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

CHAIR (O'Brien): Good evening, everyone.

I would like to welcome everyone to the Estimates Committee for Government Services. Tonight we have the minister and staff responsible for the Department of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs.

First of all, I would like to get a piece of housekeeping out of the way in regards to adopting the minutes of the last meeting. It happened at 7:00 p.m. on April 19. I would like to call for a motion to adopt the minutes. They have been distributed.

MR. LANGDON: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: So moved by Oliver Langdon.

Seconded?

MR. RIDGLEY: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Seconded by Bob Ridgley.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

OFFICIALS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Also, to just get another couple of housekeeping items out of the way, the minister will have fifteen minutes, starting, to introduce his Estimates, and then the vice-chair will have fifteen minutes to respond. Then, each other member will have ten minutes to ask any questions if they so wish.

Also, I might say that we have a few people representing other members who were on the previous Committee. Yvonne Jones is going to be substituting for George Sweeney from the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace. Gerry Reid will replace Wally Andersen from Torngat Mountains. Wally Young from St. Barbe is representing Shawn Skinner from St. John's Centre, and I will be representing Fabian Manning, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

At this particular time, I would like to ask the Committee to introduce themselves.

MS JONES: Yvonne Jones, MHA for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MR. REID: Gerry Reid, MHA for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. LANGDON: Oliver Langdon, MHA for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. RIDGLEY: Boy Ridgley, MHA for St. John's North.

MS JOHNSON: Charlene Johnson, MHA for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

MR. YOUNG: Wally Young, MHA for St. Barbe.

CHAIR: Thank you, and I welcome everybody here tonight.

We will be dealing, as I said before, with Transportation and Works, starting with subhead 1.1.01. Also, under Aboriginal Affairs, we will be dealing with subheadings 2.1.01. and 2.1.03., because the other subheadings have already been dealt with by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

At this particular time I would like to have the minister give his opening remarks and also to introduce his staff.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say good evening to members of the Committee. It is a pleasure to be here again to defend the Estimates of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs. I will look forward to some direction from the Committee in how you want to handle this. Whether you want to do Aboriginal Affairs first or Transportation first, or whatever, that is a mechanic household item, I guess, that the Committee can decide.

CHAIR: We will do all at once, or do you want to do Transportation first?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible) call them separately.

CHAIR: We will be calling the heads separately. We will do Transportation first.

MR. RIDEOUT: I am going to ask the staff to introduce themselves now, starting with the Deputy Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. SMART: Bob Smart, Deputy Minister.

MR. MOORES: Weldon Moores, Assistant Deputy Minister of Works.

MR. MERCER: Cluney Mercer, Assistant Deputy Minister of Transportation.

MR. HEALEY: Keith Healey, Assistant Deputy Minister of Strategic and Corporate Services.

MS OATES: Lori Lee Oates, Director of Communications, Department of Transportation and Works, and responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. DUTTON: Sean Dutton, Acting Deputy Minister, Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

CHAIR: Before the minister starts, it was brought to my attention that there may be a member here who might be here only for Aboriginal Affairs and might want to leave, and it might be beneficial to go with Aboriginal first or...?

OFFICIAL: Who would that be?

CHAIR: I don't know.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: No?

We will go with Transportation first.

Thank you. I am just giving the option.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly do not intend to use the fifteen minutes that is allocated under the rules to introduce the Estimates, but I do want to take a few minutes. I want to make a few brief comments regarding the recent Budget and how it relates to the departments that I am responsible for. I know that we will go into many of the items in line by line and detail as we go through, but I just want to reference some of the items that I believe are maybe of particular interest.

The budget for the Department of Transportation and Works has increased by $30.4 million this year over the previous year. This represents an increased commitment to transportation and other public infrastructure in the Province.

In Budget 2005, our government will be spending significant monies on our provincial road network. There will be a continuation of the commitment of $30 million for the Provincial Roads Improvement Program. This represents an ongoing increase of $7 million over the 2003-2004 budget. As well, it has been customary in the past that when there was a carry-over of projects that did not get completed in a particular construction season that those funds would have to come off the next year's budget, but we have not done that. We have increased the carry-over of $3.7 million and we have added that to the budget so that our accumulated provincial roads construction program for this year will be a total of $33.7 million, meaning that we will have an additional new allocation of $30 million from which to draw.

As part of government's plan to continue working with our partners in the federal government, Budget 2005 provides $13.65 million for highway improvements under the Strategic Highways Infrastructure Program. This program is cost-shared with the federal government, with the Province contributing $7.5 million to it. An additional $18 million has been allocated so that government can leverage additional monies from the federal government under other potential cost-shared programs. Government has entered into discussions with the federal government regarding cost-sharing of projects under those programs.

Government has an ongoing commitment to improving transportation links in Labrador. The completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway is one of the highest transportation priorities of our government. Budget 2005 provides $40 million in total for continued work on Phase Three of the Trans-Labrador Highway, including a carry-over from the 2004-2005 construction season.

In keeping with the Labrador transportation initiatives, our government plans to build a $750,000 depot on the section of road between the communities of Red Bay and Lodge Bay. The difficulties with maintaining this section of highway are well documented. We believe that the construction of this depot will assist government greatly in keeping the road open year-round. This depot will allow the appropriate snow clearing equipment in the area to work from the centre of the road outwards.

In order to replace the aging fleet of heavy equipment that is currently in place as a result of years of underfunding, government is providing an additional $3.5 million in new funding for heavy equipment purchases in Budget 2005. A total, therefore, of $6.5 million will be budgeted for our heavy equipment replacement in this year's budget. This will facilitate improvements in our provincial snow clearing operations and enable us to provide a more reliable service to the public.

Government is also making strategic investments in our ferries and marine infrastructure. Those investments include $2.97 million for refits to the motor vessel Sir Robert Bond and the motor vessel the Northern Ranger, and another $4 million for annual and mid-life refits for our ferries that service the Island. There is also $1 million in new funding for capital improvements to the Province's ferry terminals, and $500,000 for planning work toward the implementation of a provincial vessel replacement strategy. These represent strategic investments that will enable government to provide for a stable ferry service over the long term.

Budget 2005 allocated $5.4 million for the demolition of government buildings. The buildings involved include the Grace Hospital in St. John's, the former College of the North Atlantic Campus on Topsail Road, the Old Mill building near Come By Chance, and the former Cottage Hospital in Harbour Breton. These buildings, or portions of these buildings, that will be demolished are not economically viable for reuse. In demolishing these structures, the safety of the general public and the protection of our environment is of utmost priority for the government.

On the Aboriginal Affairs side, there has been a lot of activity over the past year on a number of falls. The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement was completed, including the passage of the ratification legislation here in the House of Assembly and the signing of the agreement in Nain in January. The department continues to look forward to the passage of federal ratification legislation and the implementation of the agreement.

Aboriginal Affairs continues to work with the Innu Nation on their land claim. We are also actively involved in working with the Innu and the federal government on the Innu Healing Strategy, including improvements to the delivery of education in Innu communities. We are also making great progress on the Land Transfer Agreement for the expansion of the Conne River Reserve. The framework agreement for the self-government for the Miawpukek First Nation is also progressing well, and we are hopeful of announcements being made in those areas in the very near future. We are also looking forward to this year's First Ministers' Meeting with national Aboriginal leaders on Aboriginal Affairs. Our department will be consulting with the Innu, the Labrador Inuit Metis Nation and the Mi'kmaq as we prepare for this meeting to be held in late fall.

To conclude, I would like to thank members for making themselves available this evening and I look forward to dealing with any questions that you might have.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Ms Jones.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Minister, for your update on the budget this year.

I have a few questions. We won't try and keep it too long. I just told my colleagues that the Prime Minister is addressing the Nation at 8:30 tonight.

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, that is when it is, is it?

MS JONES: I don't think I can get it postponed, but we will see what we can do.

MR. RIDEOUT: You can try.

Is that when it is, 8:30?

OFFICIAL: A quarter to nine.

MS JONES: A quarter to nine, I think.

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, a quarter to nine.

MS JONES: Yes, 8:45.

You already indicated that there was $30.4 million going to be spent this year in the budget. Is that all in new road construction and improvements, or is that overall?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, there is an additional $30.4 million over and above our budget of last year, and I maybe did not say it clearly, in our total A Base.

MS JONES: In the total budget?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, our total A Base.

MS JONES: Is that all provincial money?

MR. RIDEOUT: Some of it may well end up in round one infrastructure money if we reach an agreement with the Government of Canada some time soon. We have proposals before them.

MS JONES: There was an agreement, the Canadian strategic Newfoundland agreement, I think it was called. There was money used out of that agreement originally to do some work in St. John's Harbour with the cleanup, I think, and also on the West Coast of the Island. It was my understanding that there was $30 million, or almost $30 million, left in that fund, and that government had asked that it be earmarked for transportation. Was that money ever received from the federal government?

MR. RIDEOUT: There was $24 million left in round one money that we inherited when we inherited the responsibility for - when we became the government in November, 2003. Since that time we have deliberately, I guess, held to our guns, that we wanted to spend $18 million of that $24 million on the Trans-Labrador Highway, and $6 million of it on (inaudible) roads that qualify. Now, as the hon. member probably knows, in present circumstances, under the national highway - what is the right word?

OFFICIAL: System.

MR. RIDEOUT: National highway system, the only roads that presently qualify in our Province for funding under the national highway system is the Trans-Canada Highway and the Argentia Access Road.

Transport Canada has, like a dog with a bone, held to its strategy that they are not going to permit any further inclusions of any highways anywhere else in the Province, including the Trans-Labrador Highway, in that program. We have been beating this back now for a year or more. I remember meeting with Tony Valeri when he was the federal Transport Minister. I have met with John Efford. I put it in writing, at John's request, asking that we consider putting the Trans-Labrador Highway into this and it has been a stonewall all the way through.

At last year's federal-provincial ministers' meeting in Quebec City, ministers agreed that we would task our officials to develop criteria for a Tier 2 national highway system and that if we could reach agreement, the Tier 2 highways would be eligible for some form of federal funding. Maybe not 50-50, it might be 60-40, but it would be one-off agreements with the provinces anyway in that regard.

We have now reached agreements at the officials level and the agreement had been that this would go before the ministers by the end of the fiscal year. To give the federal minister his credit, he tried to do that but I guess he ran into difficulties with provincial ministers in availability. The last meeting that they were trying to arrange was in June. I now hear that is in jeopardy and they are probably looking at September. So, we are still working towards the objective of achieving a Tier 2 national highway system that will include the Trans-Labrador Highway, include major trunk roads, like the Northern Peninsula, maybe the Baie Verte Peninsula, Bonavista Peninsula, those areas in terms of qualifying. So, that is where it is.

MS JONES: Two-tier roads, is that a national concept or is it -

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, that will include roads in every province.

MS JONES: Okay.

MR. RIDEOUT: And Northern development roads, under which of course the Trans-Labrador Highway could be included.

MS JONES: Yes. So, how is that defined? I have never heard that reference before.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, it is a new concept that came up, I guess, during discussions, first of all at the officials level last year and then got approved by ministers in Quebec City last fall. Ever since last fall now our officials, and ADM Mercer heads up the group for us, officials from all jurisdictions - all thirteen jurisdictions, I think, right? - have been meeting pretty well constantly all winter and they have now - federal-provincial officials. At the officials level they have now agreed on a criteria for certain Tier 2 roads. I believe the deputies approved that just within days.

OFFICIAL: Yes, on Tuesday.

MR. RIDEOUT: Okay. So, that has been approved by the deputies now and recommended to the Council of Ministers for approval. I do not know, I say to my friend, I am not sure when the ministers are going to get together to approve it but the officials work has been completed.

MS JONES: So, basically, it is roads that the feds will fund but not adopt as part of their own highway system?

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, they do not own the national highway system anyway. It is owned by the Province, but it is roads that they would fund but at a different level than the national highway system, the Tier 1 system.

MS JONES: Okay.

MR. RIDEOUT: Like, right now, they will fund Trans-Canada Highway improvements on a 50-50 basis. Tier 2, they have made it clear, will not be 50-50. There will be some other one-off agreement with each individual problems. Like I said, it might 60-40, it might 70-30, it might be God knows what.

MS JONES: There is still $18 million under that agreement that has not been drawn down on.

MR. RIDEOUT: Twenty-four million, which is a total of $48 million.

MS JONES: So you did not use the other $6 million either?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, none of it has been used. Now, we do have proposals in front of the federal government now to fund a $48 million program over the next two years, generally on the Trans-Canada Highway.

MS JONES: Okay. The money that was announced for the Labrador Highway, the $40 million, is all of that money coming out of the Labrador Transportation Fund?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, it is, and at the end of this year the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund will have been depleted.

MS JONES: Okay. Now last year the report from the Minister of Finance showed - I am trying to recall, but I think it was $103 million left in the Labrador Transportation Fund.

MR. RIDEOUT: I think that is about right.

MS JONES: So, by the end of this year, that whole $103 million -

MR. RIDEOUT: Assuming we spend the whole $40 million, and that is an assumption because it depends on the construction season, and I think the Labrador ferry service is costing approximately $20 million a year. So you will be pretty well towards the end of the fund. If we do not get an agreement with the federal government on Tier 2, then the remaining completion of Phase III will be, obviously, at the Province's expense if we do not get an agreement.

MS JONES: The Province is committed though to carry on with that infrastructure?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, we are. Yes, absolutely.

MS JONES: What is your time frame for the completion of Phase III of the highway?

MR. RIDEOUT: Six years?

OFFICIAL: 2009.

MR. RIDEOUT: 2009.

MS JONES: 2009.

MR. RIDEOUT: Again, that is barring construction seasons. I cannot see that there would be any further environmental delays. I think we are pretty well out of the woods on that.

MS JONES: The bridge across the Churchill River -

MR. RIDEOUT: The bridge across the Churchill River?

MS JONES: Or the Grand River as it is called?

MR. RIDEOUT: Next fall.

MS JONES: Well, it started this year, didn't it?

MR. RIDEOUT: Is it next fall?

OFFICIAL: Probably the following summer.

MR. RIDEOUT: Probably the following summer. Okay. But construction has actually started. Part of the causeway was built last summer. I know, I saw it. I flew over it the other day.

MS JONES: Are there still objections being filed to that infrastructure?

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, the Friends of the Grand River have been active, but I am not aware that they have taken any legal action. I cannot predict what they may or may not do, I say to my friend, but we are carrying on - like the old fellow would say - as if we were normal until we are ordered to stop.

MS JONES: There was a full environmental assessment done on that bridge, was there?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, there was, and it got released after the assessment was done.

MS JONES: Okay.

I want to talk a little bit about the highway now between Red Bay and Lodge Bay. As you know, that highway is in my district and one that is of grave concern to people in that area. Last year it was my understanding that government would move in this current year to address the problem that exists there. I would like to ask if there is any work scheduled for this year to address some of the problems with the rock cuts that we have there?

MR. RIDEOUT: I think I said to the hon. member on previous occasions, Mr. Chairman, that the first arrow in our attack on that problem is to build a depot in the center of the problem area to house our workers and equipment so that the people and equipment are in the center of the problem and can begin working out towards both ends, Red Bay and Lodge Bay.

The department's experience in previous years, shortly after the Burgeo road was built there used to be, many, many times when the Burgeo road was closed for days at a time, not unlike Southern Labrador actually. The department, at the time, made a conscious decision to build a depot at a location called Peter Strides Pond and since that has been done, there has not been significant problems with keeping the Burgeo road opened. So the first line of attack in Red Bay-Lodge Bay is to build a depot, and we are going to build that this year. Tenders will be called for that - I guess the tender documents are in preparation now. We are going to build that depot which will allow the contractor to station his equipment and his crews in the center of the area. We will see what that does once the depot is in operation.

The second plan we have is that if this does not do what we want to do and alleviate the problem - hopefully in its totality, but certainly go a long way to doing it - then the engineering advice is that we should look at widening the rock cuts at the top so that you get a better blow through at the bottom and you do not have as much snow hang up in drift form.

The third piece of engineering advice is that if that does not work, we should consider building up the grade of the road in the rock cut so that you have a wider cut at the top now, you have a steeper grade, so you have the road closer to that wider top and not buried as much in the bottom of the rock cut.

So, that is the engineering approach and the engineering recommendations that we are taking, but the first kick, I suppose, as it were, at the cat will be the building of the depot and the stationing of the crews and equipment.

MS JONES: The depot will be completed for this fall?

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, that will depend on construction, but it is certainly going to be tendered as soon as we can get the tender documents ready.

MS JONES: So, is it the intention to put equipment in that depot this winter?

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, yes. Well if it is built the intention is to put the equipment there, yes.

MS JONES: Then you guys are looking at having equipment there and operators there to try and keep the road open out there?

MR. RIDEOUT: If the depot is operational, that is our plan, yes.

MS JONES: Okay. Is there a requirement in the tender that it be constructed this year?

MR. RIDEOUT: We have announced we are going to call tenders for its construction this year. The tender document is not done yet, I do not think - is it?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: We are working on it.

MS JONES: Well, I would like to ask that there be some priority on having it completed for this year so that we can hopefully have some more effort there this year than we had this past year in trying to keep the road open.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, we were fortunate this past winter, as the hon. member knows. We made a commitment that we would keep the road open as long as our equipment could do it using conventional equipment. We were able to keep the road open rather than have it closed in November or December like happens in most years, or happened in previous years. We were able to keep it open, in fact, until March 2. So Mother Nature was a help this year.

MS JONES: Well the road is never closed there until the end of January or February.

MR. RIDEOUT: Sometimes in January, but when it is closed it is closed for significant periods of time, as the hon. member knows; sixty-eight days last year, I think, and seventy-two the year before.

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: But that is the intention and that is the strategy that we have embarked upon in an effort to turn it around.

MS JONES: The contract that has been let for that section of road now does not include snow clearing, is my understanding.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, it does not. The snow clearing that we have done this winter we did it on a negotiated basis with the contractor on a per diem basis.

MS JONES: Their contract is for five years with an option for renewal, I think?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, but that -

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Four years with an option for three. So they have three more to go before the option period.

MS JONES: So, I guess you would re-tender or renegotiate?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, I do not think it would be necessary to re-tender. I think what we would end up doing is negotiating an arrangement with the contractor, similar to what we did this year would be the most practical. It would be pretty unfair if the contractor has a contract for four years and he amortizes his equipment over four years and all of that kind of thing. I think the more user-friendly approach would be to negotiate a per diem break with him to clear it during the winter period.

MS JONES: Yes.

I wanted to talk a little about the ferry service on The Strait of Belle Isle. As you know, this year the ice has been cleared out of The Straits for quite some time - both sides of The Straits. We have had the Quebec ferry actually dock in port twice this year already. We have had the local people using small boats crossing back and forth The Straits for almost three weeks now. I am wondering if government is prepared to put that ferry on early? It is my understanding that the operators are ready to go and that the ferry is indeed ready to go. She is docked down in St. John's Harbour here and just waiting for the word from the Department of Transportation and Works.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, the hon. member is pretty well correct in her assessment. I mean the ice conditions are much more favourable this year than they have been in recent years. There is no doubt that the ferry could operate. The present contract as it exists, as the hon. member knows, is for x number of days a year and the specification start date is May 1. Now government, by negotiation -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: The specified start date, according to the contract, is May 1 and the end date I think is somewhere around January 3 or January 4, or something like that. Obviously, you can negotiate with the contractor variations to that. At the present time, with the budget that we have been provided, is to operate during that period of time. What I have asked my officials to do is to - we are hoping that we are going to have the road open by Saturday. That is the latest estimate.

By the way, those people who told us that there was fifteen centimetres of snow on that road ought to see some of the pictures that we are now into seventy kilometres in. It looks like it is going to probably take up to Saturday to get the road open safely, so it can be safely used by the public. I have asked my officials to have discussions with the contractor and see if we can perhaps co-ordinate the beginning of the ferry service with the opening of the road.

So, we are working on that. I cannot commit to it totally tonight but it is something we are pursuing and I am hopeful that we may be in a position next week to announce that we are going to start the service a bit early, not as early as people would have liked I am sure, but at least a bit earlier than in normal years.

MS JONES: It is only a week-and-a-half now and the ferry is due to come on anyway, but I mean for the purposes of people in the area, any day earlier than that is of benefit to them. There is no doubt about that.

MR. RIDEOUT: Of course, we extended it by four or five days on the end last year again, as the hon. member knows.

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: Generally, we have done that, I think, each year that I have been there now.

MS JONES: Minister, I would like to see some flexibility given around that contract. In the last five or six years, for example, there were two occasions when the ferry went on much earlier in the year and stayed much later. There have been other years during that time - I remember one year we couldn't even get the ferry until June because of the ice conditions in that region. People there are not - I do not think they are being unreasonable. They do not expect the ferry when she cannot operate but they do expect the service when she can. So, if there could be some flexibility around that service in the department so that every year we do not have to go back and forth for weeks and weeks with the department trying to make an argument to have a service in place. I think if the conditions permit it, it should automatically be done.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, the problem with it, of course, is you have to budget for it. I mean it costs approximately - with fuel costs and crew costs now - about $20,000 a day to operate that service. So if you are going to start a month early, you are, basically, looking at a $600,000 addition to your contract price. You know, at the moment we are not funded for that. We are funded for what the contract calls for. Now I am prepared to take a risk, and a reasonable risk, that we might be able to pick up some of the funding on savings in other areas of marine as we go throughout the year. I am also prepared to recommend to government that we be as flexible as we can, keeping in mind that I just cannot authorize the spending of something over $500,000 just on my own whim. But I am prepared to be as flexible as I can in making that service as flexible as we can over the duration of this contract, and then I think the sensible thing to do is when we call contract again - and, by the way, this contract has three more operating seasons left in it yet because the previous government, as the member knows, extended it a couple of years before it was up. So, this contract has three more operating seasons to go and the sensible thing to do then, I think, is when we call for a new tender, is to put this in place on a permanent basis, based on whenever the safe operational time arrives; whether that is April or whether that is May 15, or whether, God forbid, some years it might June. But I think that is the real long-term approach to it.

MS JONES: How much revenue did the government generate on that service last year?

MR. RIDEOUT: Can you answer that question? If we can't, we will have to get it. I do not have it at my fingertips.

OFFICIAL: Ten percent.

MR. RIDEOUT: Ten percent of the operating costs, generally, is what we have been getting from our services.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: More than 10 per cent? Okay. Well, we will not fool around with not knowing the number. We will get the number.

MS JONES: Yes, I would like to have - maybe the Clerk can take a note of this so I can make sure I get the information.

I would like to have what the revenue generation was, actually, on the Strait of Belle Isle ferry service for last year and the previous year? I would also like to have the revenue generation on the other Labrador Marine service, which would include the Northern Ranger, the Sir Robert Bond and the freight vessel for the past three years.

MR. RIDEOUT: We will have to break that out because the numbers that are in the budget would be global to our total marine operation in terms of revenue and expenditures.

ADM Healey, will you make a note of that?

MS JONES: Did you get that, Elizabeth?

When your department commissioned Memorial University to look at a configuration of marine services for Labrador there was some discussion at the time about looking at ferry rates and transportation rates. Was there anything further done on the rate assessment piece?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes. The public policy - whatever they are called - group at Memorial University have just completed the second part of that study, which was the rate information piece. I believe it has been just submitted to the department within days. I have not seen it yet, myself. It is being analyzed by the officials and I will see it sometime soon I expect. It will have to go to Cabinet because that study was commissioned for the government by Cabinet (inaudible). So, we will undertake to do the analysis, get it to Cabinet and make it public as soon as we practically can.

MS JONES: Did the Terms of Reference of the study require that they make recommendations on appropriate rate structures?

MR. RIDEOUT: I cannot remember. Do you Cluney?

MR. MERCER: They were commissioned to look at different alternatives in terms of rate structuring, whether it be cost based or whether it be purely arbitrary. They looked at some other marine services throughout the country to make that assessment.

MS JONES: Did you just say they did rate comparisons with other areas in the country?

MR. MERCER: No. What they looked at was the models that were used in other jurisdictions.

MS JONES: Do you know if there was a rate comparison done with other ferry services in the Province?

MR. RIDEOUT: I do not know because I have not seen the study yet.

MR. MERCER: No, there was no comparison done because a lot of the transportation in Labrador is bulk or containerized freight. We do not have that kind of situation anywhere else on the Island, so there was no direct comparisons done, no.

MS JONES: Well, the Strait of Belle Isle ferry is no different than the ferry that goes to Fogo Island.

MR. MERCER: In terms of -

MS JONES: Change Islands.

MR. MERCER: No.

MS JONES: Only in size.

MR. MERCER: Yes, that is correct. The study that was done was looking at the freight rates that are applied -

MS JONES: Did you look at the ferry rates too, or just the freight rates?

MR. MERCER: No, we did not look at the ferry rates for the Apollo. That is something that we will be doing in conjunction with evaluation of ferry rates throughout the Province. This was a freight rate study.

MS JONES: Okay. So the study just addressed the freight rates and passenger rates too, did it, out of Lewisporte, Goose Bay and Cartwright?

MR. MERCER: In looking at a cost-based approach - because some of the vessels are a combination of passenger and freight service - they did, in a way, look at passenger rates, but the primary analysis was looking at the old freight rate structure that was developed by Marine Atlantic about three decades or so ago. So it is primarily freight focused.

MS JONES: Minister, will that study be released to the public?

MR. RIDEOUT: That is certainly our full intention once the analysis has been done. I have pursued it and we have sent it to Cabinet. After Cabinet has been apprized of it, then it is our full intention to release it, yes.

MS JONES: Do you have any idea what the time frame might be?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, I do not at the moment, because we only got it within the last few days I think.

OFFICIAL: Yes, within days.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes. So we are just beginning the analysis now, and then we will - well, the hon. member knows the system. We have to prepare a Cabinet submission. I do not think it will be an inordinate delay or anything of that nature.

MS JONES: Do government pay for the Apollo to dock in Blanc-Sablon?

MR. RIDEOUT: To what?

MS JONES: Do you pay a fee to dock the ferry in Blanc-Sablon?

MR. RIDEOUT: I can't hear the latter part.

MS JONES: Does government pay a fee to dock the ferry in Blanc-Sablon?

MR. RIDEOUT: In Blanc-Sablon?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: According to the assistant deputy minister, we do not.

MS JONES: Okay.

Just a couple of questions now on the marine transportation system. Will there be any changes in the scheduling this year of the vessels: the Bond, the Nada, and the Northern Ranger?

MR. RIDEOUT: It is not anticipated that there will be any. We have released the schedules based on demands from the public to try to do it as early as possible. We have released the schedules - I think it was just before Christmas, sometime in December. So the schedules are now being released. People have been making reservations. We are going to be taking tour buses I think, one trip a week, between Cartwright and Happy Valley-Goose Bay this year. That kind of thing.

So the schedule, I would think, unless something happens to make this impossible, is probably clearly well set.

MS JONES: The court case with regard to the -

MR. RIDEOUT: Canships?

MS JONES: Yes, Astron was it?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes.

MS JONES: I am trying to think of the name of the boat, the Astron. Now, my understanding is that government had to pay out a settlement to the Canship corporation, was it?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, that is not the case. The court decision, the decision by Mr. Justice Leo Barry, was he found in favour of Canships, but the law on damages puts an onus on you, if I do you harm, to try to mitigate that harm as much as possible. Therefore, Canships had to attempt to mitigate any harm that the Province did to them by finding work for the Astron. In fact, for the last two years the Astron has been leased out to Voisey's Bay. So, therefore, there are no damages due to the company for the two years that have passed. If Canship cannot lease the Astron this coming season, then Canship has the ability to go back to the court and seek damages for this third year of the contract.

As the member probably recollects, the Trans Gulf contract is for three years with an option to renew, and the option to renew is solely at the discretion of the minister. So, we have not made any decision regarding renewal at this stage of the game. The most liability, if we do not renew, that we could incur would be the remaining third year of the contract.

MS JONES: This year though is the third year of the contract, right?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, it is.

MS JONES: So nothing would change this year anyway.

MR. RIDEOUT: No.

MS JONES: But, if there was - I guess if they did not find work with the Astron they would have the ability to come back and then the department would have to make a decision - would they? - on whether or not -

MR. RIDEOUT: They would have the ability to go back to the court and seek damages for the third year of the contract, which is this coming season. I can say to the hon. member, that nothing has been filed so far with the department or the court by Canships.

MS JONES: Okay. What was the cost of running the Sir Robert Bond into Lewisporte last year?

MR. RIDEOUT: Exactly what we said in the Budget, despite the 15 per cent in fuel. I think we had said that it would cost an additional six hundred and something thousand to operate the additional trip into Lewisporte. We came and that was smack on the nose. That is exactly what it cost, despite the fact, as I said earlier, that there was a 15 per cent cost in fuel as well. Again, those numbers are reflected -

MS JONES: That was the direct cost of running the ship itself?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes.

MS JONES: What was the cost of maintaining the terminal facility at Lewisporte?

MR. RIDEOUT: I am very pleased to be able to tell the hon. member that when the previous government were forced to go back into Lewisporte to provide a freight service to the North Coast, that Woodwards demanded, and was given by that government, $720,000 to operate the Lewisporte terminal. When we looked at that after we became the government, we concluded that that was nothing short of crazy. So we went back to Woodwards and told them we had no intention of paying them that kind of money to operate out of Lewisporte this past year, whether it was the Bond or whether it was just the Trans Gulf. We were able to negotiate - I am very pleased to tell the hon. member - a fee for Woodwards to operate the terminal in Lewisporte of just over $400,000 for the whole year. So we saved the taxpayer something over $300,000 from the previous year, to this year, in terms of the operations of the Lewisporte facility.

MS JONES: Why were there such substantial savings?

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, there was a management fee, so we said: We are just not going to pay you that kind of management fee. We think it is in the stratosphere. We do not think it can be justified but we are prepared to negotiate with you what we think is a reasonable fee. By being hard-nosed and sticking to our guns, I guess, we negotiated a substantial decrease in the operational cost for the Lewisporte terminal.

MS JONES: Is the same operator still there?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, it is still Mr. Woodward and Company.

MS JONES: Does the Department of Transportation have any employees who work out of the Lewisporte facility?

MR. RIDEOUT: Our Director of Ferry Operations, a gentlemen by the name of Walter Pumphrey, was stationed in Grand Falls, and we have moved his operation or his office into the terminal building, or what used to be the office building, the ticket office in Lewisporte, for two reasons - it is for the same reason that we moved Harry Pardy, I guess his name is, into Cartwright. We have moved him there for two reasons. One, we want somebody from our department to determine how the Bond is loaded, to make sure that the freight is containerized properly and do not have to picked apart somewhere along the North Coast or in Cartwright, that that is supervised and done. We want to make sure that the contractor does not discourage passenger and vehicle travel at the expense of freight, or vice versa. We want some control over that, so we have Mr. Pumphrey stationed in Lewisporte primarily for those reasons, and these are the same reasons that we put Harry Pardy in Cartwright on a full-time basis this year, so that we did not have freight thrown off at the dock and then broken open or damaged before it got transferred to the Trans Gulf to go up the North Coast. We want it properly containerized, properly shipped, the control of the dock. We did not want situations like happened the summer before, where all tankers belonging to certain private operators were given preference to dock while the Trans Gulf or the Sir Robert Bond was out anchored off in the stream. We wanted to control the situation, and we did by putting those two gentlemen in place, and I think, from a freight perspective, delivery perspective to the North Coast, it is fair to say that we have made some significant improvements.

MS JONES: So, you just have one employee in Lewisporte?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes. That is not a new employee. It is the same person who used to work out of the Grand Falls office.

MS JONES: The ferry contract for Norman Bay and Williams Harbour, I haven't had a chance to talk to anyone in the department about this, but they are looking for scheduling changes in that ferry operation. Is there any flexibility in that contract to make changes?

MR. RIDEOUT: Have we heard anything about any scheduled upgrades?

MR. MERCER: No, (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Sure, go ahead and answer.

MR. MERCER: We had made an attempt last season and did offer some flexibility in modifying the schedule, and we would certainly be willing to do that again. Last year, when we asked if there were any modifications they were looking for, they indicated that there were not, but we have not received a request up to this point in time for this year's service.

MR. RIDEOUT: Do we have to integrate those schedules with the Northern Ranger, as well, in terms of...?

MS JONES: No.

MR. RIDEOUT: No. It has nothing to do with it at all, okay. I was thinking about fresh produce going up the North Coast.

The bottom line is, if the communities are looking for some changes that are manageable, we are certainly willing to have a look at it.

MS JONES: Okay, because one of the problems that we have with that service now is that the ferry itself overnights in Port Hope Simpson and Charlottetown, and I think they are looking to have the ferry overnight in their communities where there are sufficient docking facilities. I mean, the dock in Norman Bay was only built three or four years ago. It is a new dock. That is one of the concerns that they expressed. I can get you all the information on it, if you want to have a look at it and see if you can accommodate them.

MR. RIDEOUT: Sure.

It really would not make much difference to us, from an operational perspective, I don't think, where the ferry overnighted, would it?

OFFICIAL: I would have to check all the details with respect to the facilities, but it is certainly something we can look at.

MS JONES: Okay.

Just a request for other information. I would like to have a copy of the amount of freight and passengers carried on the Sir Robert Bond last year out of Lewisporte to Cartwright and Goose Bay, and also the freight and passenger traffic between Cartwright and Goose Bay as well.

MR. RIDEOUT: We have made a note of that. We will break that out.

MS JONES: Just some questions on the air transportation services for Southern Labrador. Is it still government's intention to look at a regional airport for the Southeast Coast of Labrador?

MR. RIDEOUT: We have received, finally, the consultant's report.

MS JONES: I didn't know you had the report.

MR. RIDEOUT: We just received it, again, within days, and a committee of officials are now looking at it. I have not seen it myself yet. The analysis has not been done. What the bottom line recommendations are, I do not really know at this point in time, but we have received it. We will be doing the analysis. Once that is done, we will obviously make it available.

In terms of the air transportation network in Southern Labrador, I assume the hon. member is aware that Air Labrador have confirmed that they are not going to pull out, as announced last fall. In fact, they have confirmed to us that they are going to continue, and not only continue to service but they are going to enhance it, I believe, on a three-day-a-week schedule. Some things have happened. I think they have picked up the medevac service, the mail contract, and that kind of thing, so from a perspective of a downgrade or acquitting a substantial change in the air service, that is not going to happen, or that is not in their plans to happen right now. We are going to want to, obviously, further get the views of Lab Air and anybody else who might want to talk to us in terms of what this report has to say as well.

I can confirm, like I said, we just got it within days and we are now starting work on it.

CHAIR: Excuse me for just a second. I would like to cut in on the debate. If I could have the staff identify themselves, before they speak, for the purpose of Hansard. I forgot to do that at the beginning.

MR. RIDEOUT: Sure.

We apologize, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MS JONES: I have no idea what this report is going to tell you. Of course, I have not talked to the consultant. I know it has been over two years with a consultant, trying to have it completed, but I can tell you, from my experience in representing that area, we really desperately need to change the infrastructure to provide a better air service.

Air Labrador, this is not the first time we have had a commercial airline threatening to pull out of the region. As you know, numbers fluctuate with the connection of more communities by road. Obviously, there are peak periods in the year and then there are periods where there is extreme downtime, a decline in service for the airline business, but it is my understanding, in talking to the two airlines that have had a history in operating there, both Air Labrador and Provincial Airlines, that the only real feasible way into the future to service that area would be having one regional airport instead of landing on four or five airstrips and operating that size of an aircraft that can be accommodate on those kinds of airstrips and so on.

I guess my part in it, I just want to, I guess, encourage the government, in their assessment of these recommendations, in considering this, to give priority to what the region will require in the next five to ten years in terms of an airline service. I think that is going to be the most important thing right now. I would also like to ask that the report be released once the department has had an opportunity to look at it.

MR. RIDEOUT: Once we have had the opportunity to do the analysis and get briefed and see what the implications are, then certainly it is our intention to release it, yes.

I do not disagree with the assessment that the hon. member has made. I have heard other groups make it, in the time that I have been Minister of Transportation. There have been calls for a new site development. There have been some calls for a redevelopment of the present site and so on, so all of these - we will be looking to the report to provide us with some advice.

MS JONES: Okay.

I just have one other question and then I will turn it over to one of my colleagues.

With regard to the Williams Harbour road, obviously this is still an important road connection for that community, and I do realize that government did an economic analysis of whether it was feasible to do a road connection there or not. I think your numbers showed you that it would be around $6 million to build that, and that it was not economically viable. In my opinion, Minister, there are very few pieces of road connecting rural communities in this Province that were probably economically viable to build, but, having said that, they were still done and they were done for obvious reasons: to allow these communities to have access to the adjacent communities and services in those adjacent regions, and this community is no different.

This past year, I guess, has been even more difficult because of, I do not know if it is globing warming or if it is some other factor that is affecting the environment, but our freeze-up period is much later and, as you know, to get to that community, you have to travel over ice and have to travel over bodies of water that have heavy tides so they do not always freeze very well. This past winter, we have had people who have gone through the ice and, very lucky and fortunate for them, there was no life lost, but it is proving to be even more of a dangerous route to travel because we do not get the below temperature freezing temperatures that we normally get and we do not have the length of season to operate in and out of there.

I guess I just want to appeal to the government, again, if they would have another look at this piece of infrastructure. While it may not be economically viable, there are, I think, some benefits to government here in terms of having children access schools and other communities, being able to close the airport, for one thing, in that community, so that they can access a larger airport in another area. Also, I think there are opportunities there for people to look at different transportation services. They would not required marine service any more. They would not require to have subsidies on their flights and their food that is going in there right now, so there are some savings, I think, that could be achieved for the government if they did want to consider it. While they may not combine to be $6 million over the next five years, I think it would, over a period of time, prove to be substantial.

I do not know if you would be open to having another look at that access road or not.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, I am certainly not closed-minded to having a look at it. I suppose if you want to take the argument of cost-effectiveness, the Trans-Labrador Highway would never be anything more than a dream. Perhaps the Trans-Canada Highway would not be on the Island. You know, a lot of those things never make total economic sense but they make economic development sense. Six million dollars is a lot of money; nevertheless, we have never said, as a government, that the project would never be reconsidered. I think all we said is that, at this point in time, where we have so many pressing economic transportation infrastructure requirements, it would just have to take - for now, at least - a lower priority on the totem pole. That is not to say that it could not be considered again and looked at again.

MS JONES: Minister, I would like to extend to you an invitation to go to that community this summer and meet with people there, just to get an understanding of the challenges that they face with transportation. There are very few communities left in our Province, actually, I would think, that are in the situation that they are in, where they can be accessed by road with an amount of money that is reasonable. We would certainly ask, if you are in that area this year, to go there and meet with the people. I would certainly be happy to accommodate it for you in any way that I can.

MR. RIDEOUT: I appreciate the invitation. In my first year, I have managed to get into the North Coast communities, and Central and Western Labrador. This year, it is my intention to do a significant tour of the South Coast. Some time, perhaps in the early part of the summer, I intend to drive as far as I can myself, and then to - I say myself, drive the road -

MS JONES: You are not having a driver, you mean.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes.

- and then, by boat or helicopter, whatever is most appropriate to the schedule, to visit those communities that are not yet connected.

I am looking forward to doing that some time the early part of the summer. I will let the hon. member know when the logistics are worked out.

MS JONES: All right, I appreciate that. We will look forward to your visit. I think it is important that you certainly make time to do that this year. People would certainly appreciate it, I know that.

MR. RIDEOUT: Okay, we will do it.

MS JONES: I am going to turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Chairman, for a few minutes.

CHAIR: Mr. Langdon.

MR. LANGDON: Just a couple of questions.

My ears were perked very quickly when the minister said he was going to travel along the South Coast. He did not say if it was Labrador or across the Island.

MR. RIDEOUT: We will do your South Coast, too. How about that?

MR. LANGDON: Okay, we will do ours some time, because we do have, along the South Coast, the isolated communities. There are many, many, challenges there, and I am sure the minister is familiar with it.

One of the ideas that has been talked about from the Burin Peninsula side and the Connaigre Peninsula side, by the development associations, the REDBs or whatever, is the idea of a roll-on roll-off ferry service between the Burin Peninsula and the Connaigre so that tourists could come down, take the boat and go across.

We are not looking to government for extra money. There might be some thoughts that have been talked about, some innovative ideas; like, government has to put on a boat and certain money is allocated, say, for Rencontre East to Bay L'Argent, Bay L'Argent to Pool's Cove. If there might be a creative way of saying to the operator, we will give you that particular subsidy, but if you were to put on a car ferry service that could take five or ten cars, or whatever the case might be, and allow the person who would be the operator to keep those extra dollars for the cars and so on, as a part of the contract that could be written in, so that he could keep it to help offset the extra boat they would have to buy or so on, would that be worth pursuing from both peninsulas? I am telling you, we think - and every organization from the Burin Peninsula and over on our side thinks - it would really be great for tourism.

One of the big drawbacks down our way - Conne River would be an attraction, and all of the other coastal bay areas, but no one wants to come down a highway of about 200 kilometres and then have to turn around and drive back up again. It is a deterrent for them. So, if you were to drive down the peninsula, take the boat and go to the Burin Peninsula, or the other way around, and come back, then it would be an advantageous situation for people coming to the area. They are still exploring on that, so you might hear something about that in the future.

MR. RIDEOUT: I wonder, could my friend tell me when those ferry contracts are up? Are they any time soon?

MR. LANGDON: I have no idea.

MR. RIDEOUT: Which one? There are two, right?

MR. LANGDON: We are looking at the one from Pool's Cove to Bay L'Argent. It is for Rencontre East, really. Rencontre East is one of the lucky communities. They have a boat going both ways: Bay L'Argent on the peninsula, and Pool's Cove on the Connaigre. have no idea when that contract would be up.

MR. RIDEOUT: We could certainly look at the possibility of when it comes up, of trying to incorporate that kind of an idea.

MR. LANGDON: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: I like what you are saying. I can see that it could lead to some economic development and stimulation, especially from the tourist industry and so on. On the surface of it, it makes a lot of sense.

MR. LANGDON: Bill Matthews and myself have talked about it a lot. I think there is some possibility of being able to derive some funds from the feds to build a dock in each place so it would not cost the provincial government any money either.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, that would be certainly an important boost if we were to - in terms of capital requirements.

MR. LANGDON: Absolutely, and it would be a boost for both regions from a tourism point of view. You certainly might hear something about it in the near -

MR. RIDEOUT: We would certainly be prepared to entertain any representation that you or your constituents feel like making on it.

MR. LANGDON: Okay.

One of the other things - a couple of questions that I have - a class 4 road. I am sure that Cluney is probably familiar with the one that I am talking about -

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) in your district, is it?

MR. LANGDON: - from Seal Cove up to Pass Island. It is not cleared during the winter. We don't look for snow being cleared, or anything of that nature. In the spring of the year -

MR. RIDEOUT: Is that a fisheries access road?

MR. LANGDON: Pardon?

MR. RIDEOUT: Is that a fisheries access road?

MR. LANGDON: No.

That particular road, twice a year, Minister, in the spring - like around the last of April or May - it is graded by the Works and Services people. Then, in September or October it is the same thing again. That has been done for, I think, back since 1969 when Pass Island was resettled and the people moved to Harbour Breton, Marystown and so on. It is used quite a bit by fishermen and there are very few cabins on the road. It is a road that leads out to Pass Island itself. Over the last probably decade or so there has been some work done with some new culverts and things put in it, but it would not be an astronomical type of funding to be able to cure that.

Also, on the same road, it is where Seal Cove has its landfill site, and when the first snow comes and it is cut off with snow then they go to Hermitage with their waste and so on. So, it is not something that you would have to worry about with snowclearing and things like that, because people use it with all-terrain vehicles in the summertime - in the wintertime, I should say - and Ski-Doos. What is happening, like when rain comes, you have big ruts in it and you cannot get over it even with a four-wheel drive.

There are other roads in the area that could probably classify as class 4 or whatever, but they are not the same. The one going into Furby's Cove, Cluney, I would not categorize that one like the one going to Pass Island; they are a different road all together. There is a lighthouse on the end of Pass Island, as Cluney is aware, and there are people using it all the time.

I do not expect a decision - they will probably never - but, if by the end of the year or whatever the case might be, or next year, I think it is worth taking a note to have a look at that. There is not a lot of work involved. You do not have to do year-round with it - so in a day in the spring, or less than that. It is only about four kilometres, I think, four or five kilometres, but it means a lot to the people who live in the Seal Cove area and that end of the district.

MR. RIDEOUT: I am sure the hon. member, as he said, really, in his comments, understands that I cannot make a commitment on that now, but I will certainly undertake to have a look at it.

MR. LANGDON: Just have a look at it. If, at the end of the day, nothing happens, then at least - the guys have been after me to bring it up and I have not done it in the House. I have waited until this time and situation to do it here, to bring it up.

MR. RIDEOUT: Fair enough, not a problem.

MR. LANGDON: One of the other things, I had representation from a person recently and was talking about doing some contract work on the school in Carmanville. I think what he was saying - if I got it correct or not, I am pretty sure I do - was that government was very prompt in making its payments up to the point that the deductible was paid, whatever that particular amount might be, but the fact is that now, once the deductible was paid and the bills go to the insurance company rather than coming back to the government to be paid directly, some of these particular invoices, if you wish, are forty-seven days over, eighty-seven days over, and the people are carrying it and some of them are small contractors. Probably the deputy knows more about it than I do.

I just thought - he asked me if I would bring it up - rather than doing it in the House as a question or whatever, where we were having these Estimates, I thought I would just bring it to your attention.

The other representation made was saying that the contract that is about to be called now on the Carmanville school, which is the fifth contract, the days normally for a contract to be paid is either thirty or forty-five days - thirty days, I thought he said, if I understand correctly - but in the new contract it has been extended to 120 days, and many of the smaller contractors cannot get the money from the bank for that long period of time. Really, in a sense, I think what is happening is that smaller contractor see themselves as being frozen out and going to the larger group.

I thought he said that the latest contract that came in, contract number five, I do not know the initials for it, at the end of the day government will probably pay $1 million more than it should pay because of this particular situation.

These are some of the things that I just wanted to bring up. It might not be as clear as mud, but I just wanted to bring it up anyway.

MR. RIDEOUT: I am going to ask ADM Moores if he has anything to add to what the hon. member has raised.

MR. MOORES: What you are saying is correct. Both the Department of Transportation and Works and the Department of Education and Treasury Board officials have met with the insurance adjuster who represents the insurance company. We have gone back to the insurance company and pointed out that this is unacceptable on Carmanville school. The adjuster did what they could at their end, in getting reports in. We improved the payments by, say, a week, as opposed to the month that we were looking for. I am not sure of the exact number of days. We had other contracts coming out, and said: When these new tenders go out, we want assurances that they will be paid quicker than the 120 days.

We had a very intense meeting with the adjuster. They went back to the insurance company. They could not give us, would not give us, assurances that it could be done faster. They said they would attempt to speed it up, but there were no guarantees. Consequently, when we issued the tender documents, we put in the tender documents for the, I guess, latest contracts for Postville school, Eastport and Carmanville, that this is a condition. The construction association were not happy, because they said the same thing, that it is favouring the larger contractors, but we said it is really beyond government's control and this is a condition that our insurance company has put in place, that we do not have control over.

MR. LANGDON: Okay, I just wanted to raise it, no more than that.

The other thing, Minister, you were saying just now that there is a possibility of getting an agreement with the federal government on Tier 2 roads. You didn't mention the Bay d'Espoir Highway, but I would just assume that might be added into that, as well, just the same as the Baie Vert Highway would be, or some other one.

MR. RIDEOUT: It would be a similar category (inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: They would be a part of the Tier 2?

MR. RIDEOUT: We would have to make the case for it, but there is a Tier 2 criteria that has now been developed and has been approved by the deputies. It will next have to be approved by the Council of Ministers.

MR. LANGDON: I understand that.

MR. RIDEOUT: It would be our responsibility to go forward and make the case for Bay d'Espoir, or make the case for the Northern Peninsula, or make the case for the Bonavista Peninsula, that it fits those criteria.

MR. LANGDON: My questions to you would be, I would think, in my own mind, that the Bay d'Espoir Highway, the Baie Verte Highway, the Northern Peninsula Highway and so on, would be somewhat similar, and if two or three of them qualified then the Bay d'Espoir Highway would qualify as well.

MR. RIDEOUT: I do not disagree with that assessment.

MR. LANGDON: Okay.

I have a couple of questions on Aboriginal Affairs, but I will leave that until after.

CHAIR: Gerry?

MR. REID: Sorry about that, Mr. Minister. I was discussing the affairs of state.

I have been asked to ask you some questions with regard to the closure of the thirteen depots, because there is some confusion, at least in my area and the other one that I have talked about. Have you gone ahead and done this now? Have they been notified?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, it hasn't been finalized yet. We have indicated that we are looking at winterizing thirteen sites, and we have talked to the union and we have told them we will get back to them again when we have the final document ready, but it is not yet ready.

MR. REID: So, it is not much good for me to ask you some of these questions, because I talked to the union as well, actually, last week. I do not know if anything has changed since then.

MR. RIDEOUT: Nothing has changed since we last spoke to the union. What we did, I can say to my hon. friend, when we - this was put forward by the department, by the way, as a reorganization. It was not something that was imposed on us as a cost reduction measure, or anything of that nature. It was a departmental approach. When we announced that we were going to do this, we went out to the regional directors before we did anything and said: Look, here is what we have in mind. We don't want to get partway through this process and find that we are kind of barking up the wrong tree and not doing things properly, and creating more difficulties for ourselves. Have a look at it and tell us what you thing is doable and what you think can be the net results for improving our summer maintenance program.

The regional directors engaged in that process and they have gotten back to us recently. I can say that when this whole process started we were looking at the possibility of net job impacts in over 100 positions. That has been significantly reduced. What the final number will be, I really do not know tonight but I expect - and we have committed - when we know the final number, to have further discussions with the union. When the final number is arrived at, and the streamlining is - when we are satisfied with it, then we intend to go back to the union, inform them, and inform them what the net impact on their members is.

I just say to my hon. friend, that is where it is at this moment.

MR. REID: Because, besides the numbers going, there was a number of concerns like, for example, in Victoria Cove. Normally you would keep some of the winter people on during the summer. Am I right?

MR. RIDEOUT: Do we keep winter people on during the summer?

MR. MERCER: (Inaudible) layoffs.

MR. REID: Some of them.

MR. RIDEOUT: Maybe, Mr. Mercer, you might want to say to the Committee what you said to me.

MR. MERCER: In some cases, at some of the depots, there are some winter staff who are offered what is called an alternate to layoff, so they may be operators in the winter and they become labourers in the summer.

MR. REID: Yes.

What they were concerned about is, I do not think any of these people have been notified whether or not they are going to be kept on the summer. That is one of the issues.

MR. MERCER: At the thirty-one depots, the permanent depots that are staying, all of those will be notified, if they have not all been notified at this point in time, of alternate to layoffs. That is the intention, that they would, as in previous years. The only areas where that is not taking effect at this point in time is at the thirteen depots that will become winterized. As you can imagine, you would not want to extend someone today and we make final decisions tomorrow and then give them a layoff notice.

MR. REID: Yes, because last week they had not been told, I know. The other thing about that, is it true that - for example, if you layoff, for the summer months, an individual from the New World Island depot, he is eligible then to bump somewhere in his region, is it? In his region first -

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes.

MR. REID: - which is a fairly large region, I take it. It is not just New World Island or anywhere. But he has to bump the lowest member on the seniority pool who is going to be kept on. So, it could mean that he might have to bump as far away as Stephenville somewhere. No, within his region, I mean.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, Stephenville would not be within in region.

MR. REID: Yes, that is a different region, I am sorry. But he could -

MR. RIDEOUT: It could be Grand Falls or somewhere.

MR. REID: Yes, and then the person that he bumps there might end up - so, I mean, this could take months before all the bumping would be completed, I would take it, wouldn't it? What you would end up with, or you could possibly end up with, is all of these depots that are going to remain open in the region with completely different staffs in all of them than you have today, or it is a possibility quite a number of them could change. Am I correct?

MR. RIDEOUT: The deputy minister is going to speak to that.

MR. SMART: All of that is governed by the collective agreement. We do not make those rules.

MR. REID: Yes, I know.

MR. SMART: That was a negotiated arrangement as to how people would move in the event of any job realignment. The agreement also specifies not only where you can bump within your region, but also lays out the time line that you must do it within, and you must exercise that right to bump within your notice period, so no. I mean, there could be a great deal of activity within a short period but it does not get dragged out for months because you would be required, once you receive notice, to exercise your option to bump within a very confined period of time, ten days, and then once you exercise it, the next person must exercise it within a defined period as well. So, no, it will happen fairly quickly and it will happen in accordance with, not the rules that we made, but the ones that are negotiated with the union.

MR. REID: Yes, but what I am saying is that an existing depot, one that is going to remain, you could have, you know, not a completely different crew but a somewhat different crew than there is there today.

MR. SMART: I think at the lower part of the seniority list, the junior employees is where you could see movement. Yes, in terms of your senior people and your senior operators and so on, the ones with a lot of experience and a lot of seniority, you will not see much change at that level, but certainly -

MR. REID: Yes, but it depends though, because if the people on New World Island and the people in Victoria Cove - I would hazard to guess that they are probably equal on the seniority list. They have been around -

MR. SMART: Vaguely, yes.

MR. REID: What I am saying is that New World Island is closed, so Victoria Cove now is responsible for, not only the area in Gander Bay, which basically, minister, as you know, probably has some of the worst roads in the Province right now, along with the one on Fogo Island that I have, and part of the one on Route 340.

Seriously, Gander Bay Road, from Wings Point over, is atrocious. It is better if you took the pavement off it. Anyway, the crew that is going to look after that now is going to also have to look after Twillingate and New World Island. You are going to have a small crew over in Victoria Cove - some of whom probably never even worked out of the depot in Victoria Cove - who are going to be responsible for, not only what used to be the purview of their depot, but all of New World Island and Twillingate Island. They will not even know where the roads are. I am not exaggerating either, minister.

I can remember about five years ago, on June 2, there was a woman killed on New World Island in a snowstorm. If you have a crew over in Victoria Cove trying to handle that major distance - now I know that is fearmongering, you might want to call it, but it happened. All I am trying to do is make a point. I do not know how you could ever manage with one crew over in Gander Bay, not knowing the roads, in a completely different region, trying to cleanup a snowstorm or even just do the regular maintenance in grading on the roads in my district this summer. There is still a fair bit of dirt road in my district. I do not know how a crew from Gander Bay, trying to manage some of the worst roads in the Province, if not the worst, would be able to jump aboard a grader in the morning and get to parts of Twillingate and New World Island. Do they have to be on the job? Have you given any thought on how you are going to do that? Are you going to tell these individuals that they have to be in Twillingate on a grader at 8:00 o'clock in the morning, or do they report to work at the depot and drive to Twillingate? Because if that's the case, if you are going to haul a grader out of Victoria Cove and try to get to Crow Head on Twillingate Island, it is definitely taking you two hours in a grader.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is not the way it is anticipated that it is going to work. I am going to ask ADM Mercer to address that now in a second, but before he does, I just want to say to the hon. member, that the bumping rights are confined to the region. The region is the subdivision, in this case, of Lewisporte depot, which is: Lewisporte, Fogo, Victoria Cove, New World Island and Lumsden. That is the area that the bumping is confined to. You cannot bump into Grand Falls or you cannot bump up to Clarenville or anything. It is that subdivision, or subregion.

In terms of the organization of work crews for summer maintenance - now if there is a snow storm June 2, then we would have to deal with that differently. Our own vehicles would have the wings off by that time and the blades off by that time. We would have to gear up as best we can or get private contractors. We do whatever we have to do under those circumstances, and funding is not the issue.

In terms of summer maintenance and the organization of the crews for summer maintenance, I am going to ask the Assistant Deputy Minister of Transportation, Mr. Mercer, to make some comment on that.

MR. MERCER: What we will be doing is that we would have a work crew, or work crews, that would be responsible for a unit area that would include Victoria Cove and the former unit area of New World Island. The summer work program would be a planned program. It would be priorities identified and if there are certain parts of that unit area where grading is an ongoing requirement, than the grader would be stationed at our facility that is closest to that area requiring the service in terms of New World Island depot. We would have our operator for that grader pick that grader up at 8:00 in the morning there and go to his assignment.

The idea is that it is a planned summer maintenance program. When you are doing work on New World Island then, predominantly, the crew would work out of the New World Island unit, and they may do that for two months during the summer period. It is going to depend on where the maintenance needs are or what your budgets can accommodate and those sorts of things. So, it is going to be a planned approach and your crews will move around. At times I would suspect that the entire work crew may very well work out of the New World Island facilities under that new boundary for periods of time, as they will work out of Victoria Cove.

MR. REID: Yes. I don't want to be confrontational. This is an opinion, all right. I cannot see, for the life of me, how - if you took the New World Island depots - there are twenty-nine communities, I think, on New World Island and Twillingate Island. I cannot see how you can take - I think there were five people, maybe six, working in that depot last summer - that you can take these out and have six or seven people in Victoria Cove and hope to do the maintenance that was carried out in the past, unless you are saying there was no maintenance carried out by the summer crew in the past on New World Island and Twillingate Island. I think that the number of kilometres in that region now combined - Victoria Cove, New World Island and Twillingate - is going from 300 to approximately 625 or 725, which that one crew would have to handle. Kilometres I am talking about, for those two - if my figures are correct, the ones that I was provided with from the union.

MR. RIDEOUT: One of the things that came out of the further consultations with the regional directors was an equitable formula per kilometre per employee for maintenance purposes. One of the things that has happened here, since we have been looking at this, is we will be adding back some people in some areas. That is why I can say tonight that the net impact - it is not a hundred-and-something like it was when we started to look at this first. It is significantly less than that.

Something else that ought to be said here as well, Mr. Chairman, is this. We found ourselves in a situation, as a result of cutbacks year over year, year after year in the summer maintenance program, where we had all kinds of salary dollars but precious little material dollars. As a matter of fact, the industry norm is $1 for salary and $3 for material. We were the reverse. When we took over and had a good look at this, we were spending $3 on salary and $1 on materials for our crews to work with. Not only were we the reverse of the industry - and I should say that if we proceed to do this reorganization, we will only be one on one. We will not be anywhere close to the industry norm but we will be one to one, dollar for dollar. Not only were we the reverse of the industry norm, our skill mix was wrong. In some units we had too many operators and not enough labourers. In some units we had too many labourers and not enough operators. So, what we are trying to do here is correct an historic imbalance that has developed over the last several years. This did not develop over the last eighteen months. This is a result of year after year, year after year cutback in summer maintenance.

The only other thing I want to add is, like I said, we are going to do this in a formula that is a provincial-wide formula, so that the number of kilometres per employee for summer maintenance in the Twillingate area will be the same as the number of kilometres per employee on the Northern Peninsula. It will be a provincial formula and that is what we have been working at developing. Look, it is a different approach. It is a new process. Give it a chance. Maybe we will have to come to the conclusion that this cannot work and it is not going to improve the situation. This is not a dollar saving figure. Treasury Board has agreed to transfer to our supplies budget any funds that we can save from salary dollars as a result of this operation so that I can hopefully get more money to buy material, to grade shoulders of roads and do more patching and do that kind of thing. That is the intent. Now if that does not work, then we have to revisit the whole thing again, but that is the strategy behind it. That is the strategic thinking behind it. If it causes a bad situation to get worse, then I will be the first to say we made a mistake and we have to go back to the drawing board again.

MR. REID: Minister, to lay off five employees at New World Island depot, that is responsible for New World Island and Twillingate Island for six months of the year, what is the average salary for an employee there, $30,000, $20,000? Somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000 a year, I would say, isn't it? Basically, for six months you are probably going to save $10,000 per employee, so $60,000. Say $80,000, or even say $100,000. According to the cost of materials, as you know, you are not doing much maintenance with $100,000 that you are going to save on New World Island and Twillingate Island for twenty-nine communities when you consider that a kilometre of pavement will cost you $100,000.

MR. RIDEOUT: It will cost you more than that now.

MR. REID: Yes, it will cost you more than that. I know that the cost of gravel and everything else, to say that you are doing it to save money to put into materials, I think the hardships that you are going to impose on the employees and their families, not to mention - I think, personally, that the service we received last year will not be the same as we are going to receive this year. I think that -

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, all I can say to that allegation, we will just have to wait and see. But in terms of the savings that will go back into material supplies, at the present time, is budgeted to be $1.2 million. So in the overall scheme of things, I have to say to my friend, that is not insignificant.

MR. REID: Yes, but what I am saying though, minister, it is $100,000 per highway depot region.

MR. RIDEOUT: I am saying it is $1.2 million for the Province.

MR. REID: Yes, but what I am saying, it is $100,000 for twenty-nine communities in my district, and what you are going to get for that $100,000 is not going to be worth the decrease in service. I am not going to say anymore about it tonight because it is two different opinions, obviously. It might sound like big savings on the overall, $1.2 million for the Province.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is not a savings.

MR. REID: No, okay, but -

MR. RIDEOUT: It is $1.2 million that I can take and put into gravel and cold patch and all the kinds of other stuff that members are calling for everyday, rather than having it in salaries and the people not productively employed.

MR. REID: Well, all right. I will just finish up and I will be finished with it. One hundred thousand dollars per district for twenty-nine communities and, probably 200 or 300 kilometres, $100,000 is not going to do a lot of maintenance.

MR. RIDEOUT: It might be $350,000 in your district and none in some others.

MR. REID: Minister, I travel the roads of this Province as much as anyone else.

MR. RIDEOUT: And so do I.

MR. REID: Believe me. I do not know of any district in this Province where you are going to be able to take the $100,000 that you are saving on a depot closure and put into my district, I can guarantee you that.

MR. RIDEOUT: We are going to do a planned approach for some (inaudible).

MR. REID: It is not going to happen in Fabian Manning's district, I guarantee you, because his roads are as bad as mine.

MR. RIDEOUT: I know exactly what they are like. I travelled everyone of them with him last year.

MR. REID: So, I do not think that we will be holding our breath for $300,000 for summer maintenance in my district, increase over last year.

MR. RIDEOUT: I hate to call the hon. member a naysayer and a doom sayer but that is exactly what he is.

MR. REID: No, I do not think so, Mr. Minister. Actually, I am quite positive, very positive, but we will see.

The other thing, minister, besides the Gander Bay road - that is in the Member of Bonavista North's riding, by the way.

MR. RIDEOUT: Some of it is.

MR. REID: I am putting a plug in for him.

MR. RIDEOUT: Some of it is.

MR. REID: Well, none of it is in mine.

MR. RIDEOUT: Some of it is in Gander District.

MR. REID: Yes. That is paved, by the way, that section, I think.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, not all of it, I do not think.

MR. REID: Pretty close. Where do you go, out to the park?

MR. RIDEOUT: Up the park.

MR. REID: Why would your district extend outward beyond where there isn't any people?

MR. RIDEOUT: All our districts extend where there are no people.

MR. REID: No, no, no. What I am talking about, though, is that the only thing east of Gander, until you hit Gander Bay, is the park. There are no livyers out there, and when you hit Gander Bay -

MR. RIDEOUT: That is a provincial park, is it?

MR. REID: Yes. When you hit Gander Bay, it is in the Member for Bonavista North - anyway, that is beside the point. Most of the road in the Member for Gander's District is done on the Gander Bay road, but I am talking about down in Gander Bay as well. The road is atrocious, but I am not here to ask for money for that tonight. I am looking for some for Fogo Island, where the road from Joe Batt's Arm to the center of the Island was put down in 1970 or 1972, somewhere around there, and basically, there has been nothing done with it. We started to recap it - Tilting and we are back to Joe Batts. There are a few kilometres there that would rank, according to your own officials, if not the worst in the Province, certainly in the top three or four.

The other section is Change Islands. It has four or five - well, maybe six, seven or eight kilometres of dirt road from the town heading back to the ferry that we have been trying to do over the last three or four years. There is a section of Route 340 that you started on the bridge area last year in toward Twillingate, and I appreciate what you did there. I would appreciate - if there is anything you can do to help the people of that district they would certainly appreciate it. Especially in light of the fact, as you know, minister, because you joined the district, there is one heck of a lot of tourism that goes on in Twillingate and there is a lot of people hauling very expensive rigs down there all summer long. So, that is that one.

MR. RIDEOUT: We have not finalized our capital program for this year yet, but we are in the process of doing that now. There is some carryover on the Walter B. Elliott Causeway work, and working towards Twillingate from last year. It is all under tender and ready to go. That will be starting up again now as soon as construction conditions permit.

The other couple of projects that the hon. member mentioned, I certainly have no quarrel with their necessity. His district will be given due consideration as we are finalizing the provincial capital roads program over the next number of days. If there is anything left over after I take care of Oliver, you can have it.

MR. REID: I can take care of Oliver.

MR. LANGDON: No, you can't, but he can.

MR. REID: I cannot let you go without talking about the ferry rates. I cannot blame you for all of the rate that we are paying for ferries in Fogo Island and Change Islands, obviously, because a lot of it was there before you came there.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I am going to blame you for the increase, is right. Who said that?

Minister, in the Blue Book during the election campaign, and it was discussed on Fogo Island, at least, I think when the Premier was out there. He made a commitment that he was going to reduce the cost of ferry travel to that of road transportation, and we have seen a 15 per cent increase now in two years. It is getting to be pretty expensive, especially for people who are operating trucking businesses out there, because I have one individual who has eight transport trucks. It is costing him, for most of them, $152 every time he leaves the Island; that is a round trip. So, a 15 per cent increase in the last two years is certainly having an affect on him, especially during the fishing season when all eight are in operation on a daily basis. It is certainly not - that is money, Minister, as you know, under different circumstances he could be putting in his ass pocket that people in Gander Bay and Lewisporte and those areas who are doing the same type of business but not going to Fogo Island can actually put in their ass pocket.

I had a discussion with one of your officials the other day and he told me that the cost of transportation on the ferries is close to being in line with road transportation, but I am not aware that - this twenty-six kilometre round trip to Fogo Island, if it is costing you $152 to do that, I cannot imagine what it would cost them to travel to St. John's and back if that is equivalent to road transportation. So, I would certainly appreciate -

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, I hear what the hon. member is saying. I mean, the commitment that was made in the Blue Book was road equivalency, as I recall it.

MR. REID: Yes, that is right.

MR. RIDEOUT: I have instructed my officials to do - you know, for some reason or other I am told this was never done for the Province in any recent times. That is a formula which incorporates the principle of road equivalency so that those areas which should be revenue neutral from a government perspective, if it is done properly, that those areas which are above the road equivalency come down and those areas that are below the road equivalency come up. We are operating services in this Province today below the road equivalency; significantly below. We are operating some - there was never any formula. I think it was whatever anybody pulled out of their skull or had a dream about some night before in the past. Now, I am not saying the past Administration, all Administrations, when we were there before, too.

I have asked my officials at the senior executive level to put together for me a formula that reflects road equivalency and look at every service - except the Labrador service because that one was looked at recently by the Public Policy Institute from a freight perspective - look at every service in the Province and tell me what the road equivalency is; who is down needs to go up and who is up needs to go down. That is a process, and I know that -

MR. REID: What do you mean, in terms of the ferries? So what you are saying -

MR. RIDEOUT: In terms of the rates.

MR. REID: Okay. But, minister, in road equivalency though, I think -

MR. RIDEOUT: There is a Canadian formula for road equivalency. We use it to make our arguments on the Gulf service all the time, right.

MR. REID: But, obviously, for a 26 kilometre run it would not cost a transport truck $152.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, I do not know. I mean, I am not prepared to argue that thing at the moment. I do not know what it costs to operate a transport truck and put it in the garage (inaudible).

MR. REID: And you are right, minister. Believe me, that is why, when I started to talk about the ferry rates, I said I am not blaming you for the cost of the ferry rates. I am blaming you for the increases.

MR. RIDEOUT: I mean, one of the cruelest we have is Long Island. Long Island, you can jump across there, and it is what? Nine dollars and some odd cents, ten bucks for a vehicle, and you can jump across there if you are a good sprinter, you know.

MR. REID: Yes, right.

I tell you, look at the distance between Portugal Cove and Bell Island and what they are paying and compare it to Change Islands and Farewell, the same distance, and look at -

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, and that has not gone unnoticed, let me tell you.

MR. REID: - double the rates. Then look at Fogo Island, where today or tomorrow, if I go out to my district with my wife, it is going to cost me $27.50 or something -

MR. RIDEOUT: That has not gone unnoticed.

MR. REID: - depending on what the rate increase is, and you know -

MR. RIDEOUT: Maybe it is because you are close enough to Confederation Building to drag 1,000 people in here.

MR. REID: You are right on. Do you know what? That is what I tell my constituents. The reason the rates are different is because whenever there is a rate increase (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Anyway, there is one commitment I can make to you, that we are looking at addressing that inequity.

MR. REID: When will that be, minister?

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, our officials are working -

MR. REID: Is it possible, now that the government seems to be becoming very magnanimous as of late, do you think that those rates could be rolled back in the very near future?

MR. RIDEOUT: I do not know. All I can tell you at the moment is that we are looking at the whole of our system and our rates.

MR. REID: Well, even if you would look at the road equivalency -

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, that is what we are looking at.

MR. REID: - and put that into effect, because I guarantee you, my constituents would benefit over that.

MR. RIDEOUT: I have tasked the officials to do the work on it and give me some advice on it.

MR. REID: Because if it is going to cost me more than $27 to go twenty-six kilometres in the car, I do not know but I will go out and buy a ferry and drive it around rather than use my car.

Anyway, that is it for me, I think. I got the Trans-Canada, Fogo Island, Route 340, yes, the depots and the ferry rates.

MR. RIDEOUT: All covered.

MR. REID: What else do you run into (inaudible)? Change Islands -

CHAIR: Yvonne Jones.

MS JONES: I just have a couple of other questions.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) I am not finished.

MS JONES: Oh, I thought you were finished.

CHAIR: I am sorry.

MR. REID: Thirty million, you said there was $33.7 million in the roads program for this year.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, that includes $3.7 million of carryover from last year.

MR. REID: What did you have last year? Thirty million?

MR. RIDEOUT: Thirty million, yes. Normally, in the past what happened, carryover comes off this year's allocation but we have added it on so that we have a new $30 million to work with.

MR. REID: I am finished. Thank you.

So, I can tell my constituents that you are seriously going to look at those ferry rates.

MR. RIDEOUT: We are going to look at them, yes, and anything we look at, we look at seriously. So if you want to put that word in.

MR. REID: Well, that is not much of a commitment. I am not as pleased as I was a few minutes ago. I should not have commented on it.

MS JONES: Are you finished now?

MR. REID: Yes, I think.

MS JONES: On the road money for this year - this might have been asked, I stepped out for a minute - are the commitments already made?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, none of them are done yet, but I am in the process of working it up now.

MS JONES: I do not know if anybody asked about the Vessel Replacement program. I have a question on it.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, they have not, but I think I mentioned in my opening remarks that there is $500,000 earmarked in the Budget this year to develop the Vessel Replacement Strategy. We are going to crew the Nonia this year. That was Hull 100, as the hon. member knows. That will be available for swing purposes as we are refitting our fleet and so on. So, we have been funded for that. That is all new money.

We have also been funded, to the tune of $500,000, to develop a Vessel Replacement Strategy. It would be my expectation that if we are going down that road, it will hopefully be in conjunction with the shipyard in Marystown, but that is the kinds of things we have to look at: Where do we need to start taking vessels out and where do we need to start putting them in?

MS JONES: So you guys have not identified yet any of that stuff, what vessels will be replaced or anything like that?

MR. RIDEOUT: No. That is what we are going to use that $500,000 for.

MS JONES: Okay. On the study that you said you were going to do on the ferry rates, could I ask that the Strait of Belle Isle ferry service be included in that rate?

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, it would be. It would be, yes.

MS JONES: Okay.

I have a couple of questions here from my colleague, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. His handwriting is absolutely deplorable, but I will try my best to get them across to you.

One is with regard to the Conception Bay North Access Road - or the access road now bypasses Harbour Grace. He wanted to know what the status of the upgrading of Harvey Street in Harbour Grace was. Apparently there was supposed to be a committee in place of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Transportation and Works, and the Harbour Grace council. The commitment was that Harvey Street would have been upgraded and then turned over to the town council.

MR. RIDEOUT: I am not aware of that commitment. Are you aware? Would that have been made before my time?

MR. MERCER: I can speak to that.

A couple of years ago there was a committee struck including a representative from Transportation, a representative from Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the town's consultant and some town officials. They were looking at a lot of the underground infrastructure in Harbour Grace under Water Street. It is quite old and needs a lot of work, so their consultant was going to go away and develop a comprehensive long-term plan that would involve replacing that infrastructure, and then include the refurbishment of the highway at the same time.

I am not aware of anything coming back from the town's consultant on that particular issue. I know that I was involved from the Department of Transportation and Works side. I have not seen anything back from the town in that regard. They may have submitted it directly to Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: If I could just add to that one other comment, I have a request to meet with the Town of Harbour Grace. I had offered them a time tomorrow, actually, but I think the notice was too short and they cannot make it. I think Harvey Street is one of the items that they want to talk to me about, isn't it?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I do not know what they are coming to say, I say to my hon. friend, but I do know that they are looking to come in to follow up on it.

MS JONES: Okay.

The other question is with regard to some road in Victoria.

MR. RIDEOUT: The what? Dump road?

OFFICIAL: Some road.

MR. RIDEOUT: Some road, oh.

MS JONES: No.

Gerry - excuse me for a second - what is the name of this road here? What is that?

MR. REID: I know where everything is.

MS JONES: Yes, it is a road in Victoria.

MR. REID: She is talking about the neck road in Victoria.

MR. RIDEOUT: The neck road.

MR. REID: It is the main road going down over the hill. The young lady here behind me, I am sure, has travelled it many times.

MR. RIDEOUT: Could you advise your colleague, if my friend doesn't mind, to raise that with me and I will find out? I do not know off the top of my head right now.

MS JONES: Okay.

What he wanted to know is what plans are there to address that situation this year, and if it will be upgraded. I think the request is in to the department.

MR. RIDEOUT: I will ask ADM Mercer to give me some information on that so that I can talk to him about it out behind the curtain or something.

MS JONES: Okay, I will certainly ask him to do that.

The other question pertains to a light that is not at the intersection of Harbour Grace and Incinerator Road near Victoria Memorial Drive. It is a dangerous intersection. They have been asking to have a light put there.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is on the agenda for the meeting with Harbour Grace as well, I understand.

MS JONES: I apologize for my delayed attempts to try and have those questions posed to you. Anyway, those are all the questions that I have for the Transportation Estimates.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I would ask if any other members on the Committee have any questions for the minister and his staff, or any statements.

Mr. Ridgley.

MR. RIDGLEY: It is not a question, just a comment.

I suppose it is fairly self-evident that there is nobody who spends money as willingly as the person who is spending somebody else's. I have often said that if governments, no matter which government, were to spend money as if they were spending their own, we would save a fair dollar.

I think that the minister and his staff are to be commended. I was struck by the savings that were negotiated with the operation of the terminal in Lewisporte, just on an amount of approximately, I think, $720,000 that they saved approximately $300,000 by a judicious and wise expenditure of money, and adopting a stance that they were not simply willing to write out the cheque, and I think they are to be commended for that.

MR. RIDEOUT: I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Chairman.

MR. REID: Can I make a comment on that?

I would like to say to the Member for St. John's North, that was spoken like a member who has never sat in Opposition.

MR. RIDEOUT: I will make no comment on that.

CHAIR: We welcome all comments.

Any more questions from the Committee?

MR. RIDEOUT: Are we going to vote on two of them together at the end, or what?

CHAIR: We can vote on two at the end.

We will move to Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: Aboriginal Affairs now, then?

CHAIR: Mr. Langdon.

MR. LANGDON: I just have one question for you, Minister, on Conne River.

I guess what you are now working with them was the work that we had already - we had already done some preliminary with them before, so the expansion of the reserve would be exactly as it was in the initial work that we had done with it. Would that be correct?

MR. RIDEOUT: I think it is even a bit beyond that, to be honest with you, because I do not know if, in the original concept, the land relating to the landfill and stuff like that had been included.

MR. LANGDON: Does it go as far as the Harbour Breton highway?

MR. RIDEOUT: Sean?

MR. DUTTON: Not quite to the highway, no.

MR. LANGDON: So that would be about the same as it was before.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, it would be about the same.

MR. LANGDON: Okay.

MR. RIDEOUT: Anyway, it is by what we have agreed mutually with the Conne River First Nation and the Government of Canada and ourselves.

MR. LANGDON: Right.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is by agreement.

MR. LANGDON: Part B of it, and that will be the end of it. When do you foresee that will be done, some time in 2005?

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, yes. As a matter of fact, I think tentatively I can say to my friend that we are expected to be in Conne River next Thursday to sign off on the reservation expansion. We are anticipating to be able to sign an agreement in principle on a self-government for the Miawpukek First Nation, and we are also anticipating being able to sign a policing agreement with the Miawpukek First Nation. We have made, I think, tremendous progress with the federal government and the Conne River Band Council in negotiating those agreements over the last several months.

Of course, I hasten to add that there is tremendously great leadership in that community to work with. I think it is a model Aboriginal community in many respects. It is a great band council to make progress with.

MR. LANGDON: This is just a comment.

I have said many, many times that, for some of the band councils and some of the people who would be in the Aboriginal communities in Labrador, it would be beneficial to them if they were to visit Conne River and see what happens, and be able to learn, I think, from them. There is great leadership, there is no doubt about that.

I will just ask the minister one thing, when it is confirmed, if his officials could probably let me know because I might want to go down as well.

MR. RIDEOUT: Sure.

I understand that Mr. Matthews and maybe Minister Efford - I do not know who else might be coming from the federal government. I do not know if it is confirmed yet or not.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: They are not available? Okay, but they were aware of it?

OFFICIAL: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: Okay?

MR. LANGDON: I will hear from you?

MR. RIDEOUT: Once we have a final, I will ask the acting deputy to let your office know.

CHAIR: Ms Jones.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a couple of questions.

First of all, has your department made any representation with the federal government on behalf of the Metis in terms of land claim acceptance?

MR. RIDEOUT: Not in terms of land claim acceptance, because that is a totally federal responsibility. The initial application for a land claim is made by the group to the Government of Canada, who does the assessment and determines whether the claim has a valid basis in law or not.

What we have done is, we have encouraged the federal government to do the analysis and make a decision, and that, to this date, has not been done. I believe they have agreed to have an independent assessor assess the claim, and that is about where it stands right now.

The initial decision on whether there is a basis for a claim or not has to be made by the Government of Canada. When that is made, they then come to the Province, of course, who, generally speaking, own the land, and say: Can we begin negotiations with this Aboriginal group on land quantum and self-government rights, and all of the other things that flow from that? But, the first decision that has to be made has to be taken by the Government of Canada.

MS JONES: Okay.

Minister, maybe you can tell me, to your knowledge, or if you are aware of any offer that may have been made by the federal government to the Metis Nation that would be offering them non-insured health benefits, offering them a community development fund, in lieu of a land claim, if they would agree to drop their case for a land claim settlement?

MR. RIDEOUT: I am not aware that has happened in the way that the hon. member puts it. What I am aware is that we, as a Province, said to the LMN leadership that, while we did have a disagreement on an Aboriginal claim, we were prepared to put that disagreement aside and support them in their representation to the Government of Canada, that they should be entitled to all the other benefits for post-secondary education, non-insured health benefits. All of the other benefits that any Aboriginal group in the country had access to, they should have access to as well.

We have, in fact, done that on several occasions in writing, and verbally with Minister Scott when I met with him in Happy-Valley-Goose Bay back in January, I guess, so we have followed through on our commitment to support the LMN in that request, but to date I am not aware that the federal government have gone back to the LMN and said, well, if you drop your land claim, we will do this. Nobody has ever told us that, that I am aware of.

MS JONES: Would the LMN be prepared to accept the benefit agreements as opposed to a land claim agreement, do you know?

MR. RIDEOUT: I don't know. I think what they would be prepared to do, as I understood - I guess he is the past president now, Mr. Russell or taking a leave of absence or whatever while he pursues his political career - what I understood they were prepared to do was not to drop their land claim, but they were prepared to accept the other benefits in the interim until a decision was made on their land claim. That is a fair statement, isn't it? If the decision was positive on their land claim then the whole regular negotiation would ensue; but in that interim period - because God knows how much longer it is going to take - the Labrador Metis Nation would be entitled to all the other benefits that any other Aboriginal group in the country would be entitled to, but the quid pro quo was never that they would drop their land claim, that I am aware of.

MS JONES: Back a little over a year ago, government reneged on a commitment they made to the Labrador Metis people as it related to the Powley decision ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. I am just wondering: at the time, the Labrador Metis Nation threatened charges, I think, against the provincial government, or that they would pursue the case in court for further clarity. Did anything ever happen with regard to that?

MR. RIDEOUT: First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me say I certainly disagree with the language used by the hon. member.

There was a commitment made by the then - the present Premier, as leader of the party, that we would look at the implications of the Powley decision for the Labrador Metis Nation, and if we were to conclude that the LMN fit the definition of Metis as outlined in the Powley decision then we would be prepared to live up to that.

Of course, when we made that comment to the LMN we had no access at the time to the in-depth legal analysis that had been provided to government. It was only after we became government that we had access to that. It is our conclusion, and I so informed Mr. Russell some months after, having had the best advice available from a legal perspective that the Province can provide to us, is that the criteria set out in the Powley decision, in our view, the NLM does not meet, and the honest thing to do is to tell them that.

Having said that - I lost my train of thought. What was really the question?

MS JONES: We may differ on the -

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, the court action, yes.

MS JONES: - degree and the process, but I think after the government appointed legal counsel the Metis appointed legal counsel, or a consultant.

MR. RIDEOUT: We asked them to get together and share, both sides. They would eventually have to do this anyway, disclosure. We asked them to get together and disclose to each other what our research was, and all that kind of stuff.

My understanding is that the legal counsel for the LMN have requested some information which we have provided. My understanding is that they have provided us with some, but not all, of their research. I think it is still a piece of work. It is still a live piece of work, I understand.

Sean, do you want to add to that?

MR. DUTTON: Legal counsel for the parties had at least two separate meetings. In addition to that, there was information provided under the Freedom of Information Act to the LMN on our research respecting their land claim. Since that time, a group of members of the LMN have initiated statement of claim against the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, and that is likely to be the venue at which the court may provide some further clarity on whether or not the members of the LMN enjoy Aboriginal rights.

I believe we have advised the LMN that we are aware of that and we anticipate that would be the forum to resolve any outstanding questions about their status or non-status as Aboriginal under section 35.

MS JONES: The statement of claim with regard the LIA agreement, would that be filed toward the Inuit people or toward the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. DUTTON: The statement of claim names all three parties to the Land Claims Agreement.

MS JONES: Okay.

So they did not go back to the courts for clarity with regard to the Powley decision and the Metis Nation?

MR. RIDEOUT: Not directly, no.

MS JONES: Okay.

MR. RIDEOUT: But it could happen through this process if this, in fact, proceeds.

MS JONES: What financial or policy contracts are in place between the government and the Labrador Metis Nation?

MR. RIDEOUT: With the Labrador Metis Nation, there is an agreement with forestry. There is an agreement, I think, on wildlife and conservation issues.

MR. DUTTON: I think that is it.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is it, just forestry?

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: Okay.

The acting deputy tells me that the only formal agreement is the forestry.

MS JONES: Didn't you do one on wildlife, though, where you forfeited the charges for licences?

MR. RIDEOUT: What we did on wildlife was, we set up a protocol and said, we will just leave everything as it is. We are not going to lay any additional new charges. We are not going to press those charges unless we are getting flagrant and blatant abuse of wildlife for conservation purposes, and then we would have to move, but in the interim we will leave things as they are. That is basically what we did.

MR. DUTTON: It is not a formal agreement per se, but the position of the government has been communicated by letter to the LMN, and that was consistent with the position that the previous Administration had taken.

We have reconfirmed that this interim enforcement policy continues to be in effect, that it is just basically a no seizure policy. Members of the LMN are still subject to laws of general application of wildlife enforcement, but it was agreed that evidence would be gathered through photographs, and things of that nature, rather than seizing game or weapons or things used for hunting and fishing purposes. So, that remains to be in effect while we try to resolve these outstanding legal questions that are going before the courts.

MS JONES: Since the new policy was in place, have there been any charges against any of the LMN membership?

MR. DUTTON: Yes. I am not certain of the number, but there do continue to be charges laid.

MS JONES: Okay.

MR. RIDEOUT: But they are not going to trial. They haven't gone to trial up to this point in time.

MR. DUTTON: Well, that is a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions. There were a number of charges that were stayed last year, which probably is what you are referring to.

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. DUTTON: Since that time there have been other charges laid, and those are to go before the court unless the Director of Public Prosecutions decides otherwise.

MS JONES: Government has called proposals for development of the Lower Churchill project. Has there been any correspondence involved with the Aboriginal groups in Labrador as it relates to that development - either supportive, opposed - laying claim to any of the area that is proposed to be developed?

MR. RIDEOUT: I do not know if there would be correspondence. That is basically a Natural Resources issue, on which we would have an interest as an Aboriginal Affairs Department. I am certain that there have been discussions with the Innu. I do not know if there have been with the LMN.

I think the policy that we inherited from the previous Administration that we continued to follow is that we involve those Aboriginal groups that, in our view, have Aboriginal title.

MS JONES: I cannot hear you.

MR. RIDEOUT: That, in our view, have claim to Aboriginal title. Of course, we have accepted the fact that the Innu have claim for Aboriginal title so we keep them informed on a regular basis.

I do not know if there has been any formal correspondence with the LMN or not. Do you want to elaborate on that?

MR. DUTTON: Yes.

Not recently. It is still at a very parliamentary stage because we have only just received the proposals under stage one of the Expressions of Interest, so there is not even a defined project to talk about in detail with anyone at this point. The Innu have been generally kept apprised but there are no active negotiations going on with them with respect to the project at this time.

MS JONES: The Innu have acknowledged to government that they claim title in that land area where the project would be developed.

MR. RIDEOUT: The Innu?

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, yes.

MS JONES: I am just wondering, if you were to go - and this is hypothetical, I guess, at this point, but if you were to accept one of those proposals for development of that project, the negotiation with Aboriginal groups, would it be done as a government-to-government negotiation or would it be done through the intervener or the proponent?

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, that remains to be determined. The experience from the Voisey's Bay development, I guess, in terms of the impact and benefits, was done - I believe I am right when I say it was done from the company and the particular Aboriginal group. Then the government agreed that these agreements would form parts of the component agreement. Like, in a case of the LIA, it becomes a part of their Land Claims Agreement. At some point, hopefully, please God, there will be an agreement with the Innu and it will be a chapter in their agreement.

Whether we handle it the same way in a Lower Churchill development, I guess, really is, as the hon. member said, a bit hypothetical at this point in time.

MS JONES: I do not have any other questions, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to thank the minister for his co-operation this evening, and his time, and to thank the officials in his department for the information they provided to us, and to congratulate Mr. Smart on his new appointment as the Deputy Minister of Transportation and Works. I look forward to seeing the minister and his officials in my district over the summer.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Thank you, Yvonne.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, if I could, on behalf of my officials from both departments, I want to thank hon. members for their co-operation on both sides. As His Honour would say, I also thank you for your benevolence.

CHAIR: If there are no more comments or questions by any of the Committee people, for the purpose of voting, I would propose that the Committee would deal with Transportation and Works first, and then Aboriginal Affairs.

At this time I would ask the Clerk to call the subheads for Transportation and Works.

CLERK: Subheads 1.1.01. to 4.3.02. inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01. to 4.3.02. carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

OFFICIALS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01. through 4.3.02 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

OFFICIALS: Aye.

CHAIR: Shall I report the heads of Transportation and Works carried, without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

OFFICIALS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, Department of Transportation and Works, total heads, carried without amendment.

MR. REID: You are supposed to say all those against, too, by the way, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: I forgot that Mr. Reid was here.

Now I would ask the Clerk to call the subheads in regard to Aboriginal Affairs.

CLERK: Subheads 2.1.01. and 2.1.03.

CHAIR: Shall 2.1.01. and 2.1.03. carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

OFFICIALS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

On motion, subheads 2.1.01. and 2.1.03. carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

OFFICIALS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Shall I report the heads of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

OFFICIALS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, total heads, carried without amendment.

CHAIR: At this particular time I, too, would like to thank the minister and his staff for their participation and willingness to answer all questions. I must say, the answers have been very informative. I, even as the Chair, have learned a fair bit about Transportation and Aboriginal Affairs at this particular time and I find the Committees very, very useful.

This being the last meeting of the Committee, I would like to thank the members for their attendance and their willingness and their work. I would also like to thank the Table Clerk, Elizabeth, and our Page.

At this particular time, I would like to ask for a motion for adjournment.

MR. RIDGLEY: So moved, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: So moved by Mr. Ridgley, and we will call the Committee adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.

On motion, the Committee adjourned sine die.