the Crowdis Bridge. There are two other bridges in the area that people can use, but everyone wants the bridge they want done. That we had to close because of safety issues and it's on the list to get fixed. So 4,100 bridges are a lot of bridges.
MR. GAUDET: I understand the department has staff and bridge engineers, who inspect bridges on a regular basis and pending on what they find, if the bridge is good, poor, or fair, the department will decide if there's any risk the bridge will be closed. I guess what I'm looking for is how - again, pending on how old the bridge it, I understand, if it's a relatively new one or over 100 years old - often are bridges and overpasses inspected in our province? Are these bridge inspections available, I guess that's the key, to the general public? If they want to obtain a copy or find out when the bridge in their community was last inspected, what was found or how did they rate, is that information available to the general public?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister and member, five minutes remaining in the Liberal Caucus time.
MR. SMITH: There are several items you raised in your question. Believe it or not every year, every single one of those bridges has at least a walk-around inspection. So of the 4,100, somebody is looking at that at least once a year. Then we have bridges which we have inspected that we think they're kind of on a more regular inspection with perhaps a higher level of inspection sort of thing, just because we know that one should get that kind of attention.
You were asking about the availability of reports on bridges and that kind of thing, if there's any particular bridge that you have a concern about or that you want the information on, we can give you the most recent report and make that available to you. I guess I wanted to talk a little bit too about the five year plan because there is a section of that, I'm sure you know, talks about what bridges we're going to do on an annual basis. In the five year plan for each year we've set out the bridge replacement work and the rehabilitation that we're going to do. This is new - the public wouldn't have had any of this before we came out with this five year plan, so it's another way of making people aware of what's going to be happening in their community and that kind of thing.
Just so people will know by looking at the plan it's on-line, so anybody who wants to see it can and if they need a hard copy we can get it to them. They'll be able to see what work is being done in their area.
When we came to government in 2009, bridge safety was a big concern. We were aware of that and hired three additional bridge inspectors to augment the resources we had in the department just for that particular purpose. As I said, every bridge is looked at - has a physical inspection - every year and on a routine basis we have ones that we look at more regularly.
MR. GAUDET: Is that bridge inspection available to the general public?
MR. SMITH: If you want it, you can have it. It's not on-line or anything, but if someone had an interest in a particular bridge and they wanted to know when it was last inspected or who was there or what was done, we can give them that information.
MR. GAUDET: Thank you. I know there is only a couple of minutes left - looking on Page 21.7 under bridge maintenance, in this given year you're planning to spend $10,900,000 - is that on bridge repairs? Is that basically what that represents?
MR. SMITH: Yes, that's pretty consistent with what we've done year over year. If you notice this year the budget was $11,234,000 and we spent $10.5 million.
MR. GAUDET: So that's the amount that will be spent on general repairs, right?
MR. SMITH: This is building maintenance. There is capital money as well for bridge work.
MR. GAUDET: Then I look in your five-year plan, you're talking about bridge replacement - $25 million. So $25 million is for a new structure?
MR. SMITH: That's capital, yes.
MR. GAUDET: And $10,900,000 is for repairs, right?
MR. SMITH: For instance, the Indian Sluice Bridge, that would be part of the capital.
MR. GAUDET: Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That concludes the Liberal caucus hour. We will now turn an hour of questioning over to the Progressive Conservative caucus.
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. ALFIE MACLEOD: I want to thank the minister and his staff for being here and giving me an opportunity to ask some questions a little bit on the budget, but more as usual, which mostly happens around here on local questions and things in the local area.
MR. SMITH: Welcome, it's good to see you here.
MR. MACLEOD: Thank you very much. I want to start off by saying I know that we had an earlier conversation about some of the issues in the Cape Breton West constituency. You advised me at that time that I should get in touch with your deputy minister and I want to say thank you for that because the deputy minister and the chief engineer came and we did do a tour of a number of roads in the area and certainly I appreciate the fact that they did that. Now that when I'm asking the questions here, they'll be more familiar. By the way, after that tour, it cost me about $400 to repair the front end of my car. (Laughter)
MR. SMITH: Money well spent, I'm sure.
MR. MACLEOD: The roads, as the minister knows, coming from a rural constituency like myself - parts of his is quite rural as well - are always an issue and priority for the individuals who live there. It's one of the things that most of our constituents in rural areas look at and relate to much quicker than some of the other services that are offered by the provincial government.
Recently I've been getting a number of phone calls from business people who are actually on Keltic Drive. I believe the member for Cape Breton North brought this subject up, but I'd like to just revisit it, if I could, with your patience. There are a number of year round businesses like recycling plants and lumber yards and the local co-op feed store and those things who are concerned about the impact that the building of the new bridge in Sydney River is going to have on them. There is no question that bridge is past its prime and I've lived in that general area for the best part of my life and I remember that bridge being there all the time, so it's not as young as I'd like to think I am.
I'm just wondering if there has been any effort to sit down and talk to the business owners there to address some of their concerns regarding the construction of the bridge and the impact that they're - they're not sure of but are concerned what they may have on their business.
MR. SMITH: I'm told that there have been some. We haven't received any calls in the office here in Halifax but I'm told that there have been some inquiries at the local office.
Basically it kind of a quid pro quo - we need a new bridge, there's going to have to be some delay in order to get the bridge up. We're looking at starting it at the end of June of this year and completing it at the end of December 2014. I'm sure the people there will know that there's not going to be any real traffic interruption, in terms of that bridge coming down. We have a plan in place for an alternate route that is approximately five or 6 kilometres, that's going to take 10 to 12 minutes to drive, so highway traffic that wants to go that way will be able to get that way.
In terms of foot traffic and cyclists, we will be providing a bus service that will be able to take foot traffic and wheelchair people and cyclists. That service will be available to them at no charge, to get them around the detour. I would welcome any business people who have concerns about that to come in to our local department. We will explain to them as best we can the timelines, what we're going to do to remediate the difficulty that people have been having crossing there. That's as much as I can offer, really.
One of the things I think that could be helpful is a publicity campaign, letting people know that there are other ways of getting around, that the detour is available, how long it is, where to go, that the bus service is available, that it is no charge to them. I am certain that the businesses themselves will be doing what they can to notify the public that they're still open for business and how to get to them.
One of the businesses I understand is the Dairy Queen. I can remember as kids, part of the Sunday drive, that was a long way from Charlotte Street to Sydney River in those days and going to the Dairy Queen was always a treat (Interruption) Tasty Treat, okay.
I mean that's really as much as we can offer. The job has to be done, it's a safety issue. We can't not do it. Yes, businesses will be somewhat impacted but again, it's not as if they're being cut off. On the other side of it, they are going to have a new structure which will, I am sure, be more than welcome. It's going to have some additional add-ons. We're going to have an active transportation lane on that bridge so cyclists and pedestrians and people on scooters and skateboards and wheelchairs or whatever are going to be able to get over there, so maybe there will be some increased traffic for these people when it's done.
We're not doing this back and forth business, we're just talking.
MR. MACLEOD: That's great, that's good. I appreciate what you're saying, I'm just wondering if in the interests of helping out the business community because they are small businesses, if we could be proactive as a government and as a community as maybe to offer up an information session to the businesses on Keltic Drive prior to that? Sometimes people are reluctant to come forward, it's just the nature of some people.
MR. SMITH: I'm told that there will be a Web site put up. There will be lots of publicity around this, lots of communication efforts to make sure people are aware of what we're doing, how we're doing it and how long it's going to take and that kind of thing. I know there have been some calls into the department. At this stage instead of rather than having a full blown public event, I think if people want to meet, perhaps we could on an individual basis with each of those who have a concern. We could map out something with them about how best to deal with their issues.
MR. MACLEOD: And that would be best worked through the local area manager?
MR. SMITH: Yes.
MR. MACLEOD: Thank you for that and I'm sure knowing that individual, he'll be open to that idea, but I just wanted to put it on the table today for sure.
The second part is the publicity campaign that you've mentioned on several occasions now, I think that is going to be a very important part of what takes place. I believe you said earlier, maybe not to me, but to another member, it's going to be after the schools are finished their term for this year. I'm just hoping the advertising will go out and we'll be done in such a way that it's not that people will just wake up one morning and it's happening. I think there has to be some awareness. It's a topic on a lot of people's minds, but at the same token, it would be important that the information get out there in a reasonable amount of time.
I know budgets are tight when it comes to spending and those things, but at the same time I think the more advance notice people get the less confusion there will be and the less activity there will be on the phones in the Sydney River Depot. I just suggest that as a thought and maybe you can share it if you know the plan. If you don't know the plan at this point, if you could share it with some of the Cape Breton members so that they have an understanding as to what is going on.
MR. SMITH: A couple of things about that. I'm sure we'll get no complaints from anyone that we spent some money on advertising for this, I think it will be considered money well spent.
MR. MACLEOD: I can't speak for anyone else, Mr. Minister, but you won't get a complaint from me.
MR. SMITH: Sometimes people think we spent too much money on advertising so I guess when it's your own issue you see how important it is and it's the same across the board, I think, for any of the issues that we tried to make sure people were aware of what we're doing. I thinking that you're right, the advanced information getting out there will be nothing but help for people.
It's interesting, I have been in the Sydney area quite a bit in the last six months and it seems to be - and maybe it's just being I'm the Transportation and Infrastructure Minister, but I don't think I'd go into a home or talk to somebody and they say, what about that bridge, when is it going to happen? A lot of people don't want it to happen because they don't want the disruption, they don't want the inconvenience, that's how they get and forth and going that extra six kilometres is - but I just say to them, you don't want to go across a bridge that isn't safe.
I guess back to the communication part of it, closer to the time when the tenders are going to be called and that will be toward late May, that's when the publicity part of it will be revved up. I know that generally speaking people in the Sydney River area are very aware that this is a project that is going forward. I think it's pretty well known even at this stage.
MR. MACLEOD: I want to thank you for those answers.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission I'm going to turn it over to the honourable member for Argyle for a period and then I'll be back after him, if that's okay with you?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine, Mr. MacLeod. We will now turn it over to Mr. d'Entremont.
HON. CHRISTOPHER D'ENTREMONT: Mr. Minister, it's a pleasure to have you up during your estimates. A couple of issues that I wanted to discuss quickly and I'll start with some of the harder ones and we'll work our way to maybe some of the good things that are happening in my neck of the woods.
The first one resolves around one that you and I have been working on, but I just want to sort of get it on the record - the Petit Chemin Des Jacquards, which is a French road name in my constituency in Lower Wedgeport. The Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal went out and replaced a sign and the writing on it was incorrect, unfortunately. Regardless of what it actually said, there is a new sign that needs to be ordered and put back up correctly.
There is a little bit of minutia in between putting the sign up, apparently. There are a number of letters that have gone between Charlie MacDonald and some interested community members that I just got a copy of just after I talked to Bruce Fitzner a few moments ago. It revolves around the issue of having to go to the community members, the people who live on the road, get a petition in order to change the name of the road. We're getting into a little confusion here that I can see, that there is no road name-change because the road has always been called Petit Chemin Des Jacquards. I really don't know how the mistake was made and when the sign was ordered. I don't know if the sign went missing and the local Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal staff went and ordered a sign and incorrectly marked it down. I really don't know, but ultimately I don't think we need to put the community through much more than this.
Let's just order a sign, put it up and then for future, as we're trying to get this name changing process figured out - especially in the Acadian regions that have asked for French signs or bilingual signs, I think we can make an adjustment there, but for this sign, I think I would like you just to use a little ministerial discretion and order the sign, get it put up and everybody will be happy. Maybe what you know of this one and see if we can come up with a little bit of a compromise.
MR. SMITH: Just so I can give you a bit of the background as to how it happened because you said you didn't know how it happened - we did a reconciliation of all the road signs in that area. There was a discrepancy between what was on the sign and what we were told was the actual name of the road. We went to the municipality and asked them - which did they want. It was under the municipality's direction that the new sign, which is up there that you don't like was prepared and put up. There was a choice and they told us which one they wanted.
There is a process for changing the name on a road, which now has to go through. I would be quite willing, if my department had made a mistake and put up a wrong sign that wasn't the appropriate sign, to go and take it down and put up the right one, but, in fact, what we're told is that the sign that's up there now is the appropriate sign for that area. If people want to change it, there is a process that they have to go through and that's what they're going through. There's a reason for this process and it's connected with the 911 service.
The name that is on the road now is the name that the 911 people have, and if we're going to change the name, we have to go through the process. My understanding is that the petition is being worked on. I believe you know well the Chief Executive Officer or the Chief Administrative Officer of that community and I understand he is actively involved in this. The process is well underway and we will get it done as quickly as we can.
As I said, I don't feel that I can use ministerial discretion to pre-empt a process that has been put in place to deal with these issues. As I said, I would be quite willing to do that if it had been a situation where we had made some mistake on the departmental side to start, but that isn't what has happened and we're in this process and we'll get it done as quickly as we can. I appreciate that it's perhaps an embarrassment for some of the people with that family name in the area, but you know the local people know the difference and thanks to your efforts, it's going to get fast-tracked.
MR. D'ENTREMONT: It's funny because I'm getting conflicting stories, like nobody is owning up to how the insulting name sort of got on that sign. Even the municipality will say well we didn't have that either, so I don't know, really don't care.
I just think that we should order the sign, let's get the petition done. We'll do that on the side, just to make sure it's done. The sign will go up as it was always called, Petit Chemin Des Jacquards, because we get into the confusing part. I understand the 911 issue, somewhere along the way it is lost in translation because I think what 911 wants for the most part is to have the English translation of it. It gets really confusing, especially when it comes to the French naming of roads.
Anyway, regardless, it's an interesting discussion; one that has gone on far too long for some silly reason. Every time we come up with a little bit of a compromise there's another layer that seems to get thrown in. I would suggest that you and I talking about it and coming up with a compromise is a good one, I think, and I appreciate your work on this one.
MR. SMITH: I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that the sign has been ordered, the new sign has been ordered.
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Thank you very much. That answers a lot of the questions.
A couple of points maybe for your list of possible road construction in my area, one that I hear of many times is the Little River Harbour Comeau's Hill Road. Part of it had been paved a number of years ago and the rest of it has not so that would go to the top of my list, if I was to have a list. The second part of it is trying to get the No. 3 highway through Argyle, to get the actual village of Argyle, to get that one paved because it is getting to be quite atrocious.
On the good news side, the bridge is going marvellously well, the Indian Sluice bridge that connects the community of Surette's Island to the mainland. The contractor is doing a marvellous job - Dexter Construction, I don't think, has any limit for equipment and the things they are using there are just absolutely amazing to me. The island piers, I guess is what you call them, the ones that are closest - so the foundation for the bridge, the piers are being drilled and cement has been poured, I believe already on at least one of the piers and they're pouring cement on the second pier. It's just going marvellously well and I want to thank the department for that.
MR. SMITH: I guess let's take these things in order; you've talked about the Little River Harbour Road?
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Little River Harbour Comeau's Hill Road.
MR. SMITH: Okay, it's a local road. Is it a paved road now?
MR. D'ENTREMONT: It is a paved road now, parts of it have been sort of updated a little bit but there's still some of that brown chip on it, which dates back to the early 1980's. It has been number one on my list for the last five years.
MR. SMITH: I guess just to tell you what I can about trying to move your road forward, as you know, of course, local roads are sort of - the work that needs to be done on them is determined by an assessment being done on the road. We look at the number of vehicles using it, we look at the number of houses on the road, the number of businesses, is there a school, is there a church, a playground, those kinds of things, of course looking at the public concern that comes forward through their MLA.
You said it's number one on your list so I presume that you've been in touch with your area manager or your district person there. I would ask you, has there been a petition done on this road? Those kinds of things are what usually move these things along.
You said that some work was done a number of years ago and it's kind of like trying to get it finished, is that the . . .
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Yes, like I said, the first half - the road runs from the community of Melbourne, so there's a road that comes in from Arcadia and sort of splits off; one goes to Pinkney's Point, the other one goes to Comeau's Hill. That had been done up to the Black Pond Road, which is probably four or five kilometres worth - it was done prior to my election so prior to 2003. So in my mind, that is still a relatively new road, in my books, but never got completed past the Black Pond Road. That one is, I think, a six-kilometre stretch. There is a major wharf in there with a large fish plant in there that employs a number of people so there is a fair amount of traffic that at least goes halfway up it to the Little River Harbour Wharf.
No, there has never been a petition that I'm aware of on it, but I'm sure the local councillor would be happy to do one. Like I said, it's been on my list to subsequent ministers over the last five years and I know full well that I talked to my area manager. Greg hasn't been interested in putting it on the list so - I don't know why.
MR. SMITH: I guess all I can do is to encourage you to keep talking and to push it forward. As you know, in the five-year plan, on an annual basis we have the local roads that are going to get done. I've used this expression many times before - it's the squeaky hinge that gets the oil so keep pushing. Hopefully the number one on your list will get done perhaps next year.
The other one you mentioned was the No. 3 through Argyle, and again, would you consider that a local road?
MR. D'ENTREMONT: No, that's the No. 3 Highway, so it has Route 3 - parts of it had started to be done so the Route 3 repaving started at Arcadia working its way through Tusket and it sort of has worked its way from East Pubnico, done some stretches in there. So some of the work is being done, but I just hope that some of those connections can be done. The worst stretch right now happens to be that one through Argyle; that's Route 3 Lower Argyle.
MR. SMITH: Apparently we've made a note of that. One of the things that we can do sort of right away on that is to do a road count to work out the traffic and then that certainly very much helps making a determination as to what area should be done next.
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Okay, that's wonderful. Those are my questions and I'll pass it back off to the member for Cape Breton West.
MR. SMITH: I just want to jump in about the bridge because that was the good bit. You didn't mention it so I'd like to mention it. We have a Web camera on that bridge and so anybody in the province can have a look and see what is being done there. It is quite unique because of the length of the bridge and that kind of thing - the methods that they're using and the work that's being done there. I think when the Bluenose was being built, they had a camera on that and people from the States and all over were tuning in to see how it was going.
This is an interesting project and anybody who is at home with the time should get some entertainment from watching this because it's quite interesting how it's going forward. I believe it's on time and things are going well, as you said. Thank you for those positive comments.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There are 33 minutes remaining in the Progressive Conservative caucus time.
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. ALFIE MACLEOD: I want to thank my colleague for allowing me some more time. I was interested in your comment about the squeaky wheel gets the oil. If that were the case, the pavement should be about a foot and a half thick on the New Boston Road. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. It isn't a foot and a half thick and, as a matter of fact, it is still a dirt road.
I was wondering if your department would give any consideration into doing the double chip seal. There has been a fair amount of money spent on this road and I'm sure if you speak to your staff, the chief engineer, he sort of lived through the first part of that and part of his career because he was the area manager. That road has gotten a fair bit of attention, no question about it, but at the end of the day there's still one of those roads that still comes back and keeps on speaking to us. I knew the member who was there in the early 1980's and it was one of the roads that was on his list of issues that kept coming back to him.
I think with the people who live on that road, what they are really concerned about is getting rid of the potholes and getting rid of the dust. With the money that has been spent, and I know the local people on the ground, I've heard about this road on many, many occasions when you have a chance to talk to them I know that they'll tell that to you.
I'm just asking that if you could, with your own chip seal crew now - and my understanding is it's going to spend some time in Cape Breton this year, and I could be wrong on that but that was my understanding. You don't have to answer it today but I just wonder if you'd give it some consideration at the very least.
MR. SMITH: Well I should tell you that you mentioned asphalt and the gravel road. No matter how much grease you put on that wheel, that would never happen. We're not, in any time soon that I can see, going to be in a position to put any asphalt on gravel roads. What we do - as you correctly indicated - is now when there's an upgrade on a gravel road merited, it's chip sealing that happens and it's the double chip seal on gravel roads.
Although our plant is going to be in Cape Breton for part of the summer, it's not going to be doing any double chip sealing this summer in Cape Breton so I can't tell you that it's going to happen this year. As I said, and again you've been pushing this issue for a long time and I think the former minister actually went to your area and you took him on the road, so I know it's a dear project for you.
I guess all I can say is that like any other local rural road, you're doing exactly what you need to do - you have to keep pushing. We rate roads and there's a system we use, a method we use to do that. Certainly input from the MLA, input from the local constituents by way or petition or e-mails or that kind of thing helps. We do road counts, we assess the number of houses on the road, the number of community buildings like churches or schools or halls or community centres, and try to assess as best we can how much usage that road gets. That goes a long way in determining which road gets to be serviced next kind of thing.
In terms of your own work in that effort, if there's a petition - and perhaps there has been, I don't know . . .
MR. MACLEOD: Several.
MR. SMITH: . . . and indicate as well, I guess, to the local department that this is on your list and hopefully you're going to be successful.
MR. MACLEOD: Thank you for that. My guess, Mr. Minister, is that there's probably a full filing cabinet somewhere in your department about the New Boston Road.
MR. SMITH: I'll commit this to you: I'll dig it out and have a look. Now that I know how important it is to you, I'll make sure that I keep an eye on it.
MR. MACLEOD: I appreciate that answer very much. You are right, the former minister was there but I also had your engineer and your deputy there this winter, I guess it was now.
Continuing along in the same vein if I could, Mr. Minister, the Grand Mira South Road is a road that has been paved. It leads to a small community. Parts of that road have had RiM paving, I think is what we call it these days - when I was a kid it was called recapping. There's parts of that road that are in bad shape and there is an active community there with a church and a hall and those types of things.
Again, part of the reason the deputy and your chief engineer were down, we did have a meeting in that community but I thought this would be an opportunity to bring it up to you, again when you are reviewing things with your staff; they could probably bring you up to date. It is, again, one of those communities that they are striving to see something happen to the roads because they feel that's one of the few things they actually get in return for the their tax dollar. I might add that it's right along the beautiful Mira River.
MR. SMITH: Is that what was called the Brickyard Road at one time?
MR. MACLEOD: No, but now that you mention the Brickyard Road . . .
MR. SMITH: Are they near each other?
MR. MACLEOD: I guess if you started out at Mira Gut and you came up the Brickyard Road, you'd get onto the Trout Brook Road and then you'd come onto the Grand Mira South Road but they all go up that on that same side of the river. On the opposite side of the river you would have the Horns Road, Hills Road - which by the way was completed last year by the department and it's a beautiful job and it was a job well worth waiting for. Then there's the Grand Mira North Road which leads to the community's wildlife park.
MR. SMITH: I'm in the right area.
MR. MACLEOD: You're in the right area and the next time you're down home if you want a tour, I would be more than pleased to take you out for a drive because it's a beautiful drive along with everything else. It's a little rough, but it's a beautiful drive. The Grand Mira South Road is a road that the community have been very active in pursuing and trying to get some type of work done. They understand that it's not all going to happen at once, but a plan and/or a little bit of activity would go a long way.
MR. SMITH: Was this one a gravel road that had been chipped sealed?
MR. MACLEOD: No, this one was an actual asphalt road that just from time and years gone by it is starting to deteriorate.
MR. SMITH: I guess you mentioned about the deputy and Mr. Fitzner being on the road with you. I think my understand is that at that time they indicated they would do an assessment of the road and determine what the appropriate treatment was. As I said, if it's already an asphalt road then there are various different treatments - it might be some chip seal, it might be a single layer. Whatever work that's going to be done will be done after an assessment to determine which is the appropriate treatment.
MR. MACLEOD: And I want to put on the public record, Mr. Minister, that the community received the deputy and the engineer well, but as you indicated earlier, our job is to make sure that we keep it at the forefront as best we can and I therefore am trying to do that. We will move on.
Highway No. 327 is the road that leads from Sydney out through Alexander Street to Marion Bridge, then onto the Village of Gabarus, where the seawall is.
MR. SMITH: Not at Main-a-Dieu?
MR. MACLEOD: Not in Main-a-Dieu. That road from Gabarus to the Marion Bridge area is considered to be part of the Fleur de Lis Highway and sees a lot of traffic by visitors from out of province. It's actually advertised as the Fleur de Lis Highway and the signage on it is that way. It is on your five-year plan to see some work, but I think it's some work next year, then a break and then the next year and then a break and then the next year. There is a considerable amount of traffic, plus the people who live there full time year round and they've been very patient. It is a priority and there has been some discussion with the department about which end to start because of where the worst part of it is versus - and that discussion went well.
I guess the next best thing would be to see it get moved up as quickly as possible on the plan for the local people, of course, but also for the tourists that come in. A lot of the people, especially coming from Quebec and I think we're going to see a lot of traffic this year because of the Louisbourg 300th Anniversary celebrations. They will be following the signage for the Fleur-de-lis Trail to lead them to Louisbourg. As I say, I know it is in the five-year plan, but I would like to encourage that to be sped up if possible?
MR. SMITH: The fact that it's in the five-year plan - people should be encouraged by that. It's going to happen and as you said, it's kind of piecemeal. When you mentioned in your comments, we ran into this last year in Victoria County when the asphalt plant was there. We were working on a road and some people said, you're doing the wrong end first, you should be doing the worst end first and actually, that's the wrong thing to do. What we're doing now is we're trying to do more of what we call preservation paving. We wouldn't necessarily put new asphalt on the worst part of the road because that portion of the road probably has to be rebuilt, so if we just put some asphalt on it you're not going to be any further ahead, it's going to be needing work again.
Sometimes we're working on a road and people say, well they didn't do the worst part and they're doing something that doesn't need to be done. In effect, what we're doing is increasing the life of that good portion that's left on that road and we would have to then work on the part where there's just no life left in it and do a different process. Some people don't understand when we're on a road and it might well be the same as this one you're talking about, the Fleur-de-lis Trail. Where we start might not have anything to do with how bad certain sections are. Some sections you can't do anything else but rebuild from the ground up, so there'd be no point in being on that road with just asphalt, for instance.
MR. MACLEOD: I appreciate what you're saying, Mr. Minister. But when we came to this decision, it was after discussions with the people in your own department - the area foremen, the area supervisor - so it was a process. We did come back and right up to the chief engineer here, he was part of that process. So it was as a result of people looking at it and knowing a lot more than I do about roads - I just know when they're rough. I'm not an engineer and I'll be the first one to admit that. We did go through that process and I was very pleased with the response because not being an expert, it's always good to have the people that understand it better to come to the same opinion, so that has happened and I do appreciate that.
MR. SMITH: As you indicated, just so that I guess publically people know, you're Route 327 next year there is going to be 6.5 kilometres of that road done and it starts from 1.8 kilometres south of the Oceanview Road, that's the North End and it's going to go southerly to the intersection of Route 247, so that's 6.5 kilometres there. The next one is 17-18 and we're going to be going again from Grand Mira South Road, southerly to 0.8 kilometres north of the French Loop Road, the north end and that's another 6.7 kilometres. There will be 13.5 kilometres done in that time frame. Again, we would dearly love to be able to do all of it, all at once, but finances don't allow that to happen.
At least, as I said, because we now have published our intent, the people of that area should be encouraged to know that your efforts on their behalf have been successful.
MR. MACLEOD: Thank you and I'm glad you do mention that because I've tried to explain to people to get it into the five year plan, sometimes, is the hardest part. At least once you're in the five-year plan then something is definitely going to happen, so I appreciate your reference to that.
I like to just move on to another area and that would be the road leading into Donkin. As the minister is aware, from many discussions that have been held in the Chamber regarding the potential of the Donkin Mine and what's going to take place, there is another community that has been very patient because it's going back to 2005, when the intent was first mentioned about the development of the Donkin Mine. People have been waiting since then to see some activity there and that process - as you know, with markets everything has gone up and down on several occasions - but the people's roads haven't been getting any better, so there is some concern.
We've been saying and I think justifiably so and with consultation with your department that with the development of the mine the work that needs to be done is much different from what you could expect if it's just an upgrade going into a community. That has been acceptable, but like I say, now it's going on since 2005 and people are starting to get a little bit concerned that their road is getting rougher and rougher and there doesn't seem to be any activity going on the road itself. This is going into Donkin and there also had been concern voiced in the community of Port Morien and that's different routing again.
I just wanted to know if there have been any discussions or any engineering work done on what would need to be done if, indeed, the mine does go forward because I believe the mine will go forward. I think it would be a great asset for the community and for the province, but at that same if you're living in the community you want to see your road fixed. If you have any comments on that I would appreciate it.
MR. SMITH: Of course, you're familiar with the five-year plan, so we have worked scheduled on that road for next year, 2014-15 and it's Route 255 and it's from two kilometres south of Homeville, Milton Road and that's northerly to 2.6 kilometres north of Black Brook Bridge and it's a seven kilometre stretch.
MR. MACLEOD: I appreciation that, Mr. Minister, I am aware of that, but that is not leading into the community of Donkin. The road that I'm talking about would be going past the heavy water plant and just maybe two years ago, what was referred to as the White Bridge was replaced there as part of the thought of going forward. You would be looking at from Dearns Corner into Donkin. The area that you suggested there and mentioned, which again is a good thing, but it's coming in from the Mira Gut area into the Village of Port Morien and then goes in a different route than it does to Donkin.
MR. SMITH: Okay, let me try this one on you. It's again Route 255 and it's from the intersection of the Donkin Highway to Port Morien and northerly, to north intersection of Donkin Highway and Dearns Corner, 5.2 kilometres.
MR. MACLEOD: Right, and that's good news, but it's still the wrong road. At Dearns Corner we have a "Y", so what you just described is going off to the right, going into the Village of Port Morien, going straight would be going into the Village of Donkin, where the mine is located. That's the section of highway that I'm . . .
MR. SMITH: So we're all around it.
MR. MACLEOD: Were all around it, but we're not in the right spot. With all the roads that are in the Province of Nova Scotia, it would be hard for you to know them all and I appreciate that very much.
MR. SMITH: Again, I don't know if I'm just surmising this, but my understanding was that it was difficult to decide what to do directly with that road because if it was going to be, let's say, a commercial road in terms of large trucks and all of that kind of thing, you'd do a different process, a different kind of surface, than you would if it was a residential road because you don't need to worry as much about the big trucks and it getting damaged and that kind of thing.
My sense of it is that probably until we know exactly what's going to happen that would be the reason for - one of the considerations is you don't want to spend more money than you need to spend by building it to commercial truck quality and yet you don't want to do it to a residential kind of quality if it's going to get chewed up with big trucks. Why don't you get that Donkin Mine opened and then we can decide what to do with the road?
MR. MACLEOD: As I indicated to the minister in my opening statements, that's exactly the issue that's going on. Since 2005, there has been all this wonderful talk about the mine and I think it would be a great thing for the community. I go down this all of the time that the energy plan for the Province of Nova Scotia says that we're going to be using coal until 2040, who not use our own coal and this is an opportunity to do that. However, the residents of Donkin are saying to me, get your act together and see if something can be done.
MR. SMITH: What distance is it?
MR. MACLEOD: It's about five kilometres into the community, itself, to the mine would be farther. I just wonder and again, not an expert, not an engineer, but if there is some kind of work that can be done then at some stage if the mine decides to go ahead, it would be a matter of strengthening what was already there versus having to rebuild. I'm with you, I don't want to see money spent that doesn't need to be spent because that's not a logical thing to do. But by the same token, if you live in a community you would like to have nice roads.
If you have been patient, and I think the people of Donkin have been very, very patient - I guess it's something I'd like you to consider if you can? Again, I know there are many demands on you, but if we're going to do something there eventually, there may be a way of doing it to a certain degree that if indeed it becomes a more commercial road, then it's just a matter of upgrading because I've seen that done on other highways where they go in and do their testing and if they're going to decide to open the road year round for hauling, it might require another lift of asphalt or something in order for that to take place. Again, not being the expert, but just throwing that suggestion out to you, Mr. Minister.
MR. SMITH: There is a bit of frustration with this job because I know that the concerns are legitimate, that the need is great, but we don't have the means to do everything. I don't think you were in the room when I made my original introduction statement, but when we came to power in 2009, we were faced with a huge structural deficit in terms of infrastructure in the roads. I've heard many, many times, indeed, the Leader of your Party came to me and thanked me for getting work done on the Maccan Road. He said to me, nothing had been done on that road for 20 years and I looked at him and said, whose fault is that?
We've only been there three and a half years and we've spent since 2009, $1.1 billion on roads. We inherited a huge deficit in terms of roads, the infrastructure, you know it yourself, you're talking about those roads. What we're trying to do through our five year plan is come up with a way of paving more and paying less. Part of that, that's the reason why the five-year plan came into being. What we're trying to do is preserve the roads we have so that they don't deteriorate so much that they have to be rebuilt from scratch. We're doing this preservation paving which is one of the ways we have of responding, to dealing with this lack of work that had been done previously.
This year we're spending $245.8 million on roads, that's on the capital roads, plus the maintenance and the rest of it. That's as much as we can do, we're trying to fill a huge gap here, so we've come in with our asphalt plant, we've come in with our chip seal and I know if you talk to your fellow MLA for Victoria-The Lakes, they were very pleased to have the asphalt plant in their area and getting some work done. The people who are getting the chip seal work done because of our plant being there, this is work that we couldn't afford to get it done. The whole rationale for bringing these pieces of equipment into the mix, as it were, is to lower the cost. We were getting tenders in some remote areas that were so high that we just couldn't afford to do the work. For a number of reasons, competition is greater, but there have been positive things that have happened as a result of us attacking the program in the way we have.
I don't know how I got off on this, but . . .
MR. MACLEOD: I'm not sure either.
MR. SMITH: No, you weren't here, I think that's how I started, by saying that it's been a huge challenge. I think we're meeting the challenge and we're getting the job done. It's just that it's such a big, big job.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister, I didn't want to interrupt you with a 10-minute warning so I let you continue there but there's only seven minutes left.
MR. SMITH: I don't want to cut into your time so go forward.
MR. MACLEOD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Minister, I do appreciate the challenges that you and your department have and that's why some of the suggestions that I'm putting out, again being a layman they may not be practical, but they are ideas of trying to find a way to spread that dollar - no pun intended - as far as possible. When it comes to that part of the Donkin Road, even if it were to find its way onto the five-year plan, again it's hope. Right now it's a question mark, so I'll leave that.
There's just a couple of short snappers, I hope. The Little Lorraine road was another road that we travelled on. It's a road that connects between Louisbourg and the village of Main-à-Dieu - you notice how I left Gabarus and the seawall out of this for today, or at least for this hour but that's another road. At a later date I'm sure the assessment will be done and the engineer who - I really want to call him Bruce. Anyway, Bruce will be able to bring you up to speed on that.
Again, it's one of those local roads that is a very convenient road but it's getting very rough. It goes back to the years when paving was done and if there was a layer of gravel down and somebody came along with an asphalt spreader and put an inch and a half of asphalt on it, away you went, and you saw it deteriorate quite quickly over a number of years.
The twinning of Highway No. 125, it's a major project that's going on and there's a lot of work taking place. I'm just wondering if there's an opportunity to give us a timeline as to what the end of that construction period may be? And maybe the cost of the overall project, too, if you can find that.
MR. SMITH: In terms of the total cost, I don't have that at my fingertips but I can get that for you. The timeline, I'm going to say it's at least another two years out before it will be finished.
MR. MACLEOD: That's fair.
MR. SMITH: I'm just going to check it, I think we actually might have that in the five-year plan, the end date. So there's some in 2014-15 and some in 2015-16.
MR. MACLEOD: Before I run out of time . . .
MR. SMITH: I want to correct myself - 2013-14, 2014-15, okay.
MR. MACLEOD: Before I do run out of time because I know one of my other colleagues wants - I just want to say that the staff of your department that I have the opportunity to deal with are very professional, they are easy to access and they accommodate, as best they can, with the resources they have. I don't always get a "yes" but I always get an answer.
I think it's important that people understand the quality of the people who are in the jobs and in the TIR department are very high calibre people and some of us forget sometimes in a snowstorm just what they're going through to try to service the community. Like I say, the area manager, the regional manager and the OSs are very accommodating with what they have to do. I think it's important that we recognize that because sometimes we forget that all of what we do here doesn't make a whole lot of difference if we don't have quality people on the ground delivering the programs.
I think that with that, I'd like to leave that, Mr. Minister. I want to thank you and your staff for the opportunity to have these questions. All of those roads are on the wish list and anything you can do will be greatly appreciated.
MR. SMITH: If I could have a minute to reply, thank you very much for your kind words towards the department staff. You mentioned the snow plowers but it's basically that people are very quick to complain and I don't mean yourself. These people get a lot of negative feedback and the positive feedback that they get from people like you is really quite valuable to them and to us, as a department, because it's certainly a morale booster. I'll make sure that your comments are conveyed to the people on the ground in your area, so thank you for them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, that is right to the minute. We will turn now to . . .
MR. SMITH: Could I ask for a break for five minutes?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure, by all means, minister. When you come back we'll have an hour for the Liberal caucus and there will be 38 minutes remaining. I know the Progressive Conservative caucus wants to come back so rather than having a closing statement, would you be okay with just reading the resolution, so we'll give about 36 minutes to the Progressive Conservative caucus and two minutes to the minister for his estimate resolution. Agreed? A five-minute break, thank you.
[4:43 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[4:49 p.m. The committee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister, our five minutes have become eight minutes - any time you're ready. Mr. Gaudet, one hour of questioning, it's all yours.
HON. WAYNE GAUDET: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to continue in the Estimate Book on Page 21.7, minister. Surface Maintenance, you have $23 million budgeted. I guess my first question is, technically what is this funding used for and how is this funding distributed around the province? Page 21.7 under Programs and Services you have Surface Maintenance, $23 million. What is that funding for?
MR. SMITH: That is basically the summer work that we do like the grading on the roads, the chloride on the roads, the gravel. It's for the whole province and it is pro-rated based on the number of kilometres in each constituency basically. That would be the maintenance over the summer basically.
MR. GAUDET: The next question - Roadside Maintenance, what is that funding used for - $3 million?
MR. SMITH: That's for - I'm going to give you an example like, for instance, the medians that get mowed and some bush cutting along the sides of the roads so it's like rim money really. It's just envelop, I guess, for that kind of work.
MR. GAUDET: So technically the difference between roadside and surface is actually money spent on the road, and roadside is . . .
MR. SMITH: On the side of the road.
MR. GAUDET: I understand that, thank you. Let's move down to Drainage Maintenance. What is this funding used for?
MR. SMITH: Drainage is almost what it implies - culvert work, that sort of thing.
MR. GAUDET: As far as restriction, it's basically funding used specifically to address drainage problems and not money to use for grading, ditching or whatever?
MR. SMITH: No, just that. If you look at the budget for the past year it was just a little over $5 million - we spent $5.5 million, and this year we're going to spend $5 million again. It's pretty much consistent. We use it all, I guess, is what I'm trying to say.
MR. GAUDET: What is Traffic Control - just a couple items further down. What is that funding used for?
MR. SMITH: That is signage on the road, the painting of the lines on the road - that sort of thing.
MR. GAUDET: The next one is Operational Supports - Summer. What is this $4.7 million used for?
MR. SMITH: When it says Operational Supports - Summer, this would basically be the supervisors' salaries work expenses for them. There is an operational support for summer; there is also one for winter on another line item.
MR. GAUDET: I thought maybe you were hiring summer . . .
MR. SMITH: No, it's seasonal so it's the same people. If you look on the same page down further, they have Operational Support - Winter.
MR. GAUDET: I just wanted to move down to "Snow and Ice Control". I'm looking at Page 21.2, they have snow and ice control, $56 million - alright, the same thing, $21.7 million.
I look at - with the very mild winter that we've had this year and in the department there was an overspending of somewhere around $1.5 million. I guess probably the first question is, why was there an overspending under the snow and ice control budget?
MR. SMITH: The budget was estimated at $54.5 million and as of March 31st, we were up to $58.5 million. When you said it was a mild winter, in some parts of the province they had a fairly record snow area. It was a funny season that way.
I know in my area, for instance, there were some large storms that people 20 and 30 miles away from me didn't get. Basically the difference is salt, between the $54 million and the $58 million, and of course plowing but it a lot of it was salt.
If you notice for next year, recognizing that maybe we were not budgeting enough for that, we've increased it about $1.5 million for next year. These are averages so when we set a budget for snow and ice control, we look at five years and we come up with an average and say okay, this is what we expect it's going to be. That's probably why it's a little bit higher, because if you look at the . . .
MR. GAUDET: So when I look at this overspending of approximately $4 million, I'm just curious, how does the department deal with that? Do we find $4 million somewhere else within the department's budget or do we take away from the field offices? How does the department try to compensate for that overspending?
MR. SMITH: As I said, because these are averages - and we consider this winter just past as an average winter - we had budgeted for that amount and we spent $4 million more. We have basically a contingency fund, I guess, for these eventualities. You can't just say you've run out of money and so we can't salt the roads any more.
Actually I remember being interviewed earlier - we were just about half-way through the winter - I think it was a CBC interview. There had been a lot of ice issues and we were using a lot of salt at that time. The concern of the interviewer was well, if you've only got $54 million and you've spent more than half, what are you going to do when you run out of money? I said at that time that we're going to keep our roads safe, we're going to find the money to do that and, as I said, we had to do it in this case. You know $4 million is quite a bit.
Just by way of an update or a correction, I'm told that when these documents were printed, we were expecting it to come in at $58,554,000 - we were actually only $2 million over. Because it was a forecast, they were asking us how much it was going to be. We thought that based on what we had gone through, that it would be $58 million, it was actually $56 million.
MR. GAUDET: Alright. I want to move to Page 1.2, looking at the General Revenue Fund. On Page 1.2 they have the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal for 2013-14, we're looking at a revenue of $26 million, approximately. I guess my first question is, where does the department plan to collect this $26 million from, and for what?
MR. SMITH: Just to clarify your question, you were asking the estimate for this year?
MR. GAUDET: Yes, for 2013-14. It's projected that your department will . . .
MR. SMITH: These are cost-shared monies that come in from the federal government, so these would be monies they would be sending to us on projects that we are cost-sharing on.
MR. GAUDET: So you're expecting to receive from the federal government, in this coming year, $26 million.
MR. SMITH: Yes, $26.5 million, but these are projects that are already sort of in the works - and they come in incrementally.
MR. GAUDET: Last night we understood that the department will be receiving $20 million from the federal government, so actually we're receiving more than $20 million?
MR. SMITH: That was the base funding, yes. Just to explain, I guess, I'm told that you were referring last night to Page 6, the $20 million, the federal . . .
MR. GAUDET: Yes.
MR. SMITH: I'm told that this document - if you remember, there was a lot of angst, I guess, about us trying to get our five-year plan out early and people wanted it, the road builders, everybody said, can we get it out any earlier? So when this was done, this $20 million here, that was an estimate that we thought we were going to get. These are more actual, hard numbers, so it's not different money.
MR. GAUDET: Now on the next page we're talking about recoveries.
MR. SMITH: I'm sorry, another correction - the $26,572,000, of that, $22 million is federal and the rest is fees and collections that we have, others, so fees and other charges that we collect, as a department. I guess that brings us a little closer to our estimate.
MR. GAUDET: Now on the next page we're talking about recoveries of $7.3 million - where does the department plan to recover this money from and for what?
MR. SMITH: It's made up of different sources. One of them is the RCMP, they give us money for the trunk radio service that we provide - that's approximately $1,770,000 from the RCMP, and then there's a municipal exchange, $4,811,000, and then there's other municipal monies just over $700,000 that we receive there. That's cost sharing on J-class roads.
MR. GAUDET: Those would be for cost-shared roads?
MR. SMITH: Yes - they pay us.
MR. GAUDET: I want to move to staff in your department - Page 21.3, please. When I look at the funded staff last year, there was 2025 and the estimate for this coming year is 2,056. This was in the budget from 2010-11. The minister indicated we expect the total number of civil servants to be 10 per cent lower by 2013 so 10 per cent lower. When I look at what the department is looking at probably from 2025 to 2056, I guess my first question is, does the department have a reduction target of 10 per cent to meet or is your department exempt from meeting this 10 per cent reduction that the government talked about a couple of years ago? My first question to you is, does the department have a target of reducing staff in the department?
MR. SMITH: Yes, I will say that all departments across government had been asked to make reductions in their staff and we've been working towards that goal. My understanding is that basically it was done by way of when people retired or gave up their job, these weren't necessarily replaced. It was mostly by attrition.
MR. GAUDET: I guess the next question is, what is the department's reduction target? What is the target that has been given to your department?
MR. SMITH: I don't think it was necessarily a percentage. My understanding is that - how best to put this without making it sound - we have reached the numbers that have satisfied the request that was put to us to reduce our numbers.
MR. GAUDET: What is that number?
MR. SMITH: My sense of it is that, again, as I understand this - and I might only be complicating this further - but if you look on that line where it says "Less: Staff Funded Through Tangible Capital Assets" - 162 in brackets. Those are people who, as I understand it, would be working on capital projects so that they're funded by those capital projects rather than through the department. Do you understand?
MR. GAUDET: Yes.
MR. SMITH: So that is basically an explanation of that number. The total number overall, comparing - you were going back to 2010 and you were talking about 10 per cent. My understanding is that our numbers are consistent with what was expected of our department to achieve.
MR. GAUDET: So when I compare 2010 - how many people were working in the department as to this coming year - has there been a significant reduction? Do we know how many less people are working for the department?
MR. SMITH: We're down 120 people on a net basis since 2009-2010.
MR. GAUDET: Now I guess my next question is, when I looked at the fact there's 128 people fewer working in your department, you mentioned earlier these are people who retired, we are not going to replace them but I suspect there's some of those people who have retired who are quite critical in your department. How do we decide what position we can eliminate and what job we have to keep?
MR. SMITH: The question is a little bit of a loaded one, I guess, in the sense that my answer is going to be - we, as a department, knew we were facing this reduction. We put a plan together and we looked at what services we were providing and our reductions came in areas that would be the least impact on services that we wanted to provide. I guess that's how we determined which ones were not going to be refilled.
MR. GAUDET: I'm sure every job is important to the department so I'm just to understand this. The departments have been given a reduction target, but at the same time we hear there's 128 people fewer working, that your department has met your target. I'm trying to understand, out of these people, the jobs that they were doing or responsible for in the department, there's probably nobody doing these jobs any more, nobody is responsible for them. So I'm trying to understand how does the department, or your department decide okay, we can't allow this job not to be filed, so I'm trying to understand.
MR. SMITH: Well to some degree, part of it would be accounted for because the capital programs have changed, they've shrunk somewhat. Our overall budget this year has shrunk so there will be fewer people working because there's less work we're doing. That would explain part of it, I think.
MR. GAUDET: So right underneath the next item . . .
MR. SMITH: And another component, I guess, of that is that some seasonal people have less work than they would have had otherwise.
MR. GAUDET: So the next item, less staff funded by external agencies. We have two people identified, or two jobs, two FTEs - what are those two positions?
MR. SMITH: You're on the same page? The "2", in brackets for "Less: Staff Funded By External Agencies"? Is that the . . .
MR. GAUDET: Yes, that's the question.
MR. SMITH: One of them is the Sydney Tar Ponds and the other is the Highway No. 104 corp, the toll highway - the Cobequid Pass.
MR. GAUDET: That works at the toll?
MR. SMITH: They are funded by that agency. I'm told it's one of the administrative staff.
MR. GAUDET: Okay, alright. I think you've answered my next question when I looked at "Less: Staff Funded Through Tangible Capital Assets". When you indicated that these are people who are brought in when certain capital projects are underway, are these, I guess department staff who are basically borrowed to work on these capital projects? I'm just curious - who are these 181 people who we suspect in this current year will be working on these capital projects? Is it staff who are basically being sort of transferred over to work on these projects?
MR. SMITH: They would be seasonal construction workers. I think 40 of them are civil servants and the rest would be CUPE workers.
MR. GAUDET: Okay. I just want to talk a little bit about early tendering. We've heard the Nova Scotia Road Builders Association before talking about early tendering. For me to hear that the road builders - you know, it just doesn't make sense. We know the department is going to be building roads, is going to be fixing roads - I don't think the road builders are asking for the department to lay out all the projects that you plan to be involved with in this current year all at once.
We know a lot of these contractors probably early in the year - February, March, April - they hear back from their workers, when am I starting? When are we starting to work? Do we have any tenders? Have we been successful? For a lot of these contactors know, we're still waiting to hear from the department. In the meantime, some of these workers have to start working, earning a paycheque. What happens? Some of these workers who are involved in the road construction business leave the province and go elsewhere.
I guess my first question is, how much work has been tendered out so far for the upcoming construction season?
MR. SMITH: I'm really glad that someone has asked this question because I want to use it to highlight the changes we've made and the improvements we've made. Just two weeks ago we met with the road builders again and we meet with them on a regular basis. They were very pleased and thankful for the fact that we gave them numbers as of the end of February. As of the end of February, we had more than doubled, by that time, the number of tenders we had sent out this year, as opposed to last year.
We're now - and the roads aren't even open yet - over 50 per cent of our tenders are out. So we heard their request, we understood it and we responded in a positive way to it. As I said, they are very pleased with that now and, as much as we can, we will continue to do this. That was at the end of February. By now we're very much ahead, over 50 per cent of our tenders are out.
The difficulty we have is that we're only permitted to commit ahead of budget, half of the previous year's budget, so even if we had all the projects ready to go, we couldn't issue tenders for them, we're not allowed to do that. So as much as we can, we're getting them out as quickly as we can and it has been received positively by the road builders.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to hear that. I think the road builders have been lobbying the provincial government for years and years. I'm glad to hear that this year we've been quite successful, maybe more successful than in previous years.
I respect that the department can't commit more than 50 per cent of their budget before the House posts the annual budget. But for future years, has the department come to a system, a plan to work with the road builders to make sure that we continue to put as much of this tender work out as early as possible? It's great to hear that we've been quite successful for this year but we have to start planning. When I look at the five-year plan, the department is already planning ahead, so for the road builders, I'm sure they're planning for the future as well.
Is the department basically trying to put a plan within government or within their department to assure that this process will continue to exist next year and not go back - rather than having a real successful spring with tenders out, that next year that number may be reduced? I'm just trying to find out if the department after x-number of years - if they have a system in place to try to do as much early tendering for next year as well.
MR. SMITH: Thank you for that question as well because part of it is related to our ongoing five-year plan. As you know, this year we headed out in December, which was much earlier than any of the previous plans had been. We're actually working now towards next year's five-year plan and I'm hoping to have it out even - I'm not going to give you a date but - earlier this year, so you have to tie the two of them together.
When these five-year plans come out, the industry then knows what is available - what kind of work is going to be there. That enables us as well to know for our own purposes what work we intend to get done and so it automatically follows really that we can get the tenders out earlier. I'm hoping to even improve - again, I'm not going to give you a date but - I'm hoping to be able to improve on what we did this year in terms of earlier tendering.
In terms of long term, I guess it depends on who is sitting in the chair and who is here doing it, but I'm hoping that this will be a trend that improves. We're getting into it and we work very closely with the road builders. We obviously have differences, but they're brought to the table and this is a positive result of that. They asked us for this and we were able to give it to them.
MR. GAUDET: You should be congratulated because we've been hearing from the road builders for years now, asking the department to try to call as many tenders as possible in early Spring or throughout the winter months. As I pointed out in my opening comments, we often hear from these contractors losing some of their workers to competition from outside the province. I'm sure for contractors who are losing some of their workforce, it's difficult to try to find experienced highway workers so I'm glad to hear that the department is sitting down with the road builders and you've had a very successful exercise here, calling a lot of these tenders early for this year.
Speaking of the tendering process, we also have heard from road builders about improving the tendering process. In the past, again, from the road builders we've heard often the department puts out one small tender for - and I'll use Digby County for example, especially from both ends of the province where there is probably less competition or limited companies that are submitting bids. When you have probably few or very few bids that will be received by your department to carry out some of this work - we recognize for a contractor to move their equipment to either end of the province just to do a small job, we can expect that bid to be quite high.
My question is, when the government is looking at putting out tender work - especially from both ends of the province - why isn't the department considering a number of tenders out for one larger area, rather than just one small job out? It could be the tri-counties - Digby, Yarmouth, Shelburne on the other end of the province, for example - in order to attract more bidders and probably for the department better bids at the same time. I guess let's start off with that one.
MR. SMITH: Well I think what you're talking about is really bundling the bids in an area. We do quite a little bit of that but there's a downside to that as well. I believe it's Dexter Construction that has half of the work in the province. I'm interested in there being competition in the province so that we can get better bids. If we have one person doing a lot of the work or most of the work, then the bids, we don't have any real completion in bidding. So we deliberately keep some projects small so that the smaller companies have something to bid for. They can't do the big projects - they don't have the wherewithal - so by having some small projects available, these other companies are able to keep going. That's kind of the other side of it; where we can, we do bundling.
One of the issues that sort is related is the fact that they were complaining that if we only did a small project in an area that they would have to put a big bid on it and that was the reason why our bids were so high. Part of that, I guess, was resolved a little bit by our getting into the asphalt plant business. We've been able to avoid a large bid on an area where bids were not coming in from, because of the remoteness. That kind of ties into what you said initially, one end of the province that someone is not going to come a long way to do it unless they have a big bid.
By having this mobile plant we're actually able to do some of that work ourselves and not have to pay the big bid.
MR. GAUDET: At the same time we're actually pushing those bids to go up. In the road builders competition we have big players and smaller players and in order to allow them a chance to get some work - of course with bundling, as you've put it, various projects - we're actually not making, I guess, work available to those small contractors.
To my next question - you mentioned that you are meeting and consulting with the road builders. Do they have suggestions to pass on to your department in order to try to improve upon the tendering processes, especially for those remote areas of the province?
MR. SMITH: I know we have, at various levels, regular meetings with them and it's kind of like a table where they can bring their concerns. I know, for instances, the early tendering was one of them, I know the bundling is another. These things are always being discussed. They have a committee that actually deals just with our department, for these purposes. So yes, I guess I can say to you that that's exactly what happens, they do come with their concerns.
They are our partners, really; we are not on opposite sides in this thing. We need them and they need us. I guess I have to say that if you look at the last since 2009, the $1.1 billion we've spent on roads, they are as busy as they can be. People are coming in from New Brunswick to work in Nova Scotia on our roads, northern. People are coming from P.E.I. to work on our roads because they don't have the work there because they don't have the money, so they're coming here to work.
That's competition, that's keeping our prices down, which is a benefit to Nova Scotians because we're paving more, we're getting more pavement for the money we've been paying. This year with the $245.8 million, there's going to be a lot of work out there and I guess the competition is keen.
I don't know if you know this but in my area a local company, Nova Construction Company Limited, have just bought a new asphalt plant. There's a lot of work to go around and the road builders are investing in new equipment and that kind of thing. It's a good partnership, I'm quite pleased.
As I said, we have differences - they don't want us to be chip sealing, they don't want us to be with the asphalt. The total amount of our budget for asphalt and chip seal is $8 million, out of a $245.8 million budget. Of that $8 million, a good two-thirds of it goes to the private construction for emulsion and aggregate and trucking. We're hiring private - the supplies and the trucking. The component that the province is spending of what they might call their money is quite tiny.
MR. GAUDET: The reason I am raising this is because often I hear government officials talking about that bids are higher in Digby County, for example - I'll use my home town. Well governments, or the minister of the day, are not being totally up front. There's probably reasons for that but rather than going into details, to explain to the general public why certain bids are high, the fact that there was only maybe one bid or two bids, at the very most, on some of the small tender work, we have to be fair, I guess.
At the same time I know you've got excellent staff around you, minister, who know the system and the business that you're in. All I'm saying is, I think at times that we need to be fair, especially with the industry that you're working with. As you pointed out, you need them, they need you.
I'll just finish off by encouraging what you have been doing - sitting down with the road builders, listening to what they bring forward and to say, I hear you, is it possible to make some changes to allow for the department and for the road construction to move forward?
I want to touch base on a couple of pieces of legislation next. I want to start off, Mr. Chairman, through you - back in 2010, the government passed legislation that requires motorists to slow down when passing emergency vehicles stopped on the side of the road. This is a good bill and all Parties supported it but in order for this law to be effective, Nova Scotians and especially visitors to our province who are driving on our roads, need to know that this legislation is in place.
Yesterday I was coming from home to Halifax along Highway No. 101 and I noticed in two separate places there, police had vehicles pulled over to the side of the road. You could see these police cars from a good distance. Of course traffic was moving along at probably 100 kilometres or maybe a little slower or a little faster. I didn't see anyone putting their brakes on, didn't see any brake lights coming on.
I guess that ultimately when this piece of legislation came forward several years ago, was to try to make our roads safer, tried to help these emergency workers who at times are stopped on the sides of our roads, but yet often you hear that somebody got stopped, pulled over, charged. My first question is, what has the department done to inform Nova Scotian drivers of this new law?
MR. SMITH: Initially when this - I guess I should just maybe back up. My understanding of the law is that if you're coming across a scene where you can see an emergency vehicle pulled over - if it's a double-lane highway, you're compelled to move over. If you can do it safely, move over into the other lane so that there is a passing lane between you and the vehicle, and also to slow down, I believe, to 60 kilometres. I agree with you, probably nobody does the slowing down. I have seen people moving over.
When the change first came about there was a media blitz - television, newspaper, that kind of thing. Maybe it's time to do it again. Maybe we should be doing it, perhaps, on an annual basis or every nine months or something like that to make sure that people understand that. Ultimately, the RCMP enforce the law so they're the ones that would be responsible for getting someone pulled over, ticketed, that kind of thing.
It's interesting, sometime you do see a couple of RCMP vehicles spaced on the side of the road so that you slow down for the first one and then you get caught at the second one. I don't know if they need to do some of that kind of checking. Once one or two people get caught, it seems to get out there; the word seems to spread.
So yes, I agree it's a very important issue and I will raise that again in terms of - coming up in May we have, for instance, Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month and maybe that kind of thing where - because we have a number of similar laws like so much distance from a bicyclist, those kinds of things. They're not much good if people don't know them so I agree with you that's an important thing and we'll look at that.
MR. GAUDET: I guess the next part to this - we have people from outside of the province coming in, driving on our highways. They don't know that law exists. They may have a rental; they may be driving their own vehicle - who knows? I've always wondered why the department doesn't put up some signs. It could be at the border as people are coming into the province. I'm not saying there needs to be signs coming up or cropping up on every highway. It would certainly be helpful to remind our own drivers here at home, but at the same time, we need to get that message out to people from outside the province.
My question is, why doesn't the department consider putting up signs - some signage to inform motorists who are entering our province of this important law and at the same time, these signs will be seen by our local drivers? My question to you is, will you take it back to your department staff to at least look into this? I'm not saying we can continue to do these awareness campaigns. They're expensive - whether we're using television or newspaper ads or whatever. Looking back, the reason this legislation was brought forward in the first place back in 2010 was to try to make those emergency workers who are stopped along our highways, make their work a little safer.
We have brought changes, especially for highway workers when they're working on our roads. If you get caught speeding in those construction areas the fines are double. Again, all I'm asking is for the department to take a second look at this.
MR. SMITH: Thank you for that advice. I was just whispering here when you were talking about this issue. You talked particularly about the people coming to the province as tourists and we could have a very small pamphlet available at car rental dealers to just indicate no cell phone, what you have to do when you're coming across emergency vehicles. It could be a one-pager kind of thing. We could have a page in our Doers and Dreamers Guide. We could have a page at all our tourist bureaus. It's a good idea and we'll look into it.
MR. GAUDET: I'm leading on my next one - I have to talk about cellphones and texting behind the wheel. Back on April 1, 2008, this is when the new law came in place to ban the use of cellphones or texting while driving on our roads. I don't think I'm the only one who sees drivers on our roads who are on their cellphones or texting behind the wheel.
My first question is, does the department know how many drivers got caught since this new law came in place?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Member, before you get an answer on that, 10 minutes are remaining in your time.
MR. SMITH: Yes, I don't have that figure at my fingertips and I'm not even sure if our department would have it but I can get that for you. There will be a record kept, obviously, of charges that at least have laid or tickets that have been issued. We'll find that information for you and get it back to you. It might take a couple of days just because it might be another department.
MR. GAUDET: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Many other jurisdictions in Canada and outside our country have a similar law. I'm not saying this is quite unique to Nova Scotia, I'm quite sure other jurisdictions have similar problems even though there is a law that encourages or tried to tell motorists not to use cellphone or do texting while they're behind the wheel, some do. In HRM in 2012, it says that since the law has been in place, there's over 2,000 tickets being issued; just here in HRM. I think we all have seen people behind the wheel, some I guess get stopped and charged, other probably are maybe a little luckier, they don't.
I guess my question is, the fact that this is happening elsewhere and this problem is not just unique for Nova Scotia, has the department or is the department looking at other jurisdictions to find out what they're doing to try to address this problem, try to reduce the number of people who are actually not following this new law?
MR. SMITH: The answer is yes, we are. We are looking at other jurisdictions to see exactly, as you said, what they do and how they handle the situation. We're actually looking at other devices that people use in cars as well now. They got this 410 kind of system that's available now, it's kind of a larger - we're actually looking at ways of putting more strength to the legislation we have now.
It's something that I, as Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal, get updates of certainly every fatality in the province and I can say that liquor is probably the biggest - liquor, speed and cellphones are the ones that are causing people to die in Nova Scotian highway accidents, inattention because of the cellphones. It's an important issue and it's something that we are continuing to monitor and to look at.
MR. GAUDET: Before I move on to the next topic, I think we need to certainly congratulate and thank everyone who follows the law because a lot of people believe in it, for good reasons, and they are following the law that was brought in a number of years ago back in 2008.
We know there is a problem. We know there are a lot of people who are abiding by this new law, but I don't want to leave this committee believing that everybody is not following this new law because just the opposite. There are a lot of drivers who are following this law and, as I pointed out, when this was brought in it was supported by all the Parties and I'm sure all of us still believe it was the right thing to do, but still I think we need to reach out and do a little more of awareness, of getting that information out.
I know there are only a few minutes left. I want to touch on something that has been brought up to my attention - the painted lines on our roads. The centre lines on our roads don't appear to last as long. The question that has been asked is, is the department using different products now than they used to? How come these centre lines that are painted in the middle of the road don't seem to be lasting as long? So my first question, is the department using different products now than they used to?
MR. SMITH: Believe it or not, again, it's one of these balancing things. We now don't use the same kind of paint we used to use. We used to use lead-based paint. We're not allowed to use it now. It's a water-based paint and it doesn't last as long.
MR. GAUDET: Then the next question is, looking at the department policy on painting the lines on our roads, has the department modified its policy? I think at home - I know every year the lines are usually painted on Highway 101, on the No. 1 Highway and Highway 340, and all the secondary roads we alter every second year. If the paint doesn't last as long, has the department looked at maybe changing or modifying its policy?
MR. SMITH: On the secondary roads, as you said, we're now doing them every other year; it's a cost-saving measure. Fortunately, they actually last a little bit longer because there is less traffic so the wear isn't as much. If you find a situation on a secondary road where there isn't anything left, then we can re-do it. That policy isn't written in stone. It's basically safety. If there is a need, we will do it again.
MR. GAUDET: I guess my final question is, how much does the department spend on painting the lines on our roads throughout the year?
MR. SMITH: The cost per kilometre of painting the lines on the road, $250 per kilometre. I don't have the exact figure, but it's probably close to $3 million per year on painting the road.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, in closing I just want to thank the minister and his staff for providing helpful information to try to get a better understanding. Again, as I pointed out in my opening comments, throughout the year MLAs rely upon your department to answer and help out many, many times. So again, thank you very much for the time that you've provided.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have 38 minutes left in the four hours allocated to us for today. That, in fact, will make up the total of 40 hours here in the Red Room, so we will be finishing very shortly. We're going to allocate 36 minutes, if that's okay, to the Progressive Conservative caucus and two minutes to the minister for his resolution on estimates. Agreed?
The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. CHUCK PORTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a whole lot but it might take a little time so we'll get started.
Minister, one of the things I want to go to to make sure I get in is - I don't know what the right terminology for it is but it was a decision made in the last year or so that we should pick up the map and move it, I guess - to put it quite frankly - the coverage areas of where our various departments cover. I'll use the example I'm most familiar with, generally we were within the West Hants lines, it was pretty simple.
Now I'm dealing with two counties. Now I'm dealing with Lunenburg County and there's a small area out in the Upper Vaughan area, on the minister's side, where Chester comes over now and looks after. I don't know how familiar you are with that area but that's a significant drive from where they're located. We go out, we turn at the store where it meets the New Ross Road and I'm just going to be right up front, it makes absolutely no sense to anyone why we would have ever adjusted.
There may be some places in the province where this makes perfect sense, and I'm not arguing that. But I will say that the decision to move that line, I will never understand nor will the people who live there. This even got so bad, and I want this to be so clear to you - this even got so worrisome and so bad that the school bus superintendent - Dave Crouchman who manages the school busing system out there - altered their routes so that at least some of the kids could still get the bus when the winter came and they knew the road wasn't going to get plowed.
Where the Lunenburg County line and the Hants County line meet on the Chester road, heading south, there's a significant difference. I'll credit all the folks who work in Hants County for sure, and all of them for that matter, but certainly for the guys who work and the gals who work in the department in Hants West who are on the roads plowing - they do a damn good job out there in keeping those roads clear.
Those people out there know - and you can appreciate the weather belts, too, how it's very different. It might snow two inches in Windsor, it might snow a foot in Vaughan, it's hugely different. They knew there would be a change to their system because they knew that as soon as they crossed the Lunenburg County line, there was a difference in the roads. I think part of that is because we're on the outskirts of the Lunenburg County side and they were never happy with how that was done.
A lot of folks travel the Chester side, too, and of course towards Windsor, on my side and through Hants County. I met with them out there in October and I had gathered some information. We had a session out there which I thought was the right thing to do. I spoke to the OS from Lunenburg County and from Hants as well and gathered what we thought was the detail and the policy and we had a good community meeting out in the Vaughan Fire Hall, well attended, in an effort to try to say look, we're all one department, we're all one province, this shouldn't be that big a deal.
That was a hard sell, I can tell you that right now. It never sold, in all honesty, because what they feared sort of came true. As soon as it took over last Spring - it would be almost a year ago now - there was nothing done. We had to fight to get anything done - there were no bushes cut, there was no rim work done at all.
I did have the area manager - and his name escapes me - a good fella, a young guy came down. I met him from Truro and we went for a drive, he and I because that's what I like to do with the guys out there. We toured the entire area and said look, I don't ask for much and you can check with the guys in Windsor and West Hants who look after my area, there's not very much that I ask or even contact the guys. If it's something, people call in and it's fairly significant, we're very fortunate we don't have a lot of complaints, if you will.
I know it's not like that all over the province but we have very few complaints when you really think about it. Even in the wintertime, when there's a good snow on and the road is getting cleared, we have very few calls. So when they do call, I contact my Oss - great guys, Larry and Hal down there. They look after business pretty darn good. We've had a good relationship in my seven years there, it's been absolutely wonderful.
My inclination was, if there's a change, the first thing I'm going to do is meet my OS and my area manager on the other side. I did that and that was fine. The result, by no stretch, was the same. We did the tour as I said and I kind of outlined, I'm not looking for much, we need a little bit here just to keep the pot holes down, if that's what needed. A little dust control on the roads out there was all that was asked for and some bush cutting on the sharp turns where it gets a little - and you can't see the traffic so it's a bit of a safety issue. Nothing - call after call and nothing.
What would have been great is if they had just done that little bit. There was a cone out there in place of a guard rail. As far as I know, it's still there. If somebody hits the cone they're into the drink out there - somebody could drown. It's just simple stuff that should have been done that never got done.
I know that RiM budgets have been cut because I look at them every year and I ask every year, what is the RiM plan? I like to be part of that because when I do get calls - and I travel my constituency on every road. There is not a community that I'm not in; I'm in them regularly so I keep track. If I'm running into a big hole somewhere, the guys will fix that up. If there's more to be done come RiM time or there is a chunk of guard rail needed somewhere or whatever it might be - it's small stuff really in comparison when you think about the issue. They're very good at getting that done - and I appreciate it very much - but they can only do what they have money to do it with, but we have significant changes in this budget.
When I looked at - and I've got it in the Chamber over there; I didn't bring it over because it was my list for this year. There is absolutely no patching listed on it. There is no asphalt that I saw; maybe there is something else in projects yet to come that I'm not aware of. There is some bush cutting and some shouldering and I'm thinking - the pot holes that I'm running into right now are not getting fixed that I'm getting calls on and we're going to cut the bushes, which we need to do too.
There are significant cutbacks in this and I'm not sure - I would like to think when I look around the table and see the number of years' experience sitting around the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal you all very clearly understand the importance of that RiM more than anything else how significant that money is and that work, when it gets done, is to the driving public.
You hit one pot hole and the tire gets wrecked, we write you, Minister, because they come in and complain. We've got to write you as minister and the department and say, what are you going to do, they expect their tire and the damage to their car to be fixed - none of them ever are that I've ever seen. That only frustrates the driving public more. It does nothing to help with the name of what it is we're trying to do or the department. It's a negative piece that we try to keep in hand. We do everything we can. You often hear people talk about - the department doesn't do this and it doesn't do that.
We're very positive in my constituency. We do a lot of different things. We put on the Web site and the brochure stuff about, when will my road get ploughed, and a lot of that kind of good information and what the policies are. We try to direct people there all the time and say, what you don't understand is that they're working within a budget. You can't blame the local people doing the job - they're doing what they can do. Again, I credit those people for doing the job that they're doing because they're doing what they can, but the cutbacks that we're sustaining, we cannot continue to do that.
When we look at a lot of different things - and then I see this shift of the map, I call it - I don't know who assessed it and this is what I couldn't figure. Nobody ever called and said, "Hey, Chuck, what do you think about this? You're the guy who probably deals with a lot of issues", which we do, we're on the ground out there. Nobody ever came and asked, "What do you think about the idea of shifting this? How will this impact? Will it have an impact?" Those were simple things that I couldn't really get my head around when this was decided. The people out there then come to us and say - you did it. Well, hold it now, no - they never even called, we didn't do anything. That was part of trying to inform the public, this is what has happened and let's try to make the best of it, I need to know if things aren't getting done.
We got nothing done last summer. Winter comes and yes, there were some issues. When I met with the OS, I was told there was a brand new truck that was going to come from Chester and make its way through, and it was understood it was going to go out the New Ross Road, turn and come back. It sounded good and actually if it had run that way, we would probably have had better service or at least as good a service as we ever had because we've had very good service out there.
One of the things that I'm sure you and your staff know is that some of the guys who drove truck out there, some now retired, lived in local areas. They knew the roads well and they were looked after well. Sometimes we spoiled them and some may argue we have spoiled them, based on policy. People have great expectations - they're not used to waiting 24 hours to get their road ploughed, although that may be on secondary roads and what have you. The policy, we always exceed that. I think when I look back at the data and working with Brad, Larry, Hal and those guys, we're exceeding what we're doing. I think we've always exceeded that unless it was the White Juan scenario or something like that where you couldn't possibly with constant snow and so on like that so you couldn't possibly exceed that. We are exceeding that.
There is the policy with the bigger highway - Highway 101 as an example. I know there have been some different things tried there. We get the odd call about Highway 101 and I think again it's the snow-belt. You can't always control what's going on in Mount Uniacke, as an example, and that change over. They'll tell you, oh, there was never a truck out there at all. Well we know there was because we went back and looked, and it showed that everything was where it was and all the great technology we have today to do that. That's a benefit to me and I think when it's understood and you call people back and say look, I've got the data right here, they were there but remember it's a snow belt. You explain it and people are good; they're really actually pretty darn good.
That's how we like to do business where I come from. It's a lot easier to deal with them that way, having a good relationship with my staff - I call them my staff, but they're not my staff, they are yours, the folks who are looking after our roads out there.
I know that does not happen around the entire province, from talking to other members. We don't all do business the same and I appreciate that, but this whole idea of this jurisdictional change or how you have done it - and I know that the Brooklyn crew, I call them the Brooklyn crew, are now moving more towards the Mount Uniacke side or up into the East Hants more than they did before - I'm confused on the shift and I really need, and know I've gone on for quite a while on it, but I really need you to enlighten me on how this was decided without any input from the community, to make this shift happen.
I know there are budget issues and I know there are units getting cut back and I know there are things not getting bought and I know that you're being told you have got to trim a certain amount of dollars off. I appreciate all that but there is a limit to that and I don't know - again, I'm going to give you the opportunity here and I've probably taken almost all my time, the way I'm talking, but I am curious as to how we would ever make that decision without impacting or involving people who know.
MR. SMITH: First of all, you are right, the RiM money had been cut two years ago, actually - we were spending $20 million a year and last year it went down to $15 million. I was able, through a lot of table-thumping I guess, to maintain it again this year at $15 million. There was some suggestion that it should come down again, but we were able to hold onto the $15 million.
Again, you were right, there was no community input or involvement about the changes that were made. I wasn't there to understand the background of it but the service being provided seemed to be just based on county lines and that didn't seem to be the most efficient way of offering the services. It actually was part of the negotiations with the union and the workers about how these lines would be finalized.
You're telling me that in your particular area, or part of your area, there has been difficulty as a result of these changes and you're not happy with them. What I'll say to you in response is that we will look at that and try to sort out why there's a difference in the service between what you're having in one area, or one part of your area, and another, and try to resolve that for you.
MR. PORTER: Okay, that's fine. I'm sure probably in some areas it probably works quite well, and it does make the efficiencies and such. But I think when I look at it out there, we're on the far end of the Lunenburg County side, so that's probably where the inefficiency is there as well. The inefficiency on the other side is we're taking our vehicles from the Brooklyn side, I'll call it, and they're stopping there where they should just go a little bit - we're talking a few kilometres here this way and a few kilometres that way. I couldn't for the life of me . . .
MR. SMITH: We'll look into it and see if we can't . . .
MR. PORTER: That's all I can ask, and that's why I wanted to raise it with you here to say, look, I think this is worth having a look at and if you can find that there is some efficiency in the way it's going, that's wonderful. When I think of dollar constraints and the position that we're in, I just don't see the efficiency, but anyway that's great. I appreciate that very much.
The other one - a couple of things here I wanted to talk about. You mentioned 15, and can you just clarify - 15 per cent or ?
MR. SMITH: Fifteen million dollars.
MR. PORTER: Fifteen million dollars, okay. I know it was two years, so it dropped . . .
MR. SMITH: Fifteen million dollars this year; $15 million last year - the year before was $20 million.
MR. PORTER: So those are pretty significant numbers when you think about how far that can go in something like RIM. It goes a long way, so we really, really appreciate those funds flowing because they look after what I call the "little stuff" that really is the little stuff.
MR. SMITH: I come from a rural riding - I have the same issues you have.
MR. PORTER: I appreciate that too.
I want to move on to Highway 101 and that stretch that's left - what I call the stretch that's left between Exit 5 in Garlands Crossing and Exit 7, I guess, is Falmouth. The causeway is there, which I know is probably something some of you have been dealing with for a good many years, trying to figure out what's next there. We get questions all the time - what's next with Highway 101, what is the plan?
Well I thought, at one point, we had a plan, but then of course when governments change, sometimes that changes; when money changes, sometimes that changes too. But there are a couple of things with it. I know we just spent a whole whack of money paving it. That's great - and we spent even more, I think, putting guardrail on every last inch of it that you could probably put a piece of guardrail on, which was amazing to some.
I wonder if you can talk about when that project might someday come back to life. There's a big piece in there in the middle - that causeway piece. I know that there is controversy around the actual causeway and maybe this is all part and parcel of it, but the gates there, which have had some work done to them, when I asked the Minister of Agriculture, he quickly diverted it to you, so I was hoping I'd get the chance to talk to you. He felt that this would probably be a shared thing or something would be there.
Those gates are now 40 years old or so. I know we do regular maintenance on them; I know last year there were some significant issues that were addressed. They're back working and like anything else they're going to wear out over time. They've got a pretty long life, but I assume somewhere that there will be a plan for the causeway, if there isn't already. I'd certainly be open to hearing you talk about that and, also, I would assume that the gates would be replaced at that time when any work would be done there at the causeway piece.
MR. SMITH: You weren't here with us last night, but we had a similar discussion last night about this - one of your confreres had raised the issue. The plan is ultimately to get that done; it has not disappeared entirely from the radar. One of the things is this would be the kind of project that would be one that could be cost-shared with the federal government.
It's going to be an expensive undertaking. We are, as you know, finishing up the existing Building Canada Fund and negotiations are underway now with the federal government about what the next plan is going to look like. Certainly, our main interest is roads and this kind of work, so when we're putting our ask on the table, of projects that could be shared, highways are one of our big concerns. That could well be a project that could be shared.
You were talking about the gates and the causeway itself - we would try to use the structures that we have there, but whatever we do would have to augment, obviously, so that would be part of that project. The gates along with the causeway would be one project, I guess is the best way of putting it. It's not going to go away, it's got to eventually get done, but it's like anything else - we have to prioritize things and do the best we can with the funds we get.
MR. PORTER: Along with that, one of the things that happens, there is - and if you drive it a lot, and I do, I guess - the bottleneck that is created when you're coming off that. That's our biggest issue there and it's a safety issue because you're cruising along and all of a sudden everything is coming in and it's a bit of a tighter closure and traffic is oncoming again.
I know that it's a big project. I know that there is probably, as you said, some cost-sharing things there. I wonder, just before I leave that actual piece - over the years we've been told different things - are all the studies that were supposedly done with regard to the environmental impact there, are those completed? There was an environmental study, I believe, that was being done and provincial, federal, both - maybe there was only one, I don't know - but can you clarify that for me?
MR. SMITH: The environmental assessment has been done, so that's completed. One of the considerations - because we would have to be working in the water - would be remediation. If you do some sort of environmental damage in one area, you have to somehow come up with a plan. That is yet to be determined and of course we would have to find out whether permits were going to be needed. That's kind of a shifting field as well at this particular stage, so yes, that piece of the work is done.
MR. PORTER: Just while we're still on the big highway portion of things, I want to ask you about - I met with the previous minister and I'm not sure which staff were there at the time, but I think there were a couple. Something called the Terra Firma Development Corporation Ltd., which is this side of Windsor. It's in the Stillwater area; it's a very large development of condos and golf courses. A European company is doing it. They were looking - there is an access point that will come off Highway 1 in the Ardoise, Cameron Lake area.
The meeting that we held with then-Minister Estabrooks was with regard to an exchange coming off of the major highway, which of course makes a lot of sense. We know there are costs involved with that. We know that the feds have also - we've been trying to get some security from them, but the company is putting up a good portion of the money as well. We've never once heard back anything with regard to this ask, if you will, request - some input. There has never been a response back on this, and I'm wondering - you may not be aware, but your staff with you may be very well aware of this project and the request that has been put in.
MR. SMITH: I'm told we are working with that company on that, working on the technical details of it. I guess when you said you haven't heard back - it's not something that has gone away, it's still being looked at.
In terms of the funding part of it, that's more likely to be an ask that should be made to ERDT rather than TIR. I'm not sure what aspect of it you're thinking of funding from.
MR. PORTER: It was the ramp issue - that's why it was the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal and not the Department of Economic and Rural Development and Tourism.
MR. SMITH: I misunderstood - I thought you were talking about the project . . .
MR. PORTER: So if you can picture this - the double highway is there and it's not any different than Mount Uniacke would be, the offs and ons and the double exchange over the top. I know when we met the warden - Warden Dauphinee of the Municipality of West Hants was part of this - the request wasn't even for everything to be done. One, I think, was permission to do the thing and the other was, I want to say, a couple of million dollars or so maybe, whatever it was, but the biggest thing was to even get it started, to get the in and out, at least of that.
When the development, which is now underway out there - you really have to have access there to make this thing work the way that it should work. You're talking about a fairly large development over the course of 20 years. I forget the figure, but it's very large - a billion dollars - we're talking big money. This company is not asking for anything by way of the development; this is all their money. So when we come to the transport side of it, the ramp things, those belong to you. That's why we met with the department back quite a while ago now.
I probably talked to the warden not very long ago on it, and there was nothing positive as of yet that I got from him that was anything that was even remotely close to something.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Member, a little less than 10 minutes remaining in your time.
MR. PORTER: Thank you.
MR. SMITH: Just so you'll know, my understanding is that we would be involved with the project only in terms of sort of getting approvals for the type of project that they wanted to do - the technical details, making sure that they're compliant with what our needs are as a department in terms of highway.
For the purposes of the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal there is no need to have an interchange there at that particular spot, and normally when someone does a development like this, that's a cost that they assume. We would be involved only in the sense of making sure that it's an effective and properly constructed and placed infrastructure.
MR. PORTER: I'm limited in time, so just a couple of things I want to touch on here. One of the things that we've done a fair bit - which I like a lot and so do the people on their roads - is what I call the racked stuff. I know there are a couple of different names, but that rack has worked miracles on roads that have been in bad shape, especially side roads off of secondary roads. I forget the class, but I'm sure you'll understand what I'm talking about.
These roads were probably - I don't know the right terminology is - I worked in the business at one time and they weren't paved, but they were recycled asphalt back many years ago and put back down and we've racked over some of these roads and they have worked very well. What's great about that is if you need to, you can grate it up again in a year or two with a few holes in it, roll her back down with your vehicles and it just packs hard and ploughs good. I can't stress enough how important that is.
I know there are some issues around policies, because there are some roads that I've asked to have done with it that are absolutely horrible roads. I think you're paving one half of it - I don't even know if it's a half. It's out in the East Hants side of it. Anyway, I know it was getting done. It was the Ashdale Road, I believe. I think it's from the East Hants side only, but on the West Hants side of the road, what worries me there is the road is in such bad shape, it hasn't seen asphalt in 25-30 years, other than patching. Maybe longer than that; probably since it was first done.
The road is in such bad shape, people veer to the other side and it's not like you're looking for a mile and you've got good vision for a mile when you veer to the other side. They just do it to avoid the damage to their cars and so on and that happens. I do take a few calls out there with regard to this road. This was a classified paved road at one point.
When I think about this rack going on and how well it works, I know you have policy on what you'll put it on and what you won't, but there's got to be some benefit to putting it on roads like that, that are low in numbers of being travelled, in all honesty, it's never going to see pavement in a good many years to come, given the amount of work you have ahead of you, as a department, to even remotely catch up to what needs to be done around the province.
Patching it, in all honesty, does very little because you could patch the whole thing - the road is in such bad shape but what you patch this year you'd never know you had done because you could never do it all without just doing the whole thing. So there's that.
I think the other problem there may have been - I call it a problem - a policy around the actual gravel road not getting rack put on it, but what a great solution it would be to fixing that problem in multiple ways, just because it stands up so well. I'm not sure if we have it. It's great to have it but it's not much good stored in a pile when we have a use for it that could benefit the department, in all honesty, and probably save a lot of money and effort and time over the years of just constantly going back to patch, patch and patch some more and really all for naught.
I'm wondering if there's some room to look at this policy around the rack and given that we have a fair bit of it, with the work we're doing on the bigger highways and it's available to us, if there are some options to look at. I am by no means an engineer and maybe you can explain that it breaks down a different way or there's some real engineered reason why that can't work but when you look at the low traffic volumes and what is travelling on these roads, it works very well.
I must say the constituents on the roads, living there and such and travelling, are extremely pleased with this when it has been done. They were a little hesitant when it first went down but then when they saw and you explained to them, this stuff packs great, they're saying, this is good; we like it a lot. So what an advantage and an opportunity that we don't seem to be taking full advantage of, maybe.
MR. SMITH: That is one of the methods we use for our pavement preservation. I don't think you were in the room when we talked about paving preservation and why we do it but I know there's so little time left that I won't spend a lot of time on that.
I take it that the road you are talking about is actually one that at one time had asphalt on it?
MR. PORTER: It does.
MR. SMITH: Okay, and was it resurfaced?
MR. PORTER: Oh it has been repatched and patched. It's never been resurfaced, to my knowledge.
MR. SMITH: So you're suggesting that we would put rack on top of asphalt?
MR. PORTER: That's correct - on some roads. I'm not saying every road but there are places in small rural community areas where roads are low-travelled in numbers and you can be falling off the side of it nearly into the ditch and beating your car all up, or you can be driving on a rack road that's pretty darn good, by way of shape, acts like concrete.
MR. SMITH: I would encourage you to push that with your local department, particularly if we're doing work in an area and taking some of the old asphalt from another road. What this is that you're talking about, it's a black gravel as we call it. It's a mixture of old asphalt and gravel. So yes, it's a good idea for a road like that, so push for it.
MR. PORTER: I'll do that, I'll continue to talk to those guys. The responses that I generally get are policy-related and most of the time I think people are hesitant to step outside of the policy, even if it might make some sense in some areas. I think we've probably done a few of these other roads that I refer to kind of quietly and it probably would be frowned on if you looked at policy but it has made great sense.
As I said, it's such advantageous to have this stuff and put it to good use. I'm familiar with the mix, the black gravel, and all of that. I understand totally what it is and again, how well it works. I'll continue to do that, I'll continue to work with . . .
MR. SMITH: Can I just clarify something? I was told that if you put black gravel - a mixture of the old asphalt and gravel together - on top of asphalt, it won't adhere. You'd have to grind up what's there. So you're really asking people to give up what supposedly is an asphalt road, to go into something that a lot of people would consider is less of a road. I understand perfectly what you're saying and people who have them like them.
MR. PORTER: I think if you polled the constituents on the Ashdale Road and gave them the option of what they have now or that, even if they went out and toured another road and drove on it when they saw it was down, I think - and I could be wrong if I polled them - but they'd be jumping up and down to have what they have on some of those other roads when it comes to their vehicles being beat up and the safety issue and crossing over.
There is a lot to be said for that and it was probably gravel for a lot of years, obviously, in the beginning anyway. I would say it has only ever been paved once. It's one of those roads that were probably never built to the standards that they are today. There are all kinds of reasons why those roads are broken down in the remote rural parts of Nova Scotia. They weren't built to the same specs that we build today if we were building any road and I think people understand that too. Vehicle sizes are different; trucks are different. There are all kinds and that's clearly understood.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Porter. Your time has expired.
MR. PORTER: Are we out of time already? Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have two minutes remaining and that will allow the minister to do his estimate.
MR. SMITH: Just before I do that, I just wanted to say a special thank you to staff who are here with me today. I know for sure I wouldn't have been able to do it without you so thank you for that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E36 stand?
Resolution E36 stands.
Resolution E46 - Resolved, that the business plan of Sydney Steel Corporation be approved.
Resolution E47 - Resolved, that the business plan of Nova Scotia Lands Inc. be approved.
Resolution E48 - Resolved, that the business plan of Harbourside Commercial Park Inc. be approved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We just receive the estimates here and they go on to the House. They have been received, thank you.
Thank you, staff and members of the House. That completes our four hours today and our 40 hour total. Feels good.
[The committee adjourned at 6:27 p.m.]
