PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Speaker: Hon. Francis (Buck) Watts
Published by Order of the Legislature
Standing Committee on
Infrastructure and Energy
DATE OF HEARING: 27 OCTOBER 2016
MEETING STATUS: Public
LOCATION: COMMITTEE ROOM, J. ANGUS MACLEAN BUILDING, CHARLOTTETOWN
SUBJECT: BRIEFING ON BORDEN-CARLETON FABRICATION YARD, AND CORNWALL BYPASS AND CAPITAL
BUDGET
COMMITTEE:
Sonny Gallant, MLA Evangeline-Miscouche [Chair]
Dr. Peter Bevan-Baker, Leader of the Third Party, MLA Kellys Cross-Cumberland
Bush Dumville, MLA West Royalty-Springvale
Jamie Fox, Leader of the Opposition, MLA Borden-Kinkora
Sidney MacEwen, MLA Morell-Mermaid
Pat Murphy, MLA Alberton-Roseville
Hal Perry, MLA Tignish-Palmer Road
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
none
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE:
Darlene Compton, MLA Belfast-Murray River
GUESTS:
Department of Economic Development and Tourism (Hon. Heath MacDonald, Jamie Aiken);
Department of Finance (Hon. Allen Roach, Jim Miles)
STAFF:
Emily Doiron, Clerk Assistant (Journals, Committees and House Operations)
Edited by Parliamentary Publications and Services
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
The Committee met at 1:30 p.m.
Mr. MacDonald: Alright, I’m going to turn
it right over to Jamie Aiken, who is a CEO
at the IIDI, and Jamie’s going to run through
a brief – it might be 10 slides, maybe.
Chair (Gallant): Welcome everyone. We’ll
begin our meeting. I see that everyone’s
here.
Jaime Aiken: Jamie Aiken.
Just before we adopt the agenda, I would
like to just throw it out there: I have a
previous commitment at 3:30-3:45 p.m. Is
everybody else okay? If we have an hour for
each -
Good afternoon, everyone. As my minister
just noted, we have prepared a very short
slideshow here to just give a little bit of a
history of the property and hopefully answer
a few of the initial questions.
An Hon. Member: (Indistinct)
The former fabrication yard is
approximately 112 acres. Following the
opening of the Confederation Bridge in
1997, the infrastructure at the former
fabrication yard was decommissioned with
the exception of the above concrete pillars,
wharf, and jetty.
Chair: An hour suitable for everyone for
each minister?
An Hon. Member: Yes.
Chair: With that being said, I would like
someone to adopt the agenda.
From 1997-2008, Strait Crossing explored
various options with the property, but didn’t
receive very much interest from the private
sector at that time. Strait Crossing
maintained ownership of the property until
2008 when the Province of PEI, through
Finance PEI, acquired the property.
Leader of the Opposition: So moved.
Chair: Thank you, Mr. Fox.
Minister MacDonald, when you speak you
need to speak into the mic. You don’t have
to say your full title each time you speak,
but if you’re answering a question, before
you answer it you should say Heath
MacDonald so when they pick it up – the
sound system here has changed as far as it’s
a live-feed, and – what else is it, Bush?
What do you call that, or Clerk?
In 2008, the acquisition cost was $359,000.
Environmental reviews were completed on
the property, both phase one and two, with
no material issues being noted in either.
The close proximity of the property to the
Confederation Bridge does offer the
property significant potential economic
development opportunities. Since 2008,
there has been some interest in the property;
however, there has been no development
projects or agreements signed to date.
Unidentified Voice: Hansard.
Chair: It’s in the Hansard. Just speak right
into the mic.
Anyway, would you like to do your
presentation and then have questions after,
or do you want questions during it?
As noted before, we do see this as a strategic
asset. We have looked at a couple of
different projects. One was a
business/industrial park expansion.
Aggregate storage; from time to time do,
some companies have stored aggregate there
while they’re preparing a shipment of larger
products. We also looked at wind energy;
the wind was deemed insufficient at this
time for a significant windmill expansion.
Mr. MacDonald: No, I think if you allow
us to start with a – it’s just a very brief
presentation, so it may generate even more
questions.
Chair: I’d like to welcome Darlene
Compton to the table. Welcome, Darlene.
In any project we would evaluate, we would
want to have some consultation with the
town of Borden-Carleton with regards to
both economic and environmental impact.
Minister, the floor is yours and direct your
questions to the Chair.
189
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
As noted in the previous slide, we have
looked at the possibility of a business park
or an industrial park on the former site. We
have engaged an outside engineering firm, a
local firm here, to do some preliminary
designs and estimates. You can see to the
right there, there is a map showing the
potential for lots. The lots in the orange
would be the immediate development and
then the grey could be for phase two. The
entire project would cost upwards to $2.6
million to bring in road, infrastructure,
sewer, lift stations, and things of that nature.
completing their STEP review, the
government will reevaluate options and
recommendations to determine the best
course of action for the property, which may
include the removal of the concrete support
pillars above ground.
It’s a very brief summary, which hopefully
gives some history and some background
with regards to the property.
Chair: Thank you, Mr. Aiken.
Our first question is from Sidney MacEwen.
Before we would ever proceed with this
project, we would want to identify an acre
tenant to make sure that we design
appropriately and try to avoid the build it
and they will come approach, to try and
proceed carefully on that.
Mr. MacEwen: Thank you, Chair.
Thank you for coming in here Jamie, and
Minister Heath MacDonald.
The removal costs going from $750,000 in
2008 to $3 million current, what would be
the reasons for that much of an increased
cost in eight years?
The removal of the concrete in – I guess it
was early 2016, Finance PEI issued a
request for proposals in relation to the
removal of concrete support pillars. We
have received responses that suggest that the
entire process could be upwards to $3
million.
Jaime Aiken: There could be various
factors that would attribute to that. When we
put out the request for proposals, we wanted
to ensure that the concrete was removed in
an environmentally correct means and that it
wouldn’t be stockpiled.
In 2008 when the province had acquired the
property, we had estimates to suggest it was
approximately $750,000, so the costs have
gone up significantly to remove the
concrete. This is just the removal of the
above concrete, not the concrete within the
ground.
As you’re aware, the pillars are full of
substantial rebar, and to use them for
breakwaters or to use them in the water
they’d all have to be capped. Additionally,
they are quite heavy, the piers. It would be
considerable cost to either transport them or
break them down. What we found was
when we went out for the tenders compared
to the estimates that were done back in
2008, that they were considerably higher
than that. There will be some inflation there
as well, but various factors.
The town of Borden. The department has
been in discussion with the town regarding
the long-term plan for the fabrication yard.
We’ve had several meetings. We understand
the town is currently developing a Strategic
Tourism Expansion Program or STEP for
abbreviation, and the former fabrication yard
may be a part of this process, so we’re being
cautious of that, or conscious of that. We
want them to finish that process before we
make any significant decisions. We want to
include them in those decisions as we go
forward.
Chair: Sidney MacEwen.
Mr. MacEwen: Thank you, Chair.
If you back in 2008, if you had thought it
was $3 million then, would that have
affected the decision to take ownership of
the lot or the land?
Next steps: The department will continue to
have discussions with the town regarding the
long-term plans for the fabrication yard; the
department, through Innovation PEI and
Finance PEI, will continue to work to
identify potential development opportunities
for the property; and upon the town
Mr. MacDonald: I don’t believe it would.
Looking at all the information at that time, I
think it was strategic for the government to
purchase the property at $359,000. If you
190
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
looked at the estimate that was done at
approximately 750 to $1 million, and you
take 114 acres of shore frontage next to the
town of Borden and you put it in the hands
of the province as opposed to putting it in
the hands of SCI, or a third party if they had
sold it, you’re looking at less than $10,000
an acre of shore frontage. Mind you, there
hasn’t been a lot happened, but I think at
that time, I think it was likely a good
investment on behalf of the province based
on those numbers.
No, I don’t see the significant barrier. There
would be some barriers, but to the minister,
none that you couldn’t plan around.
Mr. MacEwen: Thank you.
Chair: Jamie Fox.
Leader of the Opposition: Thank you,
Chair.
Can the province ever go back – in your
slide here you said the Strait Crossing had
potential to approach different companies.
Did you ever go back to those companies
that were approached by Strait Crossing or
the Confederation Bridge to see if their
decision or position has changed with it now
being in provincial hands? Because back
then it could have been a money issue, and
now it might not be a money issue. Did you
ever go back to those companies?
I still think it is a strategic piece of property
to have on PEI. It’s the gateway to Prince
Edward Island. I think there is, and there
will be, opportunities there.
Chair: Sidney MacEwen.
Mr. MacEwen: Thank you, Chair. Thank
you, minister.
Just a last question: Is leaving the
underground concrete in the ground, does
that limit the possibilities going into the
future? You had one estimate there maybe
of 2.4, 2.6 million; does leaving that
concrete in the ground limit what you can do
down the road, strategic (Indistinct)?
Jaime Aiken: I couldn’t say for certain. It’s
my understanding that we’ve always tried to
maintain open communication with Strait
Crossing and anyone that has expressed
interest on the property over the years. If
there is someone that we have overlooked, I
apologize and I’d be more than happy to
meet with them.
Mr. MacDonald: I think it limits it
depending on what type of businesses are
going to go in there, but at this point in time,
with the study that they did on the proposal
for the business park, it wouldn’t have any
effect mainly on that, but it may have an
effect on, if you want to put a subdivision in
or something to that effect. I’m not sure.
Leader of the Opposition: I think maybe
one step should be, then, is that maybe the
province contact Strait Crossing and ask
who they approached back then and reapproach them now. It might be the thing to
do.
Maybe you could answer, Jamie. Maybe you
could add to that.
How many companies has the province
approached since taking ownership to have
come tour the yard and look at it?
Jaime Aiken: No, minister. That’s a very
accurate summary. We have very good
drawings with regard to the infrastructure
that’s in the ground, so when we had the
preliminary work done around the business
park, industrial park, you would strategically
put the roadways where it made sense, and
then with the concrete in the ground you
could use that as footings for buildings and
infrastructure. The real challenge would be
the lift stations for the waste treatment to
push the waste back up.
Mr. MacDonald: I know, in my time, I
believe there was approximately three that I
was involved in somewhat, but prior to that,
Jamie.
Jaime Aiken: On average, there would be
approximately, at least, two companies a
year that I’d be aware of that have toured the
facility. Several inquiries, very informal; for
example, a prospector may approach us with
regards to the property. We do have the
property on Finance PEI’s website, which
has the particulars, the topographical, the
infrastructure, the telecommunication, the
water, and the systems that are within the
191
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
property so that it’s readily available to
anyone that’s looking at the property. We try
and share that information through our
website.
was found, back to farmland. That was
never done. It was never forced upon.
My question is: Why would the province
buy a piece of property and not be sure that
all conditions of that contract were not
fulfilled? I want to ask (Indistinct) to that
minister.
We have our prospectors through Innovation
PEI that are out talking to various businesses
that are looking for similar type
infrastructure. I know they’ve looked at it
from wind energy, I know there were some
bioscience companies that looked at it to see
if they could utilize some of the concrete
infrastructure for support systems with
regards to theirs. There has been various
discussions ongoing, but unfortunately, we
just have not found that matchup.
My understanding, according to people I’ve
talked to, is as soon as the province took
ownership of that it voided any
responsibility for Strait Crossing ever being
held responsible for cleaning that property
back up.
Mr. MacDonald: I believe, at the time,
there was – this whole process resulted in
the province being very wary of what could
happen to the 114 acres. I believe the
purchase of that was in guarantee that they
would have control of that facility and that
site.
Leader of the Opposition: Can you provide
a detailed list to the committee of who’s
been approached and what – around that
area?
You alluded to a little while ago that you
hired a consultant or an engineering firm or
something to do a study or something.
Who’d you hire?
If SCI had of cleaned up the yard and owned
the yard, I can assure you the price wouldn’t
be $359,000, if they were going to spend
near a million on it and bring it to the level
that we wanted it to be, or our government
of the day wanted it to be.
Jaime Aiken: CBCL.
Leader of the Opposition: Were they
tendered out? Was that process tendered
out?
I think that played a significant role in it, in
the decisions for purchasing that property. I
think there could have been alternatives that
we, or the town of Borden-Carleton, may
not have had sufficed to that agreed with at
the time with SCI.
Jaime Aiken: It was a very small project. It
would be 2 to $3,000, is my recollection.
We didn’t do a full phased design; it was
more a very rough estimate to show them
the infrastructure that was within the
property to see what was possible and what
was the potential for that property. That way
we could have a more fulfilling discussion
with the town of Borden or any other
individual that was looking at the property.
It was only prudent to have that type of
information to show what infrastructure
could be put in there, what the roadways
could look like.
If a third party had have come in there, and
it could have been utilized for shipwrecking,
it could have been utilized for large capacity
aggregate storage, that may not have suited,
may have had very limited economic
strength for the town of Borden, or for PEI.
Leader of the Opposition: Chair.
Chair: Jamie Fox, question, and then we’ll
move to someone else.
Leader of the Opposition: Thank you,
Chair.
Leader of the Opposition: Chair, let’s go
down that road then.
I’m interested in the cleanup, because I
know that in the contract between the
Confederation Bridge and Strait Crossing
and the federal government, they were
responsible in that contract for any cleanup
and the return of the site back to the way it
You paid $350,000 for the yard.
Mr. MacDonald: 359.
192
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
Leader of the Opposition: Yeah. Strait
Crossing went and said, back in the day –
correct me if I’m wrong – you just said they
talked about a million dollars back then too,
to clean it up. You just said that a minute
ago. Now, we’re at 1.3, $1.4 million. You
guys bought it for the $300 and some
thousand, you’re now saying it’s going to
cost over $3.5 million to clean it up, so now
we’re up to 3.8.5 compared to if they would
have cleaned it up somewhere around $3.4
million.
through rose-coloured glasses, but those
concrete piers are a form of contamination.
It might not be oil that contaminated the site,
but the cost to remove them is certainly
contamination. I was kind of wondering:
Why would we pay $359,000 to let Strait
Crossing off the hook in regards – why
would we take on that liability? But, you’ve
explained that to a certain degree there.
I guess I’d wrote notes down here: Why was
there not a cleanup agreement as part of the
original negotiations? Mr. Fox has said there
was.
With that, you signed a deal with the bridge
that there’s now a tariff or wharfinger
assigned to it. Anything now that comes
onto that property of that wharf, they have to
sign or negotiate with the bridge on a fee to
use the wharf. Can you explain that? Can
you explain that deal?
I guess, basically, all this concrete that’s
there, how much acreage does that take up
compared to – like you say, there’s what,
200 and some odd acres?
Mr. MacDonald: 114 acres.
Mr. MacDonald: Let’s get back to when
you started throwing figures around,
$359,000 and then 750 to a million to clean
the yard up back in 2008. When you look at
the numbers, I think that’s a pretty good deal
as far as what we ended up with.
Mr. Dumville: 114 acres. How many acres
of this contamination is there there, and how
much is clear?
Jaime Aiken: It’s approximately 80% of the
property – if I could scroll back up here and
just see the picture.
We bought a property for $359,000 at less
than $10,000 per acre shore frontage that
was next to the gateway of Prince Edward
Island and Borden-Carleton. If you’re
talking about the jetty, every wharf on PEI,
or port authority, has a fee for any
transactions that take place. I don’t believe
that’s out of the necessary, but further to
that, if I remember reading, it was a
necessity to negotiate the jetty in those terms
for that bridge to be built; that was part of
the package that was presented by SCI or by
government, and correct me if I’m wrong,
Jamie –
Mr. Dumville: Because that doesn’t look
like over 100 acres to me. It is?
Jaime Aiken: It is a very large property.
Mr. Dumville: It is, eh?
Jaime Aiken: We’re far up in the sky in that
picture, so you can’t see the full picture of
the front there. But, there is probably 20
acres around the front part to the – I think
it’s my left of the picture – that hasn’t been
developed, so there’s no concrete within that
area. You can see in the picture the concrete
pillars go down towards these two rows in
the centre, and then towards the front there’s
three rows going across.
Jaime Aiken: Correct.
Mr. MacDonald: - to make that deal
happen.
Chair: We’ll move to Bush Dumville now
for a question.
Mr. Dumville: Not only the uprights are a
cost, there is a lot of footage underneath the
ground there that would have to come out if
you’re going to develop it with sewer
systems, etc.
Mr. Dumville: I guess I was on the same
track. You’ve answered some of my
questions.
Jamie Aiken: You can see it in the picture
there there are three large circular concrete
structures at the front, then there are two
You know when you buy a property, a lot of
times properties these days are assessed for
contamination, and I guess we looked at it
193
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
towards the backside which are closer to the
Strait Crossing head office.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: I’m not familiar with
that, minister: Is that an Island company?
Those would also have to be addressed
within the clean up and those are filled with
rebar as well.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, it is.
Mr. Dumville: It’s kind of too bad it
worked out that we’ve had so much liability
even though the intention was good
originally.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Given that the more
recent – sorry Chair, Peter Bevan-Baker.
Given that the more recent estimate for the
clean up is three, four times that, did you go
back to Bulldog Demolition and ask why
they were so wrong in their estimate?
I think that Strait Crossing shouldn’t have
been let off the hook that easy. Even if we
got it for $1 and had to clean up their mess it
would be a little bit better.
Jamie Aiken: Unfortunately, that individual
has passed away. He’s no longer in
operation so we’re not able to go back to
talk to that.
Anyway, thank you.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Was it a one person
company?
Chair: Peter Bevan-Baker.
Jamie Aiken: It was the late Richard
McGuigan, Bulldog Demolition and the
company is not operating today.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Thank you, Chair.
Thanks Jamie and thank you minister for
being here.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: I’d like to move on,
Chair, if I may, to the use of the concrete.
You mentioned in your comments that part
of the rationale for buying this piece of land
was the potential value of the commercial
building, the commercial lots next to the
bridge. We know that there are 30,000
undeveloped building lots on Prince Edward
Island for domestic residences.
I know that when you’re putting armouring
on a shorefront you can’t have rebar in the
concrete. One potential use for the concrete
that was suggested to me, and I think has
been talked about publicly, is that this be
used to create a lobster reef in the strait.
Do you have an idea of how many
undeveloped commercial lots there are
across the Island?
Did the same restrictions on having rebar in
the concrete exist when you’re creating a
lobster reef as do armouring?
Mr. MacDonald: No.
Mr. MacDonald: That’s more than I can
tell you. Maybe it’s worth looking at, but I
have a strong feeling and I know there are
fishermen in the room, that anytime you put
cement or rebar in the water, it’s not
necessarily this day and age, and maybe it
was different in 2008, too.
Jamie Aiken: Don’t have that at my
fingertips here today, sorry.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: I don’t either, but I’d
hazard a guess that it’s not that many, but
it’s a large number.
I asked that question because one does
question the value of another set of
undeveloped commercial building lots if that
was the rationale, indeed, for purchasing
them.
Maybe the Bulldog Demolition company
decided that he may be able to sell
shorefront packing for shoreline being
washed away. Today, I don’t believe you
could do that, but it’s something worth
looking at.
Could you tell us who gave government the
estimate for the clean up of $750,000, which
company?
Chair: Further question, Peter?
Mr. MacDonald: I believe at the time it
was Bulldog Demolition.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: I’d like to move on now
to another potential use for the concrete
piers.
194
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
Yesterday, we had the Minister of
Communities, Land and Environment here
for two-and-a-half hours. Actually, I think
he was sitting on that seat.
Again, it comes back to – and we have to
remember that this is in very close proximity
– the reason why we’re here. It’s in very
close proximity to the town of BordenCarleton. Anything that we go to do, we
have to ensure that it fits well with their
goals and objectives. I’m not sure if that’s
the right term, but strategic outlook on how
it impacts that town because it is a
residential town.
One of the subjects that we touched on,
more than touched on, was carbon pricing.
A big part of that, of course, of meeting our
targets will be developing alternative
energies.
I have two things to ask on that. You
mentioned in your presentation that wind
power was considered, but the viability of it
was questioned. I don’t know when that
study was done because the parameters for
wind power and the wind speeds required to
make a wind turbine viable now have
changed dramatically just over the last few
years.
We’re working very closely with them.
Some of the instances that they are involved
in right now likely came to fruition because
of me driving across the bridge one day and
stopping at the administration to speak to the
mayor about economic development.
Coincidentally, being Minister of Economic
Development and Tourism led me to discuss
with them about how we could make the
town of Borden more sustainable, more
tourism-friendly. That’s where some of this
discussion has led.
Could you tell us when that study was done
on the viability of wind?
Jamie Aiken: I believe it was early on upon
our acquisition, so, 2008-2009, would have
been when that study would have been
reviewed.
We feel like they’re going through the STEP
program with the feds right now through
Forerunner Consulting. The mayor, the
deputy mayor just returned from a trip to
Maine to see what other towns similar to
their size and infrastructure, how they’re
progressing. What opportunities there are. I
commend them for taking the time and
working collaboratively with us.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: It might be worth
revisiting that because I’ve been approached
by at least one individual who has
considered putting a large number of
turbines in the Borden area.
Whether or not Borden people would be
happy with that or not, I don’t know. I’m
just thinking the viability may be better than
you think.
I met with their council; I’ve met with the
mayor a couple of times. I’ve talked to the
administrators as early as this morning.
We’re going to work diligently with them to
try to improve the sustainability.
Another, a further use, Chair, is – and I
spoke to Kim Horrelt about this some time
ago – using these concrete bases as a
potential base for solar power. Kim seemed
quite – I don’t think it was the first time she
had heard that, but we had a fairly lengthy
discussion and we never spoke about it
again.
You know Borden, I think they have a real
opportunity. I look at places like
Georgetown and Victoria-by-the-Sea and do
a comparable. I mean the people that pass
through Borden on a daily basis is literally
in the thousands. The opportunity is there.
Can you tell us about the suitability of
what’s there possibly for solar panels?
There has got to be, in my mind, something
strategic that we can put into that yard that is
good, not only for Borden, but for PEI as a
whole.
Mr. MacDonald: Actually this was just a
recent discussion that we had and it was in
regards to the possibilities of solar in that
area.
Hopefully, by February we’ll have some of
these answers.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Thank you, Chair.
195
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
Chair: Mr. Fox.
Those were the two firms, I believe, that had
looked at it and they thought it was going to
be expensive.
Leader of the Opposition: Thank you,
Chair.
Chair: (Indistinct) question, Mr. Fox.
Minister, do we have any idea of how much
gravel is sitting there and the possibility of –
I know there has been interest, we’re
trucking a lot of gravel onto the Island for
roads, road construction.
Leader of the Opposition: My
understanding is the membrane is down
about two feet.
Do we have a value of the property? What
would be the value of that property as an
asset to the province?
My understanding that gravel there is
classed as gravel no.2 and basically it’s not
gravel no.1 where it comes right from a
quarry right to the road, it’s been used, so it
has to be resifted or re-cleaned.
Jamie Aiken: The question is: Did we have
an evaluator come in to assess it?
Has there been consideration of maybe using
that gravel for some of our infrastructure
projects we’re doing?
Leader of the Opposition: Do we have a
value of how much this piece of property is
worth?
Mr. MacDonald: There is a possibility.
Jamie Aiken: Don’t have the property tax
value here.
Again, until, I think, the town of Borden –
and these aren’t bad ideas, these are things
that should be discussed. I think, until the
town of Borden comes with their plan and
how government fits in and how the yard fits
into that plan, possibly, because it is a
possibility.
Mr. MacDonald: No, I don’t have it.
Leader of the Opposition: My
understanding is it’s worth about $22
million. We paid $359,000 for it, which is a
good investment on a $22 million.
I think these are good topics for discussion.
The solar was the other one. I think until we
have what they deem as necessary for
sustainability and economic development in
and around that area we should be patient
and wait. We’ve waited this long. Why not
wait a couple of more months to solve some
of these issues. It is a good point.
If we have a 22 – we’re sitting on a piece of
property at $22 million, then we need to be
really looking at utilizing that.
Maybe Jamie could add to it because I’m not
familiar with it.
Did you consider that, or was that part of
your negotiations, or talking on that?
Jamie Aiken: If memory serves me
correctly, there was at least one, if not two
construction firms, that did look at the
gravel. They noted, to what you just
described, there would be significant
cleaning and sifting of the gravel. There is
also mesh membrane underneath the gravel,
so when they were lifting that that would
cause some challenges when they were
cleaning the gravel. It would get caught in
the machines and things of that nature. They
thought the cost could equal the value, if not
exceed initial discussions.
Mr. MacDonald: I have had no inquiries or
opposition or anything in relevancy to that
question, from our own government or from
Maritime Electric.
Is there any concern raised with Maritime
Electric when they’re bringing the new
power cables on and how that possibly could
limit the use of the wharf?
Leader of the Opposition: One final
question, or two final questions.
My understanding, a few years ago there
was a biomass company, that would be
either Vermont or New Hampshire, that
wanted to come into the province and set up
a biomass facility where they would store
product there. It would come in on a barge
or raw material would come in. It would
196
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
then be turned into biomass and then
shipped out to other parts of the New
England seaboard.
Chair: Bush Dumville.
Mr. Dumville: Thank you, Chair.
Do you have any knowledge on that?
When the part of the contract when the
bridge went in and Strait Crossing was very
adamant that they wanted to get rid of
everything that resembles anything to do
with the ferry in terms of the ramps and
everything, I had always thought that was
like, okay.
Jamie Aiken: It’s my understanding that my
counterpart at Innovation PEI had some
knowledge with regards to that proposal.
I was not directly involved. Initially, we did
provide some information about the park,
but I don’t have intimate details about that
proposal.
It’s probably best that they did clean it up. It
would be an eyesore today. I was always
worried that we didn’t have a fallback
position with all those ramps coming out.
Leader of the Opposition: Final
suggestion. Minister, I think when you look
at the Charlottetown downtown core and the
barges that come in and unload gravel and,
of course, the amount of traffic that puts on
city roads. Then look at the same, the City
of Summerside and it’s basically the same
thing.
These are very large components. Number
one, the ramps are gone; number two, the
Svanen had to get an extra height built on it
just to come and drop those components in
place.
Then, I’m thinking, okay, if something
happened down the road and I know this is a
fine structure – pretty sure nothing is going
to happen to it, but you never can rule out
something crazy like – and I don’t want to
use the word terrorism here, but I just did.
Was there ever any thought of turning the
yard, or portions of the yard, putting some
kind of canopy structure on top of the pillars
and turning it into a bulk storage site for the
province where all gravel and fertilizer
anything like that could be brought into that
area?
Is there any thought to having a small
portion – and I don’t know how this yard is
set up in regards to building the different
components of the bridge – but having a
little part of some of this infrastructure, that
if something happened – whether it’s one of
the pillars or the top piece that makes the T,
or the little inserts that are dropped in. There
is basically a bunch of different components.
Is there any thought there about that and the
wharf being used?
Jamie Aiken: There has been some
preliminary discussions with regards to that.
We’ve approached Strait Crossing to
explore the negotiation within the purchase
and sales agreement with regards to the use
of the jetty to see what aggregate
compensation would be required.
Is there any thought to keeping a little bit of
that infrastructure there for – god forbid, if
we had to come back and create some of
those components if a catastrophe happened
to the bridge.
We’re just trying to gather up some details
with regards to how that aggregate typically
is coming into the province. If it is coming
over the bridge, there would be one factor,
but if it’s coming in by barge through other
channels it should be, potentially, a different
calculation.
Mr. MacDonald: I believe Strait Crossing
still owns a portion of the property and
Jamie might want to expand. I’m pretty sure
that there is.
Leader of the Opposition: Can I ask you
what the calculation is that Strait Crossing
has put on of any tariff or wharfinger use?
Jamie Aiken: Strait Crossing has
maintained a small section when we
originally acquired the property that they
could reconstruct a pier or a component of
the bridge if needed.
Jamie Aiken: The agreement notes that it’s
a negotiation; there is not a formula per se.
197
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
Then they would also have a right of way
down towards the jetty to the wharf to
install, if necessary.
The second part of your question?
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Has the government
considered putting the property up for sale if
it’s that valuable an asset?
Mr. Dumville: I think that’s comforting to
know that. I don’t think we’ll ever have to
use it, but I’m glad somebody has thought of
that.
Or do you have an independent assessment
on how much it’s worth?
Thank you.
Jamie Aiken: As noted earlier, we do have
all of our different business parks on
Finance PEI’s website where they’re being
advertised for potential development with
various different services being provided at
those sites. We do not have them listed with
a realtor, if that was the specific ask, or
question, sorry.
Chair: Peter Bevan-Baker.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Thank you, Chair.
It’s really important to me that the people of
Borden-Carleton have a lot of input in what
happens with this property.
We do work with our prospectors in our
different divisions within our department to
try and encourage economic development
through prospectors and our lending officers
to ensure if there’s a company looking to
expand. I know there’s a large company in
Borden that has utilized this property on a
couple of occasions as they were fabricating
some very large steel infrastructure that
could be stored there for periods of time. It
has proven to be very beneficial as a swing
space, so to speak, to help allow that
company to bid and be successful on various
different projects.
First question then is – and Jamie can
probably answer this more readily, but:
Does this property fall within the
municipality of Borden-Carelton?
Jamie Aiken: Yes, it does
Dr. Bevan-Baker: It does.
You mentioned earlier about the potential
horrors of a private person coming to own
this property, but they would have to
develop it in a manner that was okay with
the town plan. I’m not sure where the real
peril lies there.
That’s definitely something we can take
under consideration.
If it is indeed worth $22 million, has the
government considered putting this up for
sale?
Chair: Peter Bevan-Baker.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Final question, Chair.
Mr. MacDonald: First of all, the first part
of your question: I believe at the time in
2008, the government was very concerned
when SCI owned the property and if that had
become part of the negotiations I would
assume it could have been a different
outlook as far as who owned the property
and what bylaws were utilized within the
town and that sort of thing. I think that
would likely be part of it back then.
Again, I want to emphasize that it’s really
important to me that the people of BordenCarleton have some control over what
happens with this site.
I want to go back to the prospect of solar
panels because a large amount of the cost
involved in that is the base on which you
have to – the solar panels themselves are not
that expensive, especially these days – but
it’s the foundation on which you put them,
which is expensive.
Today, it could be a different issue,
obviously. It is a different issue. We’re very
concerned about what the town thinks that
whatever goes in there. If it’s large scale
aggregate storage of sand or gravel or
something like that, those are fairly large
buildings that are right next to your town.
Again, I don’t know the suitability of what’s
there; I don’t know that. But were that done,
I think it would be a really visible symbol of
this province’s commitment to green energy
if everybody driving across the bridge the
198
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
first thing they see is this large scale solar
array.
province if there was a terrorist attack or if
tomorrow they inspected the bridge and
there was a span that wasn’t safe and it
needed to be repaired and it was going to
take six months.
As long as that was done in a manner that
did not make it an eyesore from the point of
view of the residents of Borden-Carleton.
Again, I would encourage you to look into
that as a really viable possibility here.
Chair: Thank you.
Again, I’d encourage the province to push
for that. I have encouraged the
transportation minister, as well, to push for
that and to the Premier to push for that and
to also partner with Nova Scotia to push for
the ferries. I have to get that in.
Darlene Compton, question?
Thank you.
Ms. Compton: Thank you, Chair.
Chair: Thank you, Darlene.
Just back to the value of the property: we
can all say it’s worth a lot of money, but any
contaminated site could be. You could say
the same thing of it if we had a private
owner who said: Well, it’s a wonderful site
and it’s waterfront and it’s worth a lot of
money but it is contaminated.
Bush Dumville.
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Dumville: Is the town taxing you on
this $359,000? I mean you must be a good
tenant and you can pay.
Jaime Aiken: We are current on our
property taxes, and there would be a
component of municipal taxes in our
assessment.
I would like to know, first of all, what the
value is on the books for the province, and if
you could bring that back to committee if
you don’t know, I’m sure there has to be a
value on it for the province.
Mr. Dumville: Thank you.
Chair: Peter Bevan-Baker.
Jaime Aiken: The value on the books is the
acquisition cost of $359,000. From
accounting perspectives, I can’t increase the
value of an asset beyond what I had paid for
it, so that’s what the costs would be on
Finance PEI’s books today.
Oh, I’m sorry, Jamie Fox.
Leader of the Opposition: Thank you.
Darlene asked one question I was going to
ask, but I’m interested in the level of
contamination.
Chair: Darlene.
Ms. Compton: We have a property worth
$359,000 is what we’re saying.
There was an environmental study, to my
understanding, done in the last little bit. Can
you brief us on what is the actual level of
contamination on that site?
Jaime Aiken: That’s right.
Ms. Compton: Whether it could ever be
offloaded for that is very questionable is
what we’re saying. How valuable it is and
what the options are, I mean it’s great to
have some different alternatives, and just – I
can’t let it pass without saying, that I think
that Bush said if there was a danger or an
imminent threat to the bridge, we do have
ferries.
Jaime Aiken: We’ve had phase one and
phase two completed prior to acquisition.
During those assessments, there was no
significant or material results that came back
to suggest that there was contamination that
required remedial action of the previous or
the current owner.
I guess I could ask for clarification of the
contamination, if you could help me with –
It’s very important that we keep those
ferries, and that is one reason, because we
do need to have an EMO plan for the
Leader of the Opposition: My
understanding there was some concerns
199
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
about some possible oil contaminants and
stuff like that around where the Huisman
cranes were actually dismantled. Those are
the big cranes that lifted the things up. Do
we know if that stuff has been cleaned up by
the province, or any concerns that were in
that phase one and phase two, if they’ve
been addressed and cleaned up?
Nobody here can argue that point. Never
went through three budget periods, never
went through sessions of the House, and $65
million or thereabouts, or $5 million or
whatever it is, is committed to going ahead.
Yet, we’re sitting on an asset in Borden of
$22 million or 315,000, whatever you want
to argue, that’s not being done, nothing, in
my mind, we’re not moving (Indistinct).
Plus, we’re also sitting on the McCain plant,
a major piece of infrastructure the province
has control on. Two proposals were turned
down last week or the week before, but yet
we can fast track a Cornwall phase one
bypass. I’m wondering if you can comment
on that.
Jaime Aiken: During the phase one and
phase two, they alluded to some small spills,
but when they done the testing that there
was very low readings that did not require
additional testing or cleanup actions. They
were obviously addressed at the time when
they occurred, because they didn’t raise any
issues during the final phase one and phase
two reports that we had completed.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, first of all, the
Cornwall bypass is a separate project from
the SCI yard. The SCI yard is something
that we’re dealing with directly in my
department, and we’re trying to come to a
conclusion that satisfies not only the town of
Borden, but the province as a whole.
Leader of the Opposition: Thank you,
Chair.
If we’re going the way we’re going, if the
town were to come back to you tomorrow,
minister, and say: Thanks very much for
everything; we would like to have the yard
cleaned up. Is the province willing to spend
the three point whatever million dollars to
say: Yes, town of Borden, we will cut off
the piers and clean it up and put it back to
pasture land.
The McCain plant is owned by the McCains.
We’ve tried to negotiate and we’ve sent out
over 200 emails to companies across North
America, or maybe even around the world,
that we’ve dealt with trying to entice them to
take a look at this facility, and without
further ado, I think in the next little while
you’re going to hear some positive news
coming out of that plant. Fingers crossed.
It’s happened before and it didn’t cross the
finish line, but I believe this time it’s got
very good chance of success.
Are we at a stage where the province will
commit to that?
Mr. MacDonald: I believe so. I mean, we
made that commitment when we sent out the
RFPs. I anticipate and in speaking with them
as recently as this morning, I anticipate
some alternatives to that. I strongly feel that
there is real potential there for BordenCarleton, for economic development and
creating some sustainability.
I think when you look at us as a government
and what we’re trying to do, is when you
look at Slemon Park or you look at the
Georgetown Timber yard, you know it
would be great to walk in there and clean
that off and then it sits there.
The answer to your question is yes, I
believe; but when we did send out the
tenders, we discussed this with the town it
would be a phased in approach. If we can
create sustainability and economic
development in the town and eventually find
something suitable for the town and the
province of PEI, it’s a win-win situation for
both.
To me, I think if we can find a tenant for
most of that or part of that and it suits the
town of Borden-Carleton and provides
economic wealth or growth in that area or
PEI, I think that’s the route we got to take. I
think we have to be patient with this. I think
they’re doing their due diligence on what
they see to fit their vision in that town, and
if we can complement that by just taking our
time and making the right decisions, I think
that’s what we should be doing.
Leader of the Opposition: Final thing is,
I’m very curious on – we saw a fast-track of
$65 million on the Cornwall bypass, phase
number one. What are we fast tracking?
200
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
The variance from $359,000 to $22 million
is a big variance, and saying that I’d like to
see exactly what we feel that that property is
worth, with the pillars, without the pillars.
Leader of the Opposition: Something I’d
like to put on the agenda is for us to take a
look at what actual infrastructure the
province is sitting on.
Thanks.
How much are we actually sitting on in
infrastructure and is there a plan for it?
It might be an interesting – like Slemon
Park.
Chair: Having no other names for
questions, I want to thank you very much,
Mr. Aiken and Mr. MacDonald, for coming
in.
Chair: Everyone okay with that?
If there are no more comments we’ll take a
brief recess until our next presenter comes
in.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Clerk Assistant: I’ll (Indistinct), not for
next week’s meeting though, but just in
general.
Mr. MacDonald: Thank you.
Chair: In the future, yeah.
[Recess]
Clerk Assistant: Perfect.
Chair: – okay with that? Then, this active
transportation, there were some
municipalities that were involved in that
Stratford –
Chair: Welcome Minister Roach.
I guess we will reconvene after that short
discussion. Now, I’d like to welcome Mr.
Roach here, the Minister of Finance. Could
you please forgive me, your name sir?
Clerk Assistant (Doiron): Stratford,
Cornwall and Charlottetown had done a
report in 2012, so there are representatives
from each of those towns that are coming in.
Jim Miles: Jim Miles, Executive Director of
Fiscal Management.
Chair: Are you okay with that, bringing
them in together?
Chair: Thank you very much.
Gentlemen when you start your presentation,
just when you first speak into the mic say
your name and then every time after that
when you’re answering a question just say
your name. You don’t have to say your
whole title, just your name so it can be
picked up, okay?
Clerk Assistant: My thought for that was
perhaps if we had each representative at the
table at the same time they would each do
their presentation and the committee would
be able to question all three of the
municipalities at the same time. Is that
something that the committee would be
agreeable to?
How would you like to proceed? Do you
have a presentation that would last a few
mintues?
Chair: That’s okay for everybody for our
next meeting?
Mr. Roach: We actually don’t have a
presentation. We were invited here, so we’ll
just get into whatever –
An Hon. Member: It’s at 1:30 p.m.
Chair: It’s 1:30 p.m. on November 3rd, yes.
Chair: We’ll just start with questions.
Clerk Assistant: There are a couple of other
groups; the cycling group and the Island
Trails that are coming into that meeting, as
well.
Mr. Roach: – your questions are.
Chair: I understand you have a time limit of
about 3:10 p.m., 3:15 p.m.?
Chair: Mr. Fox.
Mr. Roach: Yes.
201
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
Chair: We will open the meeting. Would
you like to start with any comments or just
start with questions?
everything else? It seems like everything
else was shoved aside; we’re going to build
this.
Mr. Roach: We can go right into questions
if you like.
Mr. Roach: Actually, when we were going
through capital estimates last fall and we
were talking about what’s taking place, there
were a couple of questions that were
presented to me with respect to – when
we’re talking about the budget going
forward and about change.
Chair: Mr. Fox would like to ask the first
question.
Leader of the Opposition: Thank you,
minister, for attending.
The question came from the Member from
Rustico-Emerald. There was a question that
came up about spending and different areas
where possibly the spending could take
place. During the question that I was asked,
I did advise the Legislature at that time and
everyone who was in the room – when we
were talking about different facilities and
our ability to obtain federal infrastructure
dollars – I did state that our first priority
related to any federal infrastructure
programs is to ensure that initiatives help
with our province’s needs. The federal
program must also be established so that we
can access it in a fiscally responsible
manner.
I’d like to understand the whole process of
Executive Council, Orders in Council and
Treasury Board in how the decisions are
made and how those approvals are actually
supposed to happen through those different
levels.
Is there supposed to be an Order in Council
for every time money is spent? If a budget is
– how is that whole flow of money travel,
Al?
Mr. Roach: As we did last year when we
had our capital estimates last fall when we
were in the Legislature, we would provide
an outline of where the money is going to be
spent for the following year on what
projects.
When the federal initiatives are known we
will establish an infrastructure program in
consultation with our partners on the Island
communities to best access the program.
Again, I’ll reiterate they’re estimates. There
is no hard and fast number on that. It’s a
look at where we would like to go and what
would take place, then, for example, if we
were going to do a major project. There
would have to be – particular out of capital –
there would have to be tenders go out and
those sorts of things and then they would be
looked at and it eventually would make its
way through the process.
Essentially, what I was saying is: We sit
down, we have our budget capital estimates
here today, but if things change and we’re
able to access infrastructure dollars, then
certainly there may be a change.
Leader of the Opposition: Who brought up
the Cornwall bypass or the phase one in
putting that project forward?
Leader of the Opposition: You alluded to
those budget estimates in 2015.
Mr. Roach: I think, certainly, what sort of
initiated this being brought up was when the
federal government made an announcement
that the new infrastructure program was
going to be there on a shared-dollar process.
Mr. Roach: Yes, I did, yeah.
Leader of the Opposition: In that budget
estimate there was never any mention of the
Cornwall bypass. It was never talked about
at any committee, any session of the House,
no throne speech, no budget, but all of a
sudden an announcement was made to fast
track phase one of the Cornwall bypass.
As a province, we looked towards – when
they first came out, I guess it was very
exciting to find out that we were going to
have access to federal dollars that were
never there before for us and that the federal
government were going to share on that.
I’m curious: What was the big thing that
brought that in the forefront above
When we had the change in policy by the
202
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
federal government with respect to
connector roads, that opened up a whole
new program, or a whole new avenue for us
to get involved in infrastructure where we
were able to – of course, as the federal
government was clear on that – we were
able to access funds that were going to allow
us to grow and build our prosperity in a
sustained manner that would –
Mr. Roach: No, but you asked me where it
came from.
Leader of the Opposition: – and I know –
Mr. Roach: – and that’s my best
recollection.
Leader of the Opposition: – and that
employs people.
Leader of the Opposition: Minister –
Did those conversations or did that project
come up prior to the House sitting in the
spring of 2016, or after?
Mr. Roach: – move forward with economic
growth throughout our province. Those
additional dollars that allowed us to go into
the connector roads, that’s what I think
started the first conversation.
Mr. Roach: I think those conversations
have been had for –
Of course, I think, secondly, when it came to
the Cornwall bypass, I don’t know exactly
who, but I believe it came from Minister
Biggar’s office that this might be an
opportunity where we’re going to get shared
infrastructure funding that has to be driven
towards economic growth. I think
considering that our previous government in
1997 actually announced the bypass, that it
was going to take place. I think that
continued on, I think if memory serves me
correctly, I think in 2003 there was an actual
plebiscite where 80% of the residents said
they wanted to –
Leader of the Opposition: Was the
decision made prior to the House or prior to
after the House sitting?
Mr. Roach: No, there was no decision made
prior to the House closing in the fall because
at that point in time there had been no
decision made about the infrastructure
dollars.
Leader of the Opposition: Okay.
Chair: Further question, Mr. Fox?
Leader of the Opposition: Yeah, the final
question for now.
Leader of the Opposition: And don’t get
me wrong –
We have a project; we have budgets that
were set and that money was allocated to go
wherever.
Mr. Roach: – have a bypass road.
You asked me where it came from. I think
that all of that history and the fact that we
had the bypass that went around
Charlottetown was built in such a manner
that at some point the next phase from that
bypass road was the bypass that was going
to bypass Cornwall for all of the reasons and
all of the conversations that were had pre1997.
Was there any money – and then we have
this project that wasn’t announced that
wasn’t budgeted for. Was there any money
or project or program that was cut or put on
hold to fund this project and get it going?
We know, if my understanding is right, that
there was money allotted from Ottawa or
approved for that project as of yet, that I’m
aware of.
Leader of the Opposition: Don’t get me
wrong –
Chair: Mr. Fox.
Is there any money diverted from other
projects or programs?
Leader of the Opposition: – I’m not
against infrastructure projects going forward
– and putting shovels in the ground –
Mr. Roach: There’s no money diverted
from other projects, as far as I’m aware. No.
Chair: Thank you, minister.
203
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
The next question would be from Sidney
MacEwen.
But, the real bypass, the bulk of that money
has nothing to do with this new federal
funding. It has nothing to do with it, correct?
That’s Building Canada Fund money that
we’re talking about; it’s two different things.
Mr. MacEwen: Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, minister and thank you, Jim for
coming here today.
Mr. Roach: The next phase will be 50%
funding because that funding is extended
over years. The money that was spent is
simply for the roundabouts within that
project that you just talked about.
I think part of the problem that frustrates
some of us in opposition and some in the
public, like you say, we’re not necessarily
against the bypass, but you’ve mentioned it
here today and when we had the minister of
transportation in, she also mentioned it.
Prior to going ahead with the next phase of
the Cornwall bypass, that’s going to come
forward in the next capital estimates for
discussion and for approval. That money
beyond – I think they’re saying that this
phase is going to come to an end the end of
– they hope to have it finished by the end of
November, I believe, or early December or
something. So, that’s done. We can’t move
forward with the other piece of it until those
estimates come to the Legislature, and we
will bring that to the Legislature next month
when we do our capital estimates. So, the
whole thing hasn’t been approved.
That the funding was the reason that –
because the federal funding wasn’t there last
fall and last spring that that’s why the – we
know the bypass has always been talked
about, but because the federal funding
wasn’t there that’s why it was never brought
to the capital budget or never discussed in
the Legislature.
I know you mentioned some changes in
conversation in the Hansard, but there was
never actually any real discussion about a
bypass. The real frustrating part is that it’s
because you guys keep talking about: Oh,
now that we’ve got this federal funding in
place. The point I made to the minister the
last time was that we have this new federal
funding that’s eligible for the collector
roads.
Chair: Sidney MacEwen, another question.
Mr. MacEwen: Thank you, Chair.
The reasoning since this has been
announced, because we keep asking why
was it never mentioned, but I don’t think
you can say that the reason that we didn’t
talk about it last fall or the spring or any
time throughout the winter, is because we
were able to access $2.5 million for a $65
million project. Do you know what I mean?
You were able to go ahead with phase 1, but
that’s peanuts in the big scheme of things.
That means that you were able to leverage
funding from the federal government for this
first part for the roundabout.
Mr. Roach: Yes.
Mr. MacEwen: That’s the $5.2 million
phase 1.
Like, that’s not holding you back; $2.5
million wouldn’t have been holding you
back to talk about it last fall if this was a
priority, so my question is: That Building
Canada Fund that we’re going to be
accessing for the bulk of the rest of the
project was there already. We could have
talked about it. We could have made that
public and said: Is this the priority for PEI
right now?
Mr. Roach: Yes.
Mr. MacEwen: Some percentage of that 5
million you’re able to leverage from the
federal government. It could be half, or it
could be a third, I’m not sure what that is.
But, it’s a couple of million dollars.
Mr. Roach: That’s 50%.
Mr. Roach: Well, it could have been, but
(Indistinct).
Mr. MacEwen: Fifty per cent, so half of the
5.2.
Mr. MacEwen: Yeah, it could have been,
exactly.
204
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
Mr. Roach: But when you get the 50 – we
didn’t know we had 50% funding, we
weren’t going to talk about it because we
weren’t going to do it. But when the 50%
funding came along and it was attached to
economic growth, we saw, obviously, that
there was an opportunity, so we did what we
could with phase 1.
Mr. MacEwen: I think the province –
However, that doesn’t authorize us to go
ahead with phase 2. We’re going to have to
bring those capital estimates for the
remainder of the project, everything beyond
the roundabouts, that’s all going to have to
come back next month when we sit together
in the Legislature and we’ll be talking about
that, which is also 50-50 funding going
forward on that piece of it.
Mr. Roach: We’re going to be bringing
that, and all that did was allow us to get a
jumpstart, so it very well may have been if
we didn’t get that money, we would have
been coming in these budget estimates with
all of it, including the Cornwall side. But,
the fact that we were able to access that
money and do this much of it, because some
money had to be spent because of the time
frame that you have to finish your project
from when the shovel goes around to when
it’s finished. There’s a timeframe there that
we had to work with as well.
Mr. Roach: - and I still think even –
Mr. MacEwen: - but that’s stealing $5
million of the $65 million. The 50% of the
rest of the $65 million, that was there
originally, and it still is there.
Mr. MacEwen: That explanation right there
would have been perfect last spring, but we
didn’t hear anything about doing –
Mr. Roach: But you know what? Last
spring, we had –
But, I can assure this table that anything
with respect to what goes forward is coming
to the House in the 2016 capital estimates
for the Cornwall bypass.
Mr. MacEwen: You did have the 50-50,
though. You had for the bulk of the rest of
$65 million, that program was in place. I
know the collector road program wasn’t, the
half of the $5.2 million.
Chair: Further question, then we’ll move
on.
Mr. MacEwen: Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Roach: The 50% wasn’t there.
I see what you mean. You’re right; in
technical terms, you’re right. We have to go
through and approve what the estimate’s
going to be for the further (Indistinct)
Mr. MacEwen: For the rest of the $65
million?
Mr. Roach: Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Roach: Absolutely.
Mr. MacEwen: That’s the Building Canada
Fund that you –
Mr. MacKay: But, when this
announcement was made, it was made for
the bypass announcement, you know what I
mean? I struggle to understand why, for the
sake of $2.5 million which is half of the
phase 1, that I struggle to see that that is –
that’s a rounding error in the big (Indistinct)
– we don’t know if it’s going to be 65 or it’s
going to be 62 or it’s going to be 70. That’s
a rounding error.
Mr. Roach: It just changed. The federal
government changed and so did the policy
around the access to that. We weren’t
prepared to move forward with the project at
that point in time. The current program
would have allowed us to do what we did. It
moved forward because the collectors – but
you see, you got to remember that the
collectors were additional roads that, prior to
that, didn’t qualify.
Mr. Roach: It’s an estimate.
Mr. MacEwen: Absolutely, and I thought it
was a fantastic enhancement –
Mr. MacKay: I don’t understand why, all
of a sudden: Oh look, we can get $2.5
million. Let’s go ahead with this $65 million
bypass.
Mr. Roach: I still think it’s a great –
205
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
I think that if it was that much of a priority
for the government to spend that much
money, that the $2.5 million wouldn’t have
negated us talking about it last fall, last
winter, or last spring, and that’s my opinion.
within that, we have to be able to
demonstrate where there’s going to be
economic growth.
Now, I feel that this is precisely the type of
growth that we’re going to need to drive a
sustained prosperity for this province
without question.
But, I mean I understand what you’re
saying: It still has to go through and
approved, but let’s be honest. The public out
there – this isn’t not going ahead. There’s
going to be a bypass there because it will be
voted on in this Legislature, and unless
there’s, across the table here, some extreme
opposition to it, it’s going to go ahead.
Mr. MacEwen: This is my last comment
before the Chair moves.
That’s the kind of conversation that I would
have loved to have with you last fall
throughout the winter. That exact: Is it going
to bring economic development? Yeah, it
probably will; all those kind of
conversations.
Mr. Roach: I think what it does just for
traffic movement, if it never goes any
further, to have those roundabouts in place is
going to be tremendous to move traffic in a
much safer manner. For the people that are
trying to get to work every day, I know
there’s a bit of a slow down there now, but I
think when it’s done I think we’ll see a
tremendous difference in the movement of
traffic.
My point is, I’m not arguing the benefit
costs, the pros and cons of the bypass, I’m
arguing why we couldn’t have discussed it
as a group for the sake of a couple of million
dollars, if that is the reason that government
is saying: Oh, no, we had to hold off and we
couldn’t even talk about it. That’s my only
point.
But, I think that one of the key things about
– and we’ll be talking about this a lot more,
I’m sure, as we go through our capital
estimates pretty soon here, I think there will
be a lot more discussion on this.
Mr. Roach: I think, government, prior to
coming in and sitting down with the
legislator last fall, I think if we had got
approval from the federal government
saying we can go ahead and do all of this,
because it just opens up a lot more doors for
us, there’s no reason. I think there’s going to
be ample time to discuss the bulk of the
project this fall. I don’t think there are
going to be any winners and losers on the
discussion.
I think that when you look at the opportunity
– and this has been going on with Cornwall
for a long time – the opportunity for
residential development, retail, tourism, road
access. The whole new program is all
designed for economic growth; it’s not just
to build roads.
I mean, if we look at the bypass that
currently goes around Charlottetown, I’ve
been here long enough and I’ve driven right
through Charlottetown when I lived away
with my trailer behind my rig and had to go
right down University Avenue and out
across the bridge, and the way it is now, but
look what happened.
As of the end of December, we’re simply
going to have a couple of more roundabouts,
where the bulk of the conversation is what
are we going to do when we move forward,
and that’s the discussion we’re going to
have next month.
Look what happened when they built the
bypass around Charlottetown. Look at the
economic development on both sides of that
bypass road that goes around Charlottetown.
You have industrial, you have residential,
you have subdivisions. The whole premise
of that federal funding coming down is to
drive economic growth and development.
When we put those roads in, there has to be
Peter Bevan-Baker.
Chair: Thank you minister.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, minister, for being here.
Minister Biggar was in that chair a couple of
weeks ago when we were last discussing the
Cornwall bypass, and the two justifications
she brought forward for spending $65
206
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
million were safety, which was – they had
done no study to suggest that this was a
more dangerous 10 kilometres of the
highway than any other part of the
TransCanada.
The fact that we’re accessing $32.5 million
for one project specifically for this project,
is that going to limit our ability to access the
fund for other projects on Prince Edward
Island?
The second justification she had was
economic impact, particularly on Cornwall.
Mr. Roach: I’m not so sure that it does. If
the range is that wide it depends on the
department.
I asked her if her department had done an
analysis on what the economic impact of a
perimeter highway would be; she hadn’t. It’s
the transportation department. I understand
that.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: It strikes me that – I
don’t know that answer to that question,
either. For each province – and it’s probably
based on population, it usually is when
you’re getting federal funds like this – that
there would be an amount of money set
aside for Prince Edward Island to access the
Building Canada Fund in all of its various
guises.
I’m asking you as the finance minister: Did
your department do an analysis of the
economic impact of what the perimeter
highway would have on the province?
Mr. Roach: Again, this is a project that’s
done by Minister Biggar’s department and it
would be up to that department to do all the
analysis, whether it’s environmental or
otherwise.
If we’re accessing such a large part of that
fund, which is presumably devoted to Prince
Edward Island for this one project, it strikes
me that we may be limiting our capacity to
use it, for example, green energy or waste
water or drinking water or a provincial
museum or any of the other things it would
be possible to access this money for.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: I take it from that that no
analysis has been done then on exactly what
the economic impact is on economic growth.
It would be nice to know that before we
commit the funds.
The only thing we can be sure that we will
have growth on due to this is the provincial
debt. Sixty-five million dollars, half of that
being provincial money, is going to add
substantially to the provincial debt.
Thank you, Chair.
Chair: Thank you, Peter.
What impact is this going to have on other
services on the Island? The fact that we’re
committing this kind of money to a project,
which is – my MLA to my right here rightly
points out, we haven’t had any discussion on
in the House.
Next question comes from Jamie Fox.
Leader of the Opposition: Thank you,
Chair.
Minister, you are the finance minister and
anything to do with finances of this
province, it falls on you.
Mr. Roach: I think, prior to going any
further I think that discussion will take place
in the House next month.
Yes, it might be Paula Biggar’s budget to
run the department of transportation, but
you’re still the finance minister. I find it
hard to believe that somebody didn’t look at
– especially you – didn’t look at the
economic impact that’s going to happen to
Cornwall or that area by bypassing them.
Chair: Peter.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: This money is being
accessed through the Building Canada Fund,
which, of course, is not just for building
roads; it’s for green infrastructure, it’s for
energy programs, it’s for water. It’s for a
wide range of things including social and
cultural spending.
I have heard, and I told the minister back a
week or two ago, that I’ve had companies
come to me and say that they feel that
they’re going to be negatively impacted by
the bypass and it’s actually going to lessen
207
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
growth in Cornwall and shove money into
the city.
I think one of the important things to do is to
ensure that every one of those communities,
big or small, whether it’s Charlottetown,
Cornwall, Georgetown or Cardigan or
Northport or Tignish, that one of the key
drivers to help encourage more economic
development; whether it’s potatoes that are
being moved across PEI; whether it’s soy
beans that are being moved across PEI;
whether it’s lobsters; whether it’s mussels or
oysters. If you don’t have that infrastructure
on the roadways that provide our farmers,
our processors, our fishermen and all of the
people that are in the primary sectors here in
this province, if they can’t move that
product, or can’t move it more efficiently, or
can’t move it in such a way that they’re
competitive with other provinces in other
areas, that’s going to stymie our economic
growth and our economic development.
Prime example; one gas station he figures
he’s going to lose 3.5 million litres of fuel.
That’s money out of the pockets of that
community.
I’m not against the project in principle. I
can’t understand why this government
would not have taken Brad Trivers’
suggestion back a year and a half ago and
conduct an infrastructure summit to look at
the whole infrastructure of the Island.
When I drive across the Island, when I go up
towards Pat Murphy’s on Route 2 or I go
down to Route 3 down in towards
Georgetown, I see a lot of our main and
collector roads that are in disrepair.
We’re spending possibly $65 million on
three kilometres of highway, or pardon me
on six kilometres of highway to save three
minutes. When we drive through Hunter
River and up west and we see how bad our
main TransCanada Highways and our
collector roads are in.
If we build infrastructure that allows better
truck traffic, or whatever kind of traffic, to
go to one of our ports, then I think that is
going to add to the value of that community.
It will allow that community to look at other
areas where they can determine whether or
not they, themselves, can support or then
drive economic growth, new businesses or
whatever the case may be, in their
communities.
I take it you haven’t been up there. You go
up past Miscouche and you drive up there,
Route 2 and see how bad a shape that road is
in, or drive down on Route 3.
Without having proper infrastructure, in
many instances it’s the lifeline for economic
growth –
Why could this government not look at
having an infrastructure summit and really
look at the priorities of the province and
what the shape infrastructure is in.
Leader of the Opposition: And I agree
with you –
Mr. Roach: I appreciate your question and I
have driven every one of those roads, every
one of them. I’ve been over roads as
recently as last week, down in the
Georgetown, Cardigan area, where the
collector roads have allowed – I think
there’s probably eight or 10 kilometres of
new roadway that’s put through there. There
is more planned, I think, to go directly into
the community of Georgetown.
Mr. Roach: – if you can’t move your
product –
Leader of the Opposition: – but I’m
hearing from farmers and producers up in
that whole potato belt area, they’re having
problems moving product because of the
condition of the roads.
I’ve got Gerard Mol who has a huge
operation, cannot get three-phase power.
There are many farmers out there saying the
same thing.
The reason why the work was chosen was to
help drive the economy in those
communities. I think if you had driven to
Georgetown prior, or last winter or last fall,
you’d understand the difficulty where some
people might be concerned about the poor
roadway that goes to one of our primary
ports.
Why are they looking at this type of – like
you’re talking both sides here. The farmers
need this infrastructure, but yet we’re not
doing anything to help them with that
infrastructure.
208
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
Mr. Roach: I understand your question, but
I think we also have to understand that you
can’t pave every road on PEI all at once.
Leader of the Opposition: Sixty-five
million dollars worth of pavement for 1,000
kilometres –
residents in Cornwall said they wanted this.
They needed this. They wanted to have the
growth. They wanted to get the traffic out of
driving through their community. There
were meetings held, I believe, over the last
number of months going back, I don’t know
how long – I guess back since this started.
To infer that there was never any
consultation is, in my view, incorrect.
Chair: Let the minister answer, please.
Ms. Compton: Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Roach: This is not a project or an
undertaking that everything can be done in
one year.
We have 27 MLAs who are elected to
represent their districts and there was no
discussion in the Legislative Assembly
about spending $65 million on a bypass, and
I’m not saying that the money shouldn’t be
spent there, but something we all should
remember, that half-price spending, halfprice money, is not necessarily money well
spent, and we all get the feeling that we
jumped on this because it was a shovelready project and the money was there,
supposedly.
This is not a project that you’re going to –
First of all, we don’t have enough paving
equipment or companies or anything else
that could possibly do that. It’s just not
possible.
Yes, it has to be done in phases. The dollars
have to be spent in phases, there’s no
question about it.
Chair: Move on to Darlene Compton for a
question.
Now, you’re saying we’ve got roundabouts;
that’s great. We understand this government
likes roundabouts, but there is a plan and
it’s, for all intents and purposes, expected to
be passed because there is a $65 million
project in the works.
Ms. Compton: Thank you, Chair and thank
you for coming in minister.
As the finance minister, I understand and we
understand that you feel that this is money
well spent. You feel there has been no study
done by your department, by transportation.
There was no study done to see whether the
economic impact for the province, to use
those paving dollars in a different way
would be better spent.
If things stop right now, is there any chance
that that’s going to happen? Are things
going to stop right now, we’re just going to
have roundabouts?
Mr. Roach: Look, as I said before, there’s
been no decision made with respect to
anything other than roundabouts. That’s
going to come into the Legislature next
month, and all 27 MLAs are going to have
the opportunity to speak to it at that point.
We, as Islanders, hear over and over again
about the openness and transparency of this
government and yet, this has been pushed
upon us. That’s what we feel; it has been
pushed upon us because there was no
consultation. There was no consultation in
the House.
I don’t believe it’s a situation where it was
kind of hidden off to the side; what made it
change was when the federal government
came out and announced the policy changes
to infrastructure, and I’ll go back to the
statement I think I made when I first came
in: That was the thing that brought this up to
say, perhaps, we should move forward with
it.
I’m going to ask you, minister, as minister
of finance: Where are the dollars going to
come from? Moving forward, not this Mr. Roach: To answer the first part of your
question, that there was no consultation.
Consultation started on this many years ago.
In fact, a Conservative minister announced
the go-ahead of the project in 1997. There
was a plebiscite in 2003, where 80% of the
Again, the remainder of the project will
come forward in capital budget estimates
next month for a full discussion with all 27 –
and I agree, we are elected, I’m one of the
209
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
27 – and I know it’s going to be up for
discussion.
do connect some of those smaller
communities, that do meet the eligibility
requirements, will go a long way, as I talked
about earlier, with reference to using
Georgetown as an example. I think that will
go a long way.
Chair: Thank you, minister. Darlene
Compton, another question.
Ms. Compton: Thank you, Chair.
Would we like to put perfect roads to every
community? Absolutely. I don’t think it’s
any secret that in Prince Edward Island
compared to pretty much every other
province in Canada, because of the type of
soil that we have here, because of the way
that the Island is and the composition of our
soil, that we probably have to pave our
highways and our roadways more often than
anyone else in this country. I don’t think
that’s a secret; all we have to do is watch the
potholes that appear out of perfectly good
pavement every spring. It happens.
I’ll ask the question again: In the House, we
talked about grossly exaggerated tax
revenue for this year, growing the economy
through jobs. We know we’re down 3,400
jobs year over year. Where is the money
going to come from? Islanders want to
know.
Mr. Roach: Well, I think we can go right
back to the – without taking out my budget
books and going through the entire budget
process again, we have accounted for that
within our budget process. As the budget
process moves forward with the remainder
of the project going forward, that will come
out in budget as we get to the House.
I think that as we move on obtaining or
accessing the federal infrastructure dollars, I
think they have to go to the roads – it
doesn’t mean we quit paving on the roads. I
mean, each of you within your own districts
have seen paving go in on roads that don’t
qualify for the federal infrastructure
program. It’s happened in every district over
this past paving season. I’m sure it has; and
it would be nice to pave a lot more. But to
say we’re going to pave those by accessing
the federal infrastructure fund, they don’t
qualify for it.
Chair: Peter Bevan-Baker, next question.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Thank you, Chair.
I want to go back to something that Mr. Fox
mentioned earlier, that we have many roads
on Prince Edward Island that are in disrepair
– in fact are, in my opinion, certainly in
many rural parts of Prince Edward Island,
impeding economic activity. We already
have the highest number of kilometres per
person of any province in Canada.
We still have to look after – and I appreciate
what you’re saying with respect to some of
those very small roads and small
communities. It doesn’t mean we forget
about them, but it’s up to that department to
try and meet the needs of everybody. You’re
not going to meet the needs of every person
that calls. I get calls saying there’s five
kilometres of road down here, it’s not paved,
it hasn’t been paved in 150 years, when are
you going to pave it? I mean, you get it, I’m
sure. I’m sure other MLAs around this table
and of the 27, other than the ones that are in
the larger centres, get those calls every year.
We’d like to, but we do have a certain
amount of fund that we have to try and
spread out as best we can across the Island.
Would it not be better to – I want to add
another thing to that. Not only is there
concern about the capital cost for this, in my
opinion, unnecessary highway, but we’re
also adding annual operating costs to
maintaining this and the other roads that we
currently use around and through Cornwall.
Would this money not have been better
spent on upgrading the already adequate,
both in terms of number and the pathway of
our roads, rather than building another 10
kilometres of road that we have to maintain
forever into the future?
Mr. Roach: I do appreciate your question
and your personal opinion on it, but we do
have to understand that not all roadways in
PEI are eligible for this funding going
forward. But the roads that are eligible, that
Chair: Further question, Peter.
Dr. Bevan-Baker: Yes. I’m aware,
minister, of the criteria and the restrictions
around accessing these funds. But if we just
210
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
take the provincial component of the cost,
the 32.5 million, the 50%, let’s ignore the 50
cent dollars that are coming from the federal
government. But, if we were to spend that
$32.5 million, forgetting whether we use it
to leverage funds from anywhere else, we
could improve an enormous number of
kilometres on Prince Edward Island. I’m not
looking for perfection, I’m just looking for a
reasonably equitable transportation system
that serves rural Prince Edward Island as
well as it does the urban centres.
Mr. MacEwen: Thank you, Chair.
Minister, I was talking to a potato farmer in
my district, he’s a real common sense guy.
One of the things that he said to me recently
was: Do you know what? The roundabouts,
the turning lanes, all these things that we can
access, 50 cent dollars are just fantastic. But
why couldn’t we just take five years, just
three years of that money, maybe even just
cut it in half like Darlene and Peter laid out?
It’s still $32 million of our dollars. Why
couldn’t we just take a few years of that,
even divide that in half, and put that into our
rural roads, put that in so that a transfer
truck can go up a road to get to a farm, do
you know what I mean?
Thank you, Chair.
Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Roach: I don’t propose to be an expert
on roads and all that sort of thing. There’s a
full department that looks after that. But, I
do appreciate your comment.
Don’t always think of it as: Oh we have to
take that money because it’s there. What if
we just made a full commitment to rural PEI
and said: Let’s put even half of that money
into those roads to make them better, and I
thought it was really good advice.
Thank you.
Chair: Minister Roach, I have two other
questions. How tight is your time? Do you
have to leave by 3:10 p.m. or 3:15 p.m.?
My final comment, is that I’m looking at –
when you talk about we’re going into the
fall and debate the capital budget and debate
the bypass, I’m looking at a picture here of
the minister of transportation – actually
Kerry Campbell took this picture who is
with us today – the Premier, the mayor,
Wayne Easter, the local MLA Heath, with a
picture of the bypass at the announcement of
the Cornwall bypass. That, to me, doesn’t
sound like there’s going to be a lot of debate
this fall.
Mr. Roach: 3:10 p.m.
Chair: 3:10 p.m. The next person is Jamie,
quickly and then Sidney and then we’ll wrap
up.
Leader of the Opposition: Two quick
things. Can you explain to me why the
surveyors are out walking the phase 2 part of
the Cornwall bypass and already surveying
it? Has there been any move on that we’re
not being aware of or told of?
I understand what you’re – technically,
you’re right; we’re going to debate this fall.
But, this debate just never happened, kind of
thing, and we would have appreciated that I
think. I really appreciate you both being here
for sure.
Mr. Roach: I’m not even aware that’s
taking place.
Leader of the Opposition: My
understanding, it is.
Mr. Roach: I appreciate your comments
and the comments of your farmer friend as
well because –
My final question is this: Right now, given
where we are in time, finance minister, are
we on budget for what you projected in the
spring, or are we plus or minus it?
Mr. MacEwen: Yes, a wise man.
Mr. Roach: I have got a lot of comments as
well, and the idea of having great debate, I
mean the bulk of it is still in front of us, and
what has taken place so far does not prevent
a great debate in the House to discuss
whether or not, at that point, we should look
at taking so many dollars and holding it at
Mr. Roach: That’s something we’ll know
probably in the very near future.
Chair: Thank you, minister.
Sidney.
211
Infrastructure and Energy
27 October 2016
that. That’s a debate I’m sure that everyone
would look forward to in the House.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Chair: Mr. Fox had one more thing he
wanted to say, minister.
Leader of the Opposition: I just wanted to
say, Allen, since you said it a little while ago
that there was actually a plebiscite done and
80% voted back. How long ago was that?
2000 and –
Mr. Roach: 2003.
Leader of the Opposition: Now, that is 12
years ago. Maybe the question should be
asked again to the residents.
Ms. Compton: And that was the bridge
plebiscite.
Chair: Thank you for your comment. Thank
you very much, Mr. Roach and Jim for
coming in to give us a breakdown on the
bypass (Indistinct).
Thank you.
Okay folks, so we discussed our next
meeting and who’s coming in. Any other
new business? Anything you’d like to add to
our coming meetings?
Leader of the Opposition: Hal needs
(Indistinct)
Chair: Hearing nothing, could someone
move for adjournment?
Mr. Dumville: (Indistinct)
Chair: Adjourned. Bush.
All in favour?
Thank you.
Have a wonderful rest of the day.
The Committee adjourned
212