June 3, 1996

RESOURCE ESTIMATES

COMMITTEE

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

Assembly.

CHAIR: I would like to call the Committee to

order. Good evening and welcome to the Resource Committee's Budget Estimates

meeting for the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Madam Minister, maybe the first thing to do would

be to introduce your officials and yourself for the record. I would remind your

officials if they speak, answer questions throughout the hearing, if they would

just say their names into the mike so that Hansard can identify them for the

record. So just introduce your delegation and then we will introduce the M.H.As.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is Elizabeth Batstone, who is filling in for

our Deputy Minister, Mr. Buist, who has gone on six weeks of sick leave for

surgery as of last Friday; Mr. Rick Hayward who is our Financial Director; and

my name is Sandra Kelly, Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

CHAIR: Good evening, how are you?

Okay, Rick, maybe you can start off by introducing

yourself.

MR. WOODFORD: Rick Woodford, Humber Valley.

MS THISTLE: Anna Thistle, Grand Falls - Buchans.

MR. MERCER: Bob Mercer, Humber East.

MR. SHELLEY: Paul Shelley, Baie Verte.

MR. FITZGERALD: Roger Fitzgerald, Bonavista

South.

MR. OSBORNE: Tom Osborne, St. John's South.

MR. CHAIR: I am Perry Canning, Labrador West.

Well, Madam Minister, the way we have been working

it is that you would give a fifteen-minute opening presentation and Mr. Shelley

can respond for fifteen minutes after that, and questions and answers are ten

minutes thereafter. So the floor is yours.

MS KELLY: Thank you.

Well, I would, first of all, like to say that I

welcome this opportunity to present the Estimates of my Department of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation for this fiscal year 1996-1997. This is my first occasion

as the minister for this department to be a part of this Estimate's Committee.

I have already introduced my officials to you. I

should start off by saying that this government is committed to enhancing and

promoting the richness of this beautiful Province. Accordingly our Budget

includes resources to ensure that tourism, culture and recreation issues are

given their due attention.

Allow me now to give the committee a brief overview

of the department's structure and operations following the format that is in the

Estimates papers. As is standard with other government departments, our

departmental estimates initially provide for the operation of the Minister's

Office, the Executive and Administrative Functions. Beyond that, the estimates

reflect the organization of the department into four branches: Tourism, the

first; the second would be Culture, Historic Resources, Museums and Archives;

the third division would be Parks and Recreation; and the fourth, Regional

Operations. I should say this is somewhat new. Our department is in the middle

really of the regionalization process.

I will now briefly review the department's

principal branches, the first one being Tourism. Under Tourism Development we

have three divisions: Tourism Marketing; Tourism Development; and Planning and

Evaluation. The objective here is to provide a broad range of activities that

support the development of the tourism industry in this Province. Research and

analysis activities relative to present and future markets are also performed.

Many other services, too numerous to mention, are also included in this branch

and I would be happy to answer any specific questions the hon. members may have

as we go through the detailed estimates under Tourism Development.

Under Culture, Historic Resources and Archives:

This branch is responsible for the development and the organization of our

cultural programs and the administrative and technical support of the

programming activities of the Province's Arts and Culture Centres, of which

there are six.

Now, the formulation and evaluation of policy

respecting museum programming, the development of Newfoundland Heritage through

the provincial museums' network and the development and maintenance of the

provincial historic sites are the responsibility of the Historic Resources

Division. The government's records management program and the operation of the

provincial archives is the responsibility of the Archives Division. Actually

that was one of the few surprises, I guess, when I took over this ministry; I

didn't realize the government's records management program wasn't under my

department.

Parks and Recreation: This area covers the two

divisions of Parks and Natural Areas, and Sport and Recreation. These divisions

provide the management and policy for the majority of this Province's natural

heritage and two of the critical foundations for the quality of life and the

well-being that makes Newfoundland unique, sport and recreation. Specifically,

Parks and Natural Areas major roles include the planning and development,

preservation and promotion of our forty-nine provincial parks, two wilderness

reserves, eleven ecological reserves and the Newfoundland T'railway. Some refer

to it as our linear park, the old rail bed.

The mandate of the Sport and Recreation Division

includes program development, leadership development, promotion and marketing

and special project management in areas such as community recreation and

volunteer programs; regional, provincial national games, for instance, like the

1999 Canada Winter Games to be held in Corner Brook; training and development of

coaches; and active living. The major role is to work with, empower and enable

partners in the delivery system to provide quality programs and services to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in their communities. I guess, this is an area,

it is safe to say, where mostly in this Province there are certainly

professionals in the recreation field, but we are very fortunate in this

Province to have the high level of volunteer commitment that we do. That is why

we are very adamant that we provide good, professional development and

leadership in clinics and that sort of thing. I would say that we probably have

the highest level of volunteer activity in the country in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal statement

and review of the principal programs of the three branches of the Department of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation and I would welcome your comments.

The final

section of the Budget Estimates, as laid

out in our Estimates Papers, deals with our regional services and operations. I

am pleased to inform the members of this Committee that the department has

identified and responded to the needs of our clients to move more of our

operations to the regions and this we have activated. Some of it is not totally

done but certainly the Avalon is well underway and some of the others will be

really happening now. I believe this effort will complement other actions this

government is pursuing in the Department of Development and Rural Renewal with

respect to the economic zones issue.

So, although I have not used up my fifteen minutes,

let me see now if there are any comments. I guess mostly what I would like to

say, coming out of the Budget process, is that on the whole I think my

department fared well in the fact that there was a high degree of respect for

the importance of culture and recreation in the Province. While I know that we

will have to work with groups a lot this year, there have been cutbacks; and in

particular groups, in looking at the Arts and Culture Centres and the pools and

that, I think, on the whole, we have already started the consultation process

with various groups. I think, given the ingenuity of the people of this

Province, that we will be able to manage to keep things going and by working in

some public/private partnerships that we will do very well.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Madam Minister.

Mr. Shelley.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much.

First off, I would like to officially, I guess -

and this is the right time. Everybody seems to do it because it is the first

time really to officially congratulate the minister on her portfolio, Tourism,

because Tourism, my guess is, over the next two years, especially leading into

1997, this year and next year, will be the most exciting time we have ever seen

with respect to Tourism, of course, with Cabot 500 and so on. It is too bad

really, in a way, that we are not as ready as we should be if we had proceeded

with tourism over the last twenty years, for example, not just the last three or

four years but the last twenty years in Newfoundland. I think we are a little

bit late on Tourism, really. We are just catching up. We are certainly moving in

the right direction but I still think we are behind. Probably the minister

thinks the same.

I think everybody in this Province thinks that it

is an untapped resource, really. We have been looking so much at fishing,

mining, the forestry and everything else in the Province that tourism was sort

of a side issue for many years, and now we are starting to catch up on it.

I think that the Cabot 500 should give the spark

that really sets Newfoundland off as a world attraction. Hopefully if it is done

right, it will become a world attraction, which it should be, when it comes to

our scenery, of course, the icebergs, the whales, but most importantly the

people here. People who travel will always tell you that when they come to

Newfoundland there is something so unique about it. That is our best asset, I

think, our people.

Certainly we will be on the world stage in 1997. I

think the most important thing now, for your department in this Province, is

making sure that we are ready for 1997. I think there are a few things that are

on the fast track that are going to be ready so that the entire Province, not

just certain locations, is ready for it, and in the mood, so to speak.

I'm going to go for maybe fifteen minutes or so,

but I'm going to leave early, Minister. I have to leave again. Usually I would

ask a lot of questions, with regard to the estimates specifically, and then

later on, in the next couple of hours, I would usually go into some local

things. All the members here ask some local questions. I'm going to go in

reverse tonight and get to my local district things which have implications for

the whole Province, I guess; some examples I will use. I will leave it to my

other colleagues to ask more provincial questions. If you don't mind, I will

just skip to that part, maybe do it for the next fifteen minutes or so and

hopefully get some questions asked.

The first one I want to mention is the Dorset

Eskimo site in Fleur de Lys. I know you are aware of it, but I would like to get

updated on it because I think that has some very good potential. From what I can

gather from it, it has potential to be an international historic site. The

people who are dealing with it are really sort of lost; I will be quite honest

about it. The people whom I have dealt with in the district are not sure where

we are. I think they are waiting on geological surveys. That is the biggest

thing right now. I just met with them lately. I think a geological survey has to

be done before anything can move on it, and they have been waiting on that

meeting to see really where they are.

I would like to ask the minister, first of all,

does she know where it is right now, and what is going to happen in the next

little while, because it is important? If this is going to be ready for 1997,

which it should be, then I would like to see where it is right now.

MS KELLY: It is certainly going to be a

three-year project, because of the significance of the project. It cannot be

developed over just a one-summer type of period. There will need to be site

services put in places. That is, parking, roadwork, and trail development. As

well, there will be support for site

interpretation. It is anticipated that the

work on the project will be accomplished over a three-year period, and most of

the work will be done through the new ERA funding. It is a priority in there. We

are at the draft sort of stage. I mean, nothing is set in stone, and has not

been through Cabinet, but we anticipate about $130,000 this year, $300,000 next

year, and $70,000 the year after, for a total of about $500,000 to be spent on

this site.

It certainly is one of the sites that are marked in

the Province, especially one that will be extremely important to the area you

refer to in your district. I think it is viewed sort of as a cornerstone

project, I guess, in the way we would look at Ferryland and some of the projects

like that; Red Bay, L'Anse aux Meadow and so on. It is certainly well recognized

and one that is a priority in the ERA funding.

MR. SHELLEY: I understood that too, that it

would be three years. I guess my real question is, and maybe I didn't phrase it

right: For 1997, I know that it won't be completed, but what stage will we be

at? For example, the site now, just a year ago I had a complaint. A tourist had

stopped there and walked up a wooden ramp which is all rotted, and one of the

girls from Ontario fell through the wooden walkway. How much improvement can be

made?

MS KELLY: The first work to be done, as I just

said -

MR. SHELLEY: Site improvement?

MS KELLY: - are the site services, with parking

and roadwork and trail development so that it is safe around there. So that's

the work that is due to be done this year. The archaeology, of course, is

proceeding on as the project is being developed too. So I think it is safe to

say that everything is going hand in hand there, really, because some of the

other sites in the Province have taken considerably longer than a three-year

period to develop. That one is recognized as one where other work can be done

while the archaeology is being done.

MR. SHELLEY: Basically that was the question. I

knew it would be completed but to see how close we would be to being ready for

next summer, 1997, because The Matthew is visiting La Scie in my area.

That is the next question; the new park in La Scie.

Can I get an update on that? There is a small park down in La Scie that was just

opened. I think there was federal funding used on that.

MS KELLY: A new park in La Scie? It is hard for

me to give you an update here right now. A provincial park or which -

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

MS KELLY: A new park in La Scie?

MR. SHELLEY: There is federal involvement there

but it is -

MS KELLY: Is it a federal project or a

provincial park project?

MR. SHELLEY: It is a provincial park but it is

out on the cape. I don't know much about it, and that's the reason I'm asking.

You must know if there is a park of any kind there, wouldn't you?

MS KELLY: Yes, mostly what I have understood is

that our regular parks, as we have just outlined in my paper, that some of the

parks have been privatized.

MR. SHELLEY: No, no.

MS KELLY: I am not aware of any new park for La

Scie unless it is something that's in the planning stages, that when there is

money there to proceed that maybe there -

MR. SHELLEY: No.

MS KELLY: Is it one of the areas that may be

needing protection for -

MR. SHELLEY: No. It is a day park for a look

out on the cape in La Scie and so on.

MS KELLY: Do you have a name?

MR. SHELLEY: No, they don't have a name for it

yet. I don't have a name for it.

MS KELLY: A day park?

MR. SHELLEY: Yes. So, could I just leave it

with you to look up information on it?

MS KELLY: Yes. We certainly can take a look but

I would be very surprised if we were into the development of a day park because

it is not the direction that we are going in, but I will certainly take a look.

So where was the area again?

MR. SHELLEY: In La Scie.

MS KELLY: Yes, but which point was it on?

MR. SHELLEY: Cape John, I guess.

MS KELLY: Cape John, okay. No, sorry, but I can

certainly talk to our parks people.

MR. SHELLEY: I don't know if they put a name on

that yet but I will find out for you.

MS KELLY: Is there a lighthouse there?

MR. SHELLEY: There was. I will get a name for

it. I know it is out there, it has been -

MS KELLY: Are you sure it's a park or a site?

Could it be maybe an historic site that is being considered?

MR. SHELLEY: No.

MS KELLY: No. Okay.

MR. SHELLEY: I will just leave that with you

there. The reason we are interested is because The Matthew will visit

there in 1997 and we are hoping that the park -

MS KELLY: It will visit that site you mean?

MR. SHELLEY: It will visit La Scie.

MS KELLY: Will visit La Scie, yes. La Scie is

one of the seventeen ports. I was about to say, if you added another one that I

don't know about.

MR. SHELLEY: No, no.

Okay, that's one thing. Now there is just one other

thing I will ask tonight. It is still local but it is really important, and I

think it is important for the whole Province, and that is Copper Creek Mountain.

Now, of course, without going into a long speel about it, very simply the first

year that that opened and how it came to be is a great success story. I believe

it is, for anybody around. In its first year it had over 11,000 skier visits.

The town, if you had to be there, the first year that it opened - then, of

course, what it did for the entire area, it enhanced skiers for Corner Brook, so

it certainly helped out Marble Mountain. Everybody in there talks about it. The

new skiers that took

part in the Baie Verte area, with twenty-one communities

surrounding them, it was a great success, as the minister knows.

Of course this year, what can you say? It was the

strangest winter on record. I talked to the best expert on it, which is my

mother, who is eighty, who said that she has not seen it in fifty-eight years.

There is usually always lots of snow there, and it was just a really, really

strange winter. Now I have talked to people at Copper Creek who say that if they

had had a similar winter to last year, they would have been looking super. Even

with the bad winter that they had, because this facility had so much community

involvement getting it ready and such a small portion of money in comparison to

White Hills and Marble, it is not in too bad a shape. But it is enough to let it

not start up again if the funds are not found, especially the situation with ENL

loans and so on, and because of this year. So, I guess it is going to need a

little bit more help than we would have anticipated because of the bad winter.

Can the minister just comment on where she sees that facility going?

MS KELLY: Well, we have sat down to talk with

the ski industry people already about next year. As you know, Marble Mountain is

a Crown corporation, so it is really the government's responsibility. You are

aware, I am sure, that we are seeking to privatize Marble Mountain. Be that as

it may, even Labrador, that had decent snow conditions last year, had a whole

set of different problems. Every one of the ski facilities in the Province are

having difficulties. Smokey is; the runway in Gander did not even get to open

the new inter-park because of similar environmental conditions; Copper Creek,

White Hills, all of them.

Now, in some ways there were a few silver linings,

I guess, in the awful clouds that descended on the ski hills this year, in that

in some areas we certainly discovered, in particular White Hills and Corner

Brook, how much the ski hills mean to the economies of, in particular, the

western region of the Province. I do not think business people or individuals

recognized until this year how important the ski industry is to us. But by the

same token, in other parts of the country, in North America, I guess, where

there are ski hills, ski hills periodically go through these types of

environmental conditions and have to learn to cope with it, and we in this

Province have to learn to cope with it too, especially in light of the dire

financial circumstances that the Province finds itself in. There has not been

money allotted for the ski hills this year. Marble Mountain's grant has been

severely cut back. I have already met with the Board to talk to them about it.

The one thing we are doing is meeting with the ski

industry people to look at how to best work together as a group, because the one

thing they have all found is that they are very interdependent on each other. I

think initially when White Hills was developed, and then Copper Creek, a lot of

people were very concerned that: Oh, you know, this is going to be terrible for

Marble Mountain. As you have pointed out, it has been the exact opposite for

Marble Mountain, that every new person that learns to ski at these smaller ski

hills will eventually want to go on to ski at a bigger facility like Marble

Mountain. So these smaller hills are probably more important to the development

of Marble Mountain than anything else we can do including the marketing.

By the same token, the businesses that operate

these various hills are very worried. So we are now in the process of meeting

with them to determine what can be done jointly so that we get the best bang for

our buck really, because a lot of them have been spending a significant amount

of money individually, and they are not going to have the money this upcoming

fall to do it. They are worried enough even about opening let alone trying to

figure out how to put the amounts of money into marketing and that, that they

have been doing.

They seem to want now to sit down and work out with

government some ways that we can help them come together and do some things like

marketing. In regard to paying debt, there is not money in the provincial budget

to cover it. By the same token, we are going to meet with them and listen and

see what types of help we might be able to offer them, even things like services

in kind. Are there thing we can do to help them work through, re-negotiate and

this sort of thing. When all of that is done, it just may be that we will have

to go back to Cabinet, but I strongly suspect that it will be a very difficult

year to find new money.

I think, as you look through all of the budget

estimates, you will recognize that this is an extremely tight budget and one

that is going to be difficult to find new money in. We have already started the

process of working with all of the hills to try and figure out a way that they

can all open next year. Please God, we will have snow.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, first of all, I appreciate

that and they all do too; I have talked to them all. This started, like I say,

with community spirit, even people cutting out the mountain themselves and so

on. As a matter of fact, to give an example - I will not use his name, but he

said I could use the example - they have bills now to be paid immediately. We

are talking small amounts of money. I will not get into detail with this group,

so maybe the first thing I should do is ask that you meet with them fairly

quickly. Maybe we can arrange something tomorrow, or make arrangements anyway,

so that they can meet quickly. For example, one of the people - they are all

volunteers with this group, Copper Creek Association - used his own credit card

this week to pay the demand rate for the electricity. The problem is, if they

cut off the electricity then they are going to have extra costs in hooking it up

again. So, that is the type of things they are doing, just as an example.

It is not megabucks we are talking about, it is in

the thousands. It is somewhere in the neighbourhood of between $60,000 and

$80,000, which they would square off and be okay again.

MS KELLY: Sixty thousand to eighty thousand?

Right now, that is very significant when you look at the fact that all of the

hills are in sort of the same position, some of them even worst than that and

some a little bit better. When it all totals up, it is a significant amount of

money when you consider my budget is only $26 million. If you were talking

hundreds, you might not be talking megabucks, but as soon as you start talking

thousands in this type of budget.

MR. SHELLEY: First of all, I am not saying they

are looking for $80,000 from government to help out. That is how much they are

going to be short with their entire budget.

MS KELLY: Is it? Okay. Yes, actually I have

seen those figures.

MR. SHELLEY: So it is a small amount. When I

compare that to Marble and White Hills and so on, that is not a bad amount after

a disastrous winter, to say that you are $80,000 short of opening up again. They

are not looking for $80,000 from government as new money. We are talking about

arrangements for their ENL loan and so on and the things they are working on,

that if it got speeded up they could possibly open up again next year. Small

amounts really, I think, in comparison to what I have seen of the other

mountains. I am saying, they are not looking for amount of new money from

government. They need to move quickly because they are using personal money and

doing everything they can to keep it surviving and so on, to get passed this bad

year. So I think that is why they need to meet quickly and do something about

it, instead of people doing personal things like they are doing there.

MS KELLY: I would advocate actually, and would

tell the board very strongly, as I have told other volunteer groups as I met

them, that they ought not to putting personal money on the line for this sort of

thing. I would hope that any board of directors and any facility in this

Province, when you look at the type of risk they are taking, that they certainly

should have known before they did any of that, that is not the role of

government to bail people out who are taking personal risk, even on behalf of

communities. Because otherwise, that would be such a common thing, that is

mostly what my budget would have to go towards. They are not the first community

to do this.

MR. SHELLEY: No, and to echo your comments,

that is the first thing I said to them: Don't use your personal money. But these

are people who started with this project five years ago and they are not about

to see it go under without doing everything they can. I told them the same thing

you did, Madam Minister, I said: Do not use your personal cheques and cards and

everything else. That they went that far, gives me an indication of how far they

are willing to go on it.

I think the whole point of this conversation to you

tonight, and I guess those examples, is that we speed up the process of sitting

down and working out numbers, and do whatever we can. Perhaps there are services

that can be offered to help, or whatever. It does not mean that they are going

to give an $80,000 cheque to Copper Creek or Gander or to White Hills or

anybody.

MS KELLY: I have not been aware, actually, that

they have requested a meeting that we have not been able to accommodate. Have

either of you?

MS BATSTONE: No.

MR. HAYWARD: No.

MS KELLY: The other hills, I think, have pretty

well asked, but I do not remember - now I have only been back a couple of days;

I was gone for a week. I have not worked through all of the correspondence, but

I am through just about all of it and there isn't a request there for a meeting.

I have met with most of the other hills as a group, but I have not had a

specific request from Copper Creek.

MR. SHELLEY: I don't know that, and you are

probably right. I just think, in the talks with them lately, they need to speed

things up. I just wanted to raise it, and, of course, as the rest of the hills

have done already, I guess the next thing is to have a meeting set up with them.

I will inform them that they should do that as quickly as possible, with you and

your department.

The last one I have is the future of the Winter

Games. Can you just tell me what the plans are for government involvement with

the future Newfoundland Winter Games, our own provincial Winter Games?

MS KELLY: I think the government policy has

been that the games can proceed but on the basis that the Province will not be

able to, as it has done in the past, put either hundred of thousands, or I think

even years ago there may have been millions, into the various Summer and Winter

Games. While we agree that they are very good, we feel that enough

infrastructure now has been created as a result of hosting past games. We have

enough centres now that should have the ability to be able to bid on them and

not need new infrastructure to put them in place. The policy for the foreseeable

future, while the fiscal realities are dealt with, is that while we will

continue with Summer and Winter Games, they will have to be done without capital

monies being put in them to support them.

MR. SHELLEY: People will basically still submit

bids to host games and whatever?

MS KELLY: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: But do it with that reality in

mind. That is it, but they will continue.

MS KELLY: That is correct.

MR. SHELLEY: That is all I have for questions.

Thank you very much.

MS KELLY: Thank you.

CHAIR: Just for the record. I would ask the

Clerk to call the first heading.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Mr. Woodford.

MR. WOODFORD: Just a couple of short questions,

Mr. Chairman.

I've always found, Minister, and especially so

lately, that there has always been sort of a conflict between the department of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and Wildlife, especially as it pertains to

outfitters. I've heard over the years, and I will just talk about the past year

or so, where, say for argument's sake, someone in Tourism, Culture and

Recreation was looking for x number of licences, probably 150 extra caribou

licences, for outfitters, and always had a problem with Wildlife and whether

they got them or not.

We all know how government departments work.

Everybody has their own little kingdom built up over the years. Unless someone

really takes the bull by the horns and does something about that, those little

kingdoms are not going to come down by any means. As far as I'm concerned, with

my experience over the years, it really has stymied development and stymied

business opportunities in the Province. This is no exception.

You may not have run into the problem that I'm

talking about, but I am sure you will over the next little while. If you are out

there, for instance, trying to push and promote and get people to come into the

Province, say the outfitting business, and depending on Wildlife as to whether

they give another 150 - I'm not talking about extra outfitting licences. I'm not

talking about that at all. I'm talking about the existing outfitters who are

there today looking for extra caribou licences, more specifically. I am not even

talking about moose. Have you found it a problem trying to get your request

approved through Wildlife?

MS KELLY: What was the last sentence? Sorry.

MR. WOODFORD: Have you found it a problem

trying to get some of those requests, we will say for extra caribou licences,

for instance, from Wildlife? Where your department is dealing with tourism,

Wildlife is supposed to be with it too, really. It is supposed to be working in

conjunction with it. Have you found it a problem?

MS KELLY: Not as yet, but that doesn't mean

there won't be a problem. I guess the requests I've put in the system - and a

lot of it is all very inter-related with the outfitters between the number of

caribou licences, the number of moose licences, and where the outfitting camps

and the buffer zones and everything are going to be. It seems that with almost

every single outfitter, if they don't have a difficulty with the number of

caribou licences, they have it with the number of moose licences or they have it

with the possibility of other people setting up, or sometimes now access,

because of the rail bed and different forestry roads and that. It seems that

almost every outfitting camp has to approach government at least once a year to

deal with these types of problems.

We are meeting with Wildlife on a continuing basis.

I think, to some degree, the problem is always going to be there, because we are

talking about a living resource and there are times, I guess, just like the last

issue we talked about, when it depends on environmental conditions, and it

depends on the census for the number of moose and caribou and the research that

is being done.

Now, I understand that from Wildlife's point of

view they are quite comfortable that their stats are fairly accurate now. They

are telling us that they think we will be able to accede to most of the requests

that are in the system that are legitimate requests. In some of the ones that I

have already worked through, I am finding that there are people who were turned

down for good legitimate reasons and because there has been an election, new

government, new minister, that we are going back through the process again. So I

anticipate knowing in a matter of a month or so where things stand. It is a

little bit too early for me to tell yet where the real problems are going to be.

MR. WOODFORD: I can probably tell you where the

real problems are going to be, but I will not do it tonight.

Subhead 4.1.02.06, page 196 - in your estimates.

MS KELLY: Which page again?

MR. WOODFORD: Page 196, subhead 4.1.02.06,

Purchased Services.

MS KELLY: Page 196, under Parks?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, in your estimates. Subhead

4.1.02.06, Purchased Services.

MS KELLY: Right.

MR. WOODFORD: Budgeted last year, $305,600,

revised $27,100, and now $370,000. Is that primarily for the near parks?

MS KELLY: Some of it is to do with budget

cutbacks that we experienced last year, but money being put back in here because

of the T'railway projects that are ongoing. I think there are three areas being

looked at specifically this year: Cobb's Corridor, this end of the trail; and

Port aux Basques at the beginning, but also some work to look at where

development will occur, what needs to be done first; also prioritizing which of

the safety issues, you know, which ones are a priority, which bridges, culverts,

and everything need to be done. So there is money elsewhere as you look through

the budget; not the amount we would like to have, of course, but still a

significant amount in considering the amount of consultant reports that were

done last year. The recommendations that they are making for the three areas are

being pursued this year. There is money also in the economic renewal program for

the T'railway over the next three years.

MR. WOODFORD: That is fine, Mr. Chairman, for

now.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Woodford.

Mr. Fitzgerald.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Minister, this one here, just referred to by

the Member for Humber Valley - I do not have my glasses and I have to get far

away -Purchased Services, 06: Are you saying that all that money is going to be

spent on the T'railway?

MS KELLY: No, not all of that amount, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, all of this (inaudible).

MS KELLY: Oh, under this one here, yes, right

on. I thought you meant all of the Purchased Services, under Parks.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, under that particular

heading.

MS KELLY: Yes, those are three projects, I

think, that are going to be done this year. I am almost sure that is all of

them, is it?

Do you have the details?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, under Salaries money is

going to be spent on getting some plans together and just getting a study of the

rail bed.

MS KELLY: Okay the Salaries are also a line to

the trail development and planning what is going to be done over the next three

years.

MR. FITZGERALD: So government is going to make

a commitment to do up all of the trusses and all of the bridges right across the

Island to maintain this particular T'railway?

MS KELLY: Within the degree of the financial

resources that we have. Obviously with this amount of money, and the money that

is in the ERA - there is $500,000 there, even that would not be enough to do it

all to the degree that you would like. But, of course, there are other

partnerships evolving in this.

I know from my own experience, in the job I just

came from as the mayor of Gander, I mean, our community is committed that all of

the T'railway within the municipal boundaries and the planning boundaries of

Gander, that we would take care of everything in there and do the maintenance on

it. So there are sections of the T'railway that I hope more and more

communities, special interest groups and volunteer groups will become involved

in.

Most of what you will see occurring on the rail bed

I think will be done in partnership with many other groups. In particular, you

are probably aware that the rural development movement has put in place a

T'railway council that the Province and other special interest groups - the

snowmobile associations and that - are all a part of. Our money will be part of

the money that will go into it. Of course, other programs such as TAGS and

programs through HRD, money is also being levered by many groups there to ensure

that we get as much done of the T'railway over the next three-year period as we

can. It has certainly been identified as one of the major tourism boosters for

the Province.

There was great disappointment this winter when the

group came down with the dog sled team. We had thought that would turn out to be

a really good thing, to show how it could be done on the rail bed. For the first

time in history, that anyone can remember, they couldn't use it because of the

lack of snow.

MR. FITZGERALD: How about the branch lines?

That has no bearing on the T'railway whatsoever, it is just the main track right

across the Province.

MS KELLY: It hasn't been designated as a part

of the provincial linear park, the act of which, I guess, part of it, is going

through the House now. By the same token, that doesn't mean that nothing will

happen with them. Many of the letters I receive every day as minister - our

tourism development officers out in the regions are certainly still working with

groups. You look everywhere around the Province, there are trails all over the

place, in communities that aren't necessarily a part of the linear or the

provincial park, the T'railway throughout the Province. But it isn't a part of

the "provincial linear park."

MR. FITZGERALD: No, because I was going to say,

in some of the branch lines, parts of this have disappeared already. People have

taken it for driveways and people have used it for other purposes. I'm just

wondering what will happen there if the Province decides to take it back. Does

the Province own this corridor?

MS KELLY: Unless it is a legal thing - pardon

me?

MR. FITZGERALD: Does the Province own the

corridor?

MS KELLY: Yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: It does?

MS KELLY: Yes. It was all passed over from CN

through the federal government.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is the branch lines -

MS KELLY: The Province has decided to keep the

rail bed in its entirety. Now, the integrity of it may change in several places

depending on what would be best to do with various pieces of land, in particular

some that might be by the highway. It could be that it will be diverted, but if

it is there will be other land set aside for continuance of the trail.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, the Cabot 500

celebrations are of great interest to me. Are we going to be ready for the Cabot

500 celebrations by this time next year?

MS KELLY: Yes, we will be ready by this time

next year. Actually, I'm feeling very encouraged. I think many of us, when

listening to the media reports, become somewhat worried about the Cabot

celebrations for next year, but as the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation, when you are out and about in this Province and you see the types of

initiatives that are going on in communities everywhere, I have no doubt but we

will be ready. Many communities are already very prepared and are going to use

this summer more or less as a dry run. They are going to be doing some of the

things, starting some of them this year, and expanding on them next year. It is

really encouraging to see the incredible amount of volunteer support that is out

there.

I've met with almost all of the communities in

particular that will be hosting the Matthew . As you know, the Matthew

will be circumnavigating the Province and stopping in seventeen ports. One will

be in Red Bay, one stop in Labrador. Most of the communities, I think, are very

excited about it and quite up to speed. Some communities are wondering how they

are going to cope with numbers, so of course logistically we are working out

things with them. In particular, the Bonavista Peninsula, we are looking at some

ideas there for coping with the transportation network and where people will

stay.

I just met with Botwood on Saturday. They are

planning a very large reception for the Matthew because the Matthew

will be there on a Sunday, on a holiday weekend. They are doing very, very well.

So a lot of the support we are giving to groups is logistical support saying,

well, let's look at how you will cope if you have 30,000 people in your town

that day, or 50,000, depending on what the event is that they are hosting. So I

think that communities and my department are much further ahead than the media

would ever lead you to believe. I think it is most unfortunate that the public

perception of this in the media is only focusing on the Matthew committee

that has been changed several times now. I think the people of the Province are

just way, way ahead of where we think they are.

It was brought home to me last week when we were in

Bristol. We had a lot of the groups like the Kitty Wake Coast tourism group, the

Exploits Valley tourism group and the Viking Trail. All of them were with us

there and it was amazing to see the amount of Cabot literature and everything

they have already developed, the plans they've put in place and they are

promoting them now. You know they are ready when they are out there with their

plans already doing the promotion and doing a very fine job. They certainly were

able to identify a lot of contacts over there, and most of them just could not

believe the amount of support. I think most of us now realize that, because of

the pessimism we often hear in the media about Cabot, that we have to be very

careful that we do prepare for probably a higher number of people than generally

was thought would be able to come to this Province, and look at it over a longer

season.

For instance, the Newfoundland Flotilla that is

supposed to leave from Ontario with a group of sail boats to come down, it was

anticipated in the beginning that there would probably be fifty sail boats. They

already have sixty-five sail boats totally signed up, paid for, organized and

ready to come. They have expressions of interest and people who are proceeding

to send in the details and part payments and everything of up to 400 boats. Now

there is a lot of difference. Initially they said you would be lucky if you got

fifty, and we could have up to 400 or 500.

The fact that the planning is so well done, we will

know those numbers by the end of this season and then that still gives you

plenty of time to plan logistically how everything will go. People are very

adaptable in their plans. Also some groups that were looking at doing things a

certain way, now that the numbers are greatly increased, there is a lot more

business support now for it than there was in the beginning and they are able to

get the support they need to plan much larger events.

MR. FITZGERALD: I, for one, was not a great

supporter of the Cabot 500 Corporation when you had people like Miller Ayre and

Joe Bennett there, when I saw what was going on and the direction it was taking,

but I must say that what I have seen since the minister decided to disband the

Cabot 500 Corporation, has been very encouraging in the amount of volunteers

that have come on side. Down in my district especially, in Bonavista, I think

they are doing an excellent job. They have needed some guidance and they have

needed some direction and I think that has been provided now with Brent Meade,

who set up shop down there and is doing a real good job, as well as the other

volunteers involved.

In the Budget, Tourism and Promotion, 2.2.03, John

Cabot 500th Anniversary Celebrations -

MS KELLY: To which page are you referring?

MR. FITZGERALD: Page 188, subhead 2.2.03.

MS KELLY: Okay, page 188. What was the number

again under John Cabot, 2.2.03?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, 2.2.03. There is

$2,900,000 identified there. Do you have a breakdown of what proportion of that

money is going to be spent in the Bonavista area? That is something that has

been coming at me ever since the budget has been announced. I have seen several

figures, one of them from your department. I think the figures I got are what

was applied for. Do you have a breakdown of what money is going to be spent and

where it is going to be spent as it relates to the Town of Bonavista, which I

understand will be one of the more important focal points during the

celebrations? I know they are looking for work to be done.

MS KELLY: The money is allotted in several

areas under this part here, and some of the work is being done through the ERA.

The work on the stadium is now getting past the draft stage and into the final

stages, so that tenders will be able to be called. I think it is in the area of

$2.2 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: $2.5 million.

MS KELLY: Two point five million, is it? That

includes the stadium, some work around the town, some work out around the

lighthouse and the John Cabot Memorial Site, just fixing up the grounds, and all

that sort of thing.

Now, there are different government departments

involved in this, of course. The town council and the Town of Bonavista have

been talking about the need to have the sewer system fixed and that is going to

be about $700,000. So that would be through Municipal Affairs that is presently

being negotiated. Some of the road work that will done is federal money.

MR. FITZGERALD: That $700,000 would not be

coming out of your $2.5 million?

MS KELLY: No, it is not. But most of the money

that is being allotted from my department is for what I have just outlined, for

the stadium repairs. Now there is sewer work in that, but that is to hook the

stadium up. The stadium is not able, from a sewer point of view, to cope with

the large numbers we think might be using that venue next year. So some of the

stadium money is to fix up the water and sewer intake pipes, I think, into the

stadium. So from that point of view, I guess, there is some money in my

department.

The other $700,000 expenditure that the council has

been talking about - and they have been tying it into the Cabot celebrations. I

have heard several of the media reports and the mayor being interviewed. Then

some of the other work, of course, that is being done involves the legacy

project with the Matthew and the Interpretative Centre, and also the Ryan

premises. There is road work, I think, even involved in that contract. The

federal government are putting in a significant amount of money in there. The

road in front of that area will be done, I understand, as a part of that

project?

MS. BATSTONE: Yes, as far as I know, but not

out to the Cape.

MS KELLY: No, it is not out to the Cape. It is

there.

MR. FITZGERALD: The work at the Ryan premises

and the changing of the road there, the rerouting of the road by the Ryan

premises, that is not included in your $2.5 million either, is it?

MS KELLY: No, that is all federal money. What

is included in mine is mostly the stadium and some beautification projects in

and around the Cabot site and the lighthouse in that area.

MR. FITZGERALD: Paving to the lighthouse?

Recapping of -

MS KELLY: No, I don't think there is any

paving. That money would not come through my department anyway, but it is not

included in any of the ERA funding.

MR. FITZGERALD: Do you have a list of what work

is projected to be done and the associated costs as it relates to the spending

of the $2.5 million?

MS KELLY: Yes. Of that $2.2 million, I think,

is the stadium and the rest of it is the beautification money.

MR. FITZGERALD: Two point two million dollars

will not be spent on the stadium?

MS KELLY: Pardon me?

MR. FITZGERALD: Are you saying there is going

to $2.2 million spent on the stadium?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, $1.2 million.

MS KELLY: No, that includes the legacy project

and, you know, the construction of the Matthew and the building and all of that

will go in there. The total amount of money that will be spent through the ERA

for this year is $2.5 million. That covers the legacy project, the Matthew, the

building that it will go in, the building of the ship, the beautification

project and the work on the stadium.

Now, the stadium needs very extensive work done on

it because of the sewer intake pipes, the electrical panels, the concrete on the

floor, a new roof, stabilization - I cannot remember all the rest of it.

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, it's a massive job. I

think the stadium was put there and it's the typical stadium that you see around

Newfoundland in the outports. It was built some time in the 1960s, from what I

understand, and there has been nothing done with it since, other than a little

bit of paint.

Getting back to the legacy building, it is still

government's intent to construct a legacy building there from what I understand.

MS KELLY: Well the legacy project is not just a

provincial project. That also involves the federal government and the

communities' involvement, but we are certainly supportive of it and are planning

to put money into it. We will be shortly talking to the committee in Bonavista,

and we understand that with our support - they have a commitment that if we put

our support behind it that the federal government will as well.

MR. FITZGERALD: Are you looking at building the

Matthew or are you looking at purchasing the Matthew that was -

MS KELLY: We are looking at building the

Matthew. The Matthew that was built in Britain, I understand, would not

be for sale. I also understand that the Bonavista committee are not interested

in that. Also the Matthew in Britain cost more than $4 million to build

and we feel that with the ship building and the heritage - the building of the

Matthew itself, the Bonavista committee feel, will be a part of the legacy of

redeveloping these skills and also showing the people it will be a tourist

attraction in itself, showing the people of this Province how a ship like this

is constructed.

MR. FITZGERALD: Because the former Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation had indicated to me that they were looking at

purchasing the Matthew , and he had a price in mind that they had worked

out. I spoke with some of the people in Bonavista and most of the people that I

have spoken to there pretty well agreed that it would be a much better idea than

building one, because how many Matthews do you want, how many Santa Clauses are

there, and this sort of thing. They could have gotten it for much less or the

price -

MS KELLY: Obviously, the negotiations must not

have gotten on track, because I know for sure that they have not completely paid

for the Matthew that was built. I talked to people when I was in Bristol

and it is well over $4 million that they have to recover. They are looking at

using the Matthew that they have to accomplish the same things that we

are looking at here in Newfoundland.

MR. FITZGERALD: So it is government's intent to

have the legacy building at least erected by the summer of 1997?

MS KELLY: Not necessarily. It will be up to the

Bonavista committee how they want to do that. They certainly want to be in the

process of building it. The Matthew itself from Britain will be arriving,

as you know, on June 24. So you would see the Matthew as it will be when

it is finished, but I don't think it is anticipated that they will have it done

and in the water by June 24 of next year. From reading all the briefing notes, I

just went through the thick consultant's report on it, and my impression is that

they don't expect to have it done by then.

MR. OSBORNE: When do you expect that to be

started?

MS KELLY: This year, but it will depend on how

the committee want to proceed with it. We will be sitting down with them very

shortly now to discuss that, but that will be more a decision of the committee

in Bonavista than strictly a government decision. Everything that we are doing,

we are working in partnership and close cooperation with them and following

their wishes, really, because they put a great deal of thought into it. They

have a huge number of people involved in this, and Brent and the Cabot people

work very closely with them. They have come back two or three times now and

said: We would like to change it this way or do it that way. They are putting a

great deal of thought into it, so we are very comfortable with taking our time

and following their advice and doing it correctly.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, could I have a copy

of the proposals that you had put forward, where the $2.5 million is going to be

spent?

MS KELLY: At the moment, they are Cabinet

papers so until they go through Cabinet I wouldn't be able to do that. They are

in the Cabinet system at the moment.

MR. FITZGERALD: So, it hasn't been approved by

Cabinet yet?

MS KELLY: Most of it has been, but I'm not sure

that it has gone through all the final stages yet. I haven't received it back in

my office as a Minute yet, I don't think. Some of this was going through Cabinet

while I was in Bristol last week, so I'm not completely sure if it has all gone

through Cabinet - I will get the Minutes of Council this week - or if some of it

in fact will be at this week's Cabinet meeting.

MR. FITZGERALD: Do you have a figure on how

much money the federal government is going to be putting into the Bonavista area

for the Cabot 500 celebrations?

MS KELLY: I wouldn't right off the top of my

head. I know that through HRD, for the legacy project, is it $800,00 that is

being looked at there? Then the Ryan premises money, I guess, even though I

think it would be going ahead without the Cabot celebrations, I think the money

is certainly being put in there at a much greater speed because of the Cabot

celebrations, and that project is certainly millions of dollars. I can't

remember now exactly the amount that it is.

MR. FITZGERALD: I think that one is $2.2

million, if I recall, something like $2.2 million.

MS KELLY: That is $2.2 million also?

MR. FITZGERALD: I think so, for the Ryan

premises.

MS KELLY: Let me see now if there are any other

- I think those are the main ones that I have been involved with from my

department. I don't know if there are other initiatives that are going on with

other groups that my department wouldn't be involved in, or if there is anything

being done through other government agreements like the SRDA or anything. Those

are the ones that I've been involved with since I've been the minister.

MR. FITZGERALD: The privatization of provincial

parks, Minister. Is it the government's intent to privatize provincial parks?

Some I think now are probably being operated by private operators. Is that what

government is looking at for all provincial parks, or whatever it needs to be

privatized has already been looked at?

MS KELLY: No, the decisions were made after

great consultation of which parks would be privatized, which would become our

keystone parks. I would say that the decisions are made. There may be, over the

upcoming months and years, of course, presentations to government. Surprisingly

enough, we get a fair number of requests now from private individuals, private

companies, who would like to buy certain parks. Our response to them is: No, we

are not wanting to privatize them.

By the same token, the file is kept in case

circumstances change or anything, but it is not our anticipation that it will.

We view what we have done thus far as being quite successful. I think it is like

anything that happens in government now. If there is good rationale or reason

for revisiting it we would certainly revisit it, but at this time, as the

requests have come in, and we have considered them all, we have not seen a good

reason to re-open the issue at this time. The policy right now is at it stands.

MR. FITZGERALD: Last year, in order for

communities to access funding for recreational purposes, if they owed money to

the Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal Financing Corporation, and their

payments weren't current and up to date, it would automatically eliminate them

from applying and receiving recreational grants. Is that still the stipulation

of your department?

MS KELLY: I would assume that is a government

policy, so it would not be any different. Most of the recreational funding that

would be accessed that way would be through the Department of Municipal Affairs

with supporting documentation from us as it relates to whether it meets my

department's criteria. For instance, with stadiums, it would be very important

to us. For instance, our policy this year as stated by the department now is

that before any new stadiums are built we would like to finish the projects that

are not completely finished. Also we have stadiums in the Province that need

some work done on them. Some of them need fairly extensive work, as in

Bonavista, I guess. It is one of the shining examples. Let me tell you there are

a lot of Bonavistas in the Province. It is my department's view that before any

new stadiums are built that the present infrastructure we have ought to be up to

safety.

Unfortunately, through the budget process, all of

the money that we had hoped to put into stadium refurbishing this year is gone.

So the only funds that will be expended will be what is done through the

Economic Renewal Agreement. Bonavista, if I remember correctly, is the only

stadium that will be refurbished this year in light of that policy.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Fitzgerald.

Ms Thistle.

MS THISTLE: Well, Madam Minister, you certainly

have the most exciting portfolios, I believe, in government today; so many

things are happening for the celebrations next year. I believe it is a good news

portfolio all around.

There are several local issues in my district, in

particular, I would like to ask you about. The Member for Bonavista - is it

South or North?

MR. FITZGERALD: South.

MS THISTLE: I always have to ask you that. When

you are talking about Bonavista, there is also part of Bonavista that interests

me; it is close to Eastport, Sandy Cove Beach. There was always an entrance

there, you could enter the beach from the boardwalk and also a place called

Caplin Gulch.

MS KELLY: Yes, I know it well.

MS THISTLE: Do you know it well?

MS KELLY: And I know of the storm damage they

have had too. Where are we going to find the money to help them to fix it?

MS THISTLE: You have already been asked about

this, no doubt, have you, because it was washed out last fall?

MS KELLY: Yes, we have had some representation

from the council out in that area. We have also actually had some representation

from people who live in the area, and I think probably know more than anyone

else just how much that area was used. So it is a situation that we are looking

into at the moment, having our regional people assess it. Also we will try and

take a look at: Can we work in partnership with anyone to try and get the

repairs affected there this year. As of this moment there is not money budgeted

to do it, although the recognition is there of how important it is to try and

get it done. It is probably one of the most used areas in the Province as it

relates to both residents and tourists coming into the area. I think it is one

of the most used around. There is certainly a good recognition in my department

of the importance of trying to work with the community to get the repairs done,

but the repairs cost more than most people - residents of the area would write

and say: Oh, we just need a few thousand dollars to get it fixed; and some

people say: Oh, you know, if we had $10,000 we could get it all done. I am told

the repair bill would be closer to somewhere between $80,000 and $100,000, I

think, to have that repaired.

I have not been out there in a few years to see

actually what has happened, but I assume there would have to be a lot of

stabilization work done and that is why the bill would be so high. We have our

people assessing it now to see if we can figure out a way to get the money to do

it, how it can be done so that the problem doesn't occur again, that, you know,

with the next big storm or something we would have the same problem and have it

washed out again. There is a recognition of the importance of doing it and we

are trying our best to find a way to do it.

MS THISTLE: I was out there a few weeks ago and

I missed it. I looked for it, you know. What I'm hearing from the local people

is that they are willing to help by way of volunteers and equipment and so on.

As you said, they don't think it is going to cost that much because there are so

many people willing to help. It would definitely be a good tourist attraction,

and particularly for next year.

Now I would like to get around to my area. I don't

know if you are familiar with Red Cliff. That is west of Grand Falls - Windsor.

MS KELLY: Yes, I know the area.

MS THISTLE: You know the area, do you? There is

a gentleman there who has a lot of logging artifacts. Are you familiar with

that?

MS KELLY: Yes.

MS THISTLE: They placed a value on them of

about $80,000, and apparently they date back prior to even when Abitibi-Price

came in the early 1900s. It is really a valuable collection. In fact our former

premier, Mr. Wells, personally went and saw that collection a couple of years

ago and was most impressed with it, as were many other people who looked. This

gentleman is ready and willing to give up that collection to be housed in the

community of Grand Falls - Windsor. You are looking at about $80,000. Most

people who come to visit Newfoundland are overwhelmed at the idea of getting in

to see attractions for no cost. This would be something we could add on to an

existing facility we now have, probably a provincial park or a museum or

something. Has any thought been given by your department to look into this?

MS KELLY: I think it is certainly on the record

to be looked at. I think there are several problems in looking at it, one of

them being financial. I guess up until a few years ago, $80,000 wasn't though to

be a lot of money to have to find, but finding $80,000 in this budget here right

now is not an easy thing to do. Also, in consideration of it, we have to look at

housing the artifacts properly. We have a lot of things right now that are

really in storage, and some in improper storage, I think it is very fair to say.

What we would be doing is adding to a difficulty that we already have. Also, we

would have to - and I think that is in the process of being done now -

determine, do we have available space in buildings that we already have so that

you wouldn't have to build on. As you were just saying that it could be housed

out in your area, but can it be without costing even more than the $80,000 that

it would cost to buy it?

I certainly think that there is a recognition that

we have other people in the Province - I think Mr. Shelley has talked to me

about some out in his area. I would say that since I've been the minister, and

it has only been three months, there have been about six collections that are

very similar to what you are describing of people having, because I think

Newfoundlanders on the whole really value their heritage.

For instance, there is a man out in Gambo who has

been running his own private museum in the summertime. He didn't want to make

money off it himself but he had a little box by the door, saying: If you could

donate money here it will all be given to the Janeway and the Gander Hospital

foundation at the end of the season. He raised a few thousand dollars like it.

His was truly a community museum if ever you saw one. He had about, I would say,

the same value in artifacts, and he now is getting older and ill and can't keep

them and store them properly.

It is a situation where we can't look at just the

individual one. There are some pretty valuable collections out there like it, so

it is something that we have to look at, as a whole, look at the cost and the

value; because sometimes what people think are in fact very valuable artifacts

and they are very dear to their hearts, there may be hundreds of them around or

some that we already own and, from a collection point of view, would not be

interested in.

It is a multifaceted problem. We have to look at

where we would house them - we already do not have the appropriate housing for

artifacts we have that are very valuable; they are inappropriately housed now -

where we would put them and where we would find the money to buy the collections

to begin with. We even have instances of people who are willing to donate things

to us and we can't take them because of not having a place to appropriately

display them. So it is a fairly big problem,actually.

MS THISTLE: I am wondering, minister, if you

had thought about a partnership with Abitibi Price, probably, the communities

that are close by and government, instead of putting all the costs on

government? Would you look at it, probably, from that angle?

MS KELLY: We certainly would be very open to

looking at it from that point of view. I have not had the time to be able to

pursue any of that but as we proceed to look at it we will certainly take that

under advisement.

MS THISTLE: So, will you ask one of your

officials to set up an appointment or look into this further, this aspect?

MS KELLY: Oh, we certainly can. That will be

done.

MS THISTLE: It has been ongoing for a few years

and I think this gentleman is anxious to make a move on it, if it is possible?

MS KELLY: If we had to make a move right now,

the move probably would have to be one where we would have to say to him: I am

sorry, we cannot entertain the notion. The difficulty is that as we do this we

have to figure out how we are going to do it and can we do it with the resources

that we have?

Now the Mary March Museum can certainly be

approached, Abitibi Price, even the Exploits Valley Tourism Association and the

Economy Zone Board. All of those are resources that we can sit down and talk

with and plan, but it will take some time because of the fact that we have

others that are in the very same situation.

MS THISTLE: Minister, I know that some of the

parks around the Province have been designated as keystone parks, and I was

delighted to find out that the Exploits experience, which is a combination of us

people in the Exploits Valley, was chosen as a regional event. We have been

pretty innovative in our thinking on what we are planning to do for next summer

and all next year, i.e. an international salmon fishing derby, white river

rafting and even archery contests, things that have not been tried before in our

area. The people who work in Catamaran Park, and also the users of Catamaran

Park, tell us that the scenery and also the sites themselves are developed so

well that they look at Catamaran as being an ideal keystone park. Has your

department seen fit to designate that park as a keystone park?

MS KELLY: I would not be prepared to answer

that right now because I am not sure which ones in the area - they all have

different designations. I am not aware, if it is not a keystone park, that there

has been a request for it to be made one. Are you aware of -

MS BATSTONE: The three keystone parks that were

determined in the task force report are the only ones right now that are going

to be designated as such. These were an outcropping of consultations but also a

set of criteria regarding visitation, geographical location, services that were

available and so on. It is not my understanding that there is any anticipated

change in that.

MS KELLY: As I remember now, reading through my

briefing notes, there was also a statement there that until the keystone parks

are developed to the stage that we want them to be developed - for instance, I

think we have $500,000 this year for the parks and that was cut. We initially

had wanted to spend $2 million in the park system this year. So, until the park

development plans have all been implemented, and not just for the keystone

parks, but in particular the keystone parks, it would be very difficult to look

at adding any to them, until all of the parks have been brought up to the

standard that we would like them to be.

One of the reasons that the privatization went

ahead was that we would privatize the parks that were underutilized or that we

felt government - you know, there were other parks very close to them or were

over serviced, or we felt would be more appropriately run by private enterprise.

The thought behind that then was that the parks that were left were a manageable

number and that a development plan was done for each of them, and that we would

be better able to afford to keep the parks that were left going, and that the

keystone parks would receive first priority.

Obviously the plan has had to change, if we were

going to put $2 million a year into them and now we are down to $500,000 this

year. That is obviously going to slow the development plans of all of the parks.

It is not just keystone parks that will be developed, but obviously where we

have to put our money first will have to relate to public safety issues and

things that have to be fixed in parks from a liability point of view and so on.

MS THISTLE: One of the reasons why I was saying

this, there isn't a park in Central Newfoundland, with the exception, I believe,

of Notre Dame, that has any sewer facilities.

MS KELLY: Notre Dame is the keystone park for

Central Newfoundland.

MS THISTLE: But there is nothing west of -

MS KELLY: Barachois is the next one, or on the

West Coast -

MS THISTLE: Which is quite a distance.

MS KELLY: - and then Butter Pot.

From the point of view of what other areas of the

Province have service-wise, they are as well laid out, geographically I think,

as you are going to be able to find, in particular, when you look at going off

the road as you go up to Bonavista, or go out around the loop in Musgrave

Harbour and the Wesleyville area, or down to the South Coast and that. There are

private parks, and I think the tourist guide and all the visitor information

centres certainly would not lead any tourist to believe that there are only

three places, sewerage dumping stations and that, in the Province. There

certainly are greater numbers than that, although we would like to see more of

them, obviously. Almost every large community now certainly has dumping

facilities.

MS THISTLE: I would like to ask you: What is

the status of Beothuck Park? Is that privatized now?

MS KELLY: No, Beothuck Park is not privatized,

is it?

WITNESS: No.

MS KELLY: No. It is a provincial park. It has

the same status as Square Pond, and I think the same status as Catamaran, hasn't

it? Both of those parks have the same status in the provincial park system.

MS THISTLE: There is a young entrepreneur who

has opened a small business in Beothuck Park. He operates sea-doo runs and also

vending: Ice cream and confectionary and so on. He is hampered this year from

opening because of new regulations. He can't obtain liability insurance. Can you

explain to me what the situation is there?

MS KELLY: It is more a matter, I think, of

insurance regulations as they relate to the type of machine he is operating, and

is not an imposition that has been put on him by the provincial government. It

is more a matter of, I think, having to deal with it. In some ways it is very

similar to the liability insurance that festivals have when they have certain

attractions and when you have demolition derbies. What were the other examples I

saw on a list? Snowmobile races in the wintertime. Hot air balloons is another

one. It is the same type of liability insurance.

One of the ways some communities - and I don't know

if it would apply to private entrepreneurs or not - but when communities have

liability insurance for festivals and that, they can often bring these events in

under them. Like the recreation department for the town of Gander could put the

festival of flight and the demolition derby in under the town's liability

insurance, and then it wasn't as costly and was in an affordable range, but most

of the time those have all been volunteer groups. I don't know how that would

relate to private enterprise. It would be something that would have to be

checked, but not something that I would have any in-depth knowledge of.

MS THISTLE: Apparently, he has operated there

in the past year and didn't have any problem, but this year he has been advised

that he can no longer operate because he can't obtain liability insurance.

MS KELLY: It isn't something that has been

addressed to my department, as far as I know. I've not received any

correspondence or questions or anything on it. It may be that it is being

pursued by the local tourism development officer and would not have reached us

yet. Maybe it is just at the beginning stages of being looked at. It isn't

something that has been addressed to us. I'm also not sure that it is something

that the provincial government could really do anything about. It would be a

private industry insurance matter, I would assume.

MS THISTLE: Even though he is operating within

the provincial park?

MS KELLY: From that point of view, he would

have to have the insurance to work in the provincial park. Obviously it is a

government facility, and the government certainly wouldn't accept liability for

a private entrepreneur in the park. Other than that, I don't know of any

interest that we would have.

MR. HAYWARD: This is not the first. We have had

other potential businesses that could not get the insurance.

MS KELLY: Is there? Mr. Hayward informs me that

this is not the first time there has been a problem with this, that there have

been other entrepreneurs who have had insurance difficulties with this type of

business. It may be that last year, if he didn't have any difficulty, did he

have insurance last year? Was it all followed through? Or did he maybe have

insurance through the dealer? Sometimes, in order to set people up in business,

the dealer will cover the insurance the first year. Without the details of the

case here, it would be very hard to deal with it.

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much.

MS KELLY: You're welcome.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Thistle.

Maybe we should break for ten minutes and have a

coffee out in the caucus room. I suggest we break. Can I have consent to that?

Good. We will be back in ten minutes.

Recess

CHAIR: I call this meeting back to order.

Mr. Osborne, you have the floor.

MR. OSBORNE: I have the floor.

Section 1.2.02.

MS KELLY: How about giving me the page number?

MR. OSBORNE: Alright, as soon as I find it.

Page 162, under last year's estimates: "Appropriations

provide for financial and administrative support for the Departments of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation, Environment and Employment and Labour Relations." This

year they are all there but employment. Can you tell me why employment was taken

out of those appropriations? I guess another question is: Why were Environment,

Employment and Labour in there in the first place?

MS KELLY: Well, that's a consolidation of the way

government does it. Rather than every department having that department

throughout government, I think three or four have been consolidated, usually,

and now the Department of Employment has been moved to Development and Rural

Renewal.

MR. OSBORNE: Okay, thank you.

Secondly, 2.1.01, which is on page 187. Last year's

estimates, in the Estimates book, are completely different from the budgeted

amount in this year's Estimates book.

MS KELLY: You will find a lot of our department is

like that, some of the problem being the cuts in the Budget last December. Where

you see large differences, it is mostly because the department is regionalizing;

so they have been moved from this area into regional services.

MR. OSBORNE: Okay, but if the estimates were given

last year, shouldn't the budget column in this year's Estimates book reflect the

numbers in the estimates for last year?

MS KELLY: Not necessarily, because we were not

regionalized last year. There was no place to put it last year.

MR. HAYWARD: I don't have the 1995/96 Estimates

book here, but are you saying that the budget figure in the far right is not the

same as what was in the Budget Estimates book of last year?

MR. OSBORNE: Pardon me?

MR. HAYWARD: You're saying that the budget column

in the 1996/97 Estimates does not agree with those of 1995/96?

MR. OSBORNE: No. The appropriations explanations

for both last year's Estimates book and this year's Estimates book are

identical. I have noticed going through last year's Estimates and this year's

Estimates, as you have mentioned, there are a number of discrepancies

throughout. What I am asking is: If the Estimates were given and voted on last

year and the vote was accepted, well then the budget amount in this year's

Estimates book should reflect the estimates number in last year's Estimates

book?

MS KELLY: Just for clarification for me, for

instance - Rick?

MR. WOODFORD: Tom, are you looking at the 1995/96

budget and revised?

MR. OSBORNE: No, I am looking at the 1995/96

estimates and the 1995/96 budget. I realize that the revised column can be

revised but the budget should be the same as the amount voted on in the

Estimates for last year. Just to clarify myself, this 1996/97 column that we are

voting on this year, if we vote and accept these figures the way they are, next

year in the Estimates book they should be identical to the budget column.

MR. HAYWARD: There can be some restatement, the

practices that government use. For example, if you look at 2.3.01, which is

Tourism Development on page 189, some parts of that were brought into Tourism

Marketing which is 2.1.01.

MR. OSBORNE: Yes, I understand that, but the

appropriations will explain that there has been some change in that particular

department.

MR. HAYWARD: Every now and again there are program

changes, modifications and reviews. I believe the question that you are asking

is: Why does the Tourism Marketing budget column in the 1996/97 Estimates

change? It is because there were some activities under Tourism Development,

2.3.01, that were moved to Tourism Marketing. It is more of an accounting issue

than a policy issue, sir, in that the budgeting division of Treasury Board just

moved some numbers around to try to make things as consistent looking as

possible, and it is called an accounting restatement. There is no more to it

than that.

MR. WOODFORD: The revised could change during the

year in any case; it could go up or down.

MR. OSBORNE: Your budgeted column would stay the

same. Your revised can change, that can go up or down.

MR. WOODFORD: That is what I'm saying, your

revised can go up or down.

MR. HAYWARD: If you look at it either by

section

or by total, the total budget of Tourism, Culture and Recreation didn't change,

if you look at the total numbers. That particular 2.1.01 activity may have gone

up or down, but the total departmental budget didn't go up or down, and that is

called a restatement for comparative purposes. Basically it is where one program

area goes from one activity in your budget to another.

MS KELLY: For instance, I would assume - maybe I

need some clarification here too - but if a decision was made during the budget

process now, and come August we realize that we are overspending, and we need to

in one area, and underspending in another, I would assume I would go to Treasury

Board and, before that becomes a difficulty, I would have it addressed and

re-appropriate within my budget.

MR. OSBORNE: Oh yes, but then you're -

MS KELLY: So that would only come under revisions,

you are saying.

MR. OSBORNE: That would come under your revised

column, yes.

MS KELLY: But Rick's explanation is not

satisfactory to you, that it is an internal accounting function? Are you finding

that the totals are different? Do you think there is either too much or not

enough being spent in some areas?

MS BATSTONE: Perhaps he could give an example.

MS KELLY: Yes. Could you give an example and then

we could probably follow it through after this evening and report back in a more

concise manner.

MR. OSBORNE: Rick brought my attention to 2.3.01

and said that the Tourism Development and the Tourism Marketing were somewhat

interchanged.

MR. HAYWARD: Some activities under the Tourism

Development subhead, 2.3.01, moved from a reporting, just re-allocation of work,

to the Tourism Marketing activity, 2.1.01 and the budget went with that from

last year to this year. That is why, the restatement (inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: So the Tourism Marketing and the

Tourism Development, those two headings, combined should equal the -

MR. HAYWARD: Yes. It is just a restatement for

accounting purposes. We do not have the authority or the ability to increase or

decrease that budget column, only restate it for accounting purposes, sir. If I

haven't answered your question maybe I can just walk it through with you at some

point in time.

MR. OSBORNE: Sure. I will have a look at that

again over the next couple of days and just -

MR HAYWARD: I will be glad to spend some time with

you and walk you through.

MR. OSBORNE: Okay.

Just bear with me one second. Under 2.2.02 -

MS KELLY: Page 188, under Development Agreements?

MR. OSBORNE: Yes, page 188. Under last year's

estimates, again under the appropriations: "Appropriations provided for the

improvement of historic resources, tourism marketing and product development

through projects approved under the Canada-Newfoundland Comprehensive Labrador

Subsidiary Agreement."

MS KELLY: Most of that -

MR. OSBORNE: Now, under last year's, it goes on.

In this year's Estimates book there is a full stop there, but under last year's

it goes on to say: "...and the Canada-Newfoundland Cooperation Agreement on

Tourism and Historic Resources." I'm just wondering where that

section of the -

MS KELLY: It has expired, and then part, in this

area, is moved to the Development and Rural Renewal budget. Destination

Labrador, Battle Harbour and that sort of thing have been moved into the new

Department of Development and Rural Renewal.

MR. OSBORNE: Okay.

MS KELLY: Of course, as agreements expire - a lot

of the cost-shared agreements between the federal and provincial government are

three-year and five-year programs. I'm not sure if this was a three- year or a

five-year program.

WITNESS: Five.

MS KELLY: It was a five-year program that expired.

MR. OSBORNE: Under last year's estimates as well

there is a

section there, 2.2.03. That title number has been allocated to the

John Cabot Celebrations this year, but last year it was Craft Development.

MS KELLY: Yes. Craft Development also has moved to

the Department of Development and Rural Renewal.

MR. OSBORNE: Okay.

MS KELLY: That probably is part of the reason too

why the numbers are different in the previous question that you were asking.

MR. OSBORNE: Yes, I understand that, that is no

problem.

MS KELLY: There has been a lot of reshuffling.

MR. OSBORNE: Your earlier explanation of Tourism

Marketing and Tourism Development, if those two were somewhat changed, I

understand that as well, as long as the numbers balance out there, which they

should.

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. OSBORNE: Okay. As well, in last year's

estimates you have a Labrador

Interpretation Centre. You are saying that has

moved to the Department of Development and Rural Renewal?

MS KELLY: I think that one is under the estimates,

but is it under ERA and the SRDA, both of those?

WITNESS: No.

MS KELLY: No.

WITNESS: They wanted the agreement (inaudible).

MS KELLY: So, is it all under ours?

WITNESS: Development and Rural Renewal.

MS KELLY: Yes. So, it is under Development and

Rural Renewal?

MR. HAYWARD: Yes. All the comprehensive Labrador

expenditures were moved to the Department of Development and Rural Renewal

because of the complication of trying to manage the funding in the budgetary

appropriation and the federal and provincial government as they are, in trying

to get water and sewer services done in one year, and maybe an

interpretation

centre in the allocation. It was all moved to that area to better manage the

funds for the Labrador region.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you.

I guess that would follow - although, no it wouldn't.

Under last year's estimates, 3.3.03, Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage

Foundation.

MS KELLY: What page are you referring to?

MR. OSBORNE: It is last year's.

MS KELLY: Okay.

MR. OSBORNE: The Newfoundland and Labrador

Heritage Foundation, where would that have been moved? Actually, there was no

allocation of money at all in last year's estimates for that, so why would that

have been discontinued last year, I wonder?

MR. HAYWARD: Last year there was no budget

appropriated but there were expenditures in the year before. So from the

budgetary perspective it is there for information purposes to the members of the

House. This year, because there was no appropriation last year, there is no

comparative reason for it to be there this year. It still exists as an entity

and reports through the minister.

MR. OSBORNE: In last year's estimates as well, the

Provincial Archives Operations.

MR. HAYWARD: What page are you looking at in the

1996-1997 book?

MR. OSBORNE: Subhead 3.4.01.

MS KELLY: 3.2.01?

MR. OSBORNE: No, it is 3.4.01, Provincial Archives

Operations. The Salaries under the estimates for last year, as compared to the

budget this year - everything else remains the same in the budgeted column, but

the Salaries last year were $354,500. They are now $334,500 in this year's

Estimates book under last year's budget.

MS KELLY: Are you asking why it is more?

MR. OSBORNE: Yes.

MS KELLY: It is more because there have been more

resources allocated there.

MR. OSBORNE: No, it is less, actually. It was more

in last year's Estimates book.

MR. HAYWARD: Basically, last year we tried to

allocate some incremental resources to this particular activity because of the

demands of increased research occurring at the archives with respect to

genealogical research. This year their budget is about the same as it was last

year. The department will try to put more resources there through an internal

allocation of its salary resources, but again we are looking at a different year

with different dollars being available for salaries.

MR. OSBORNE: I think maybe you didn't understand

my question. Under last year's estimates, the Salaries were listed as $354,500,

in this year's Estimates book, under last year's budgeted column, it is

$334,500. So it is a difference of $20,000 that should be in last year's

budgeted column in this year's Estimates book.

MS KELLY: So this is the same difficulty you were

referring to in previous questions, that we almost need to have last year's book

with us as well as this one and to have worked through this before we came here

tonight to be able to identify why the differences in last year's figures and

this year's figures. I know that we have identified some of it as being

accounting practice, but some of it is also due to the movement of different

resources within the department to either regionalization or moved into - craft

development was moved out part way through the year. So I would have to go back,

take the 1995 Estimates book, compare each one as I go down, and come back to

you with an explanation of why they are different, and we can certainly do that.

As the minister of a department, I certainly would not

have, you know, been sitting down comparing 1995 Estimates book with this one

here and then coming prepared to give you that type of detail tonight, but there

certainly is no difficulty in doing it. I mean, the Budget Estimates for my

department are not that big.

MR. OSBORNE: No. Rick, were you with the

department?

MR. HAYWARD: Yes.

MR. OSBORNE: Okay. So, would you have any idea,

for example, as to why the - if I may, I will just come across and show you

exactly what -

MR. HAYWARD: I know you question, and certainly I

am free to go through any of these numbers with you and show you what has

changed. All I can say is, if the budget in the book that you have there for

last year, versus the 1995/96 allocation, is different, the only reason they are

different is because of the re-allocation of resources within the department,

the salary resources within the department and the accounting adjustments that

take place from one year to the next with respect to moving some of our tourism

development people to regional operations and stuff.

If you follow through to the book for a minute, and go

to the Regional Services one, you can see that there has been a significant

re-allocation of resources to the Regional Operations and the difference in the

budget column in 6.1.01, page 200, and the 1996/97 of $4,548,900, you can see

that that Regional Operations activity in our budget has gone up to $800,000

more. So you are obviously going to see small differences in Tourism, Marketing

and Archives to be able to let us do some of the Regional Operations.

MR. OSBORNE: Oh yes, I can understand that, as far

as this year's estimates are concerned but there is -

MR. HAYWARD: If you look in your book for 1995/96,

sir, there is no Regional Operations activity budget. So when Treasury Board and

the department created this 6.1.01, Regional Operations, we did our best to try

to capture what was in the 1995/96 budget and move it over to Regional

Operations, so that you can see the 1996/97 estimates in some light, as compared

from one year to the other. Again, I don't know how to articulate it any better.

MS KELLY: I think also, it is fair to say that

some of this regionalization occurred during the year last year. It didn't

happen, it was not cut and dried at the end of the year. The Avalon area had

started its regionalization process in last year's budget period and the money

had to be re-allocated during that budget period. Now, the regionalization

process for Central, for instance, has not even occurred yet. So that region

wouldn't have the impact, the budget figures would not have had to change around

during the year. Otherwise, this would have been extremely confusing. If it had

not been done, you would not have been able to follow through, there just would

have been huge discrepancies here.

MR. OSBORNE: Yes. I find that, in reading last

year's book alone it is not confusing, or in reading this year's book, but

trying to cross reference -

MS KELLY: Well, for the reasons I have just

outlined to you, because of things that happened during the year. Now if the

regionalization decision had not occurred, if the craft development people had

not moved, if decisions had not been made in light of, you know, the worsening

financial situation throughout the year and having to change things around, it

would have been fine enough; you would have been able to stick right by all of

that. But the reality is very different, these decisions were made and they had

to be reflected in the budget documents.

MR. OSBORNE: Okay, I'm aware of what you are

saying and I can accept that, but in certain cases such, as the Provincial

Archives Operations, where that particular department was not tampered with

other than maybe there were one or two positions - well, $20,000, so it was

probably a position that was moved somewhere else within the department. That

must be the -

MR. HAYWARD: We tried to do regional operations in

the existing salary budget of the department, so with the same salary dollars we

created positions and abolished positions and we moved monies around to get the

regional operations. So I would not say every division, but certainly a

significant number of divisions in the department, had salary decisions impact

them to create regional structure.

MR. OSBORNE: Okay. I have very limited accounting

education, I have only done a handful of courses in that, but my question is:

Why would you change the budgeted amount in this year's Estimates book when

comparing it with the estimates amount in last year's book? Shouldn't that be

fluent from year to year?

MS KELLY: No, because it would have to be -

MR. OSBORNE: I can see changing your revised

column but I don't understand why you would change your budgeted column unless,

as you say, there was a part of a department moved from tourism to rural

development maybe.

MS KELLY: Well, in a whole different division,

when you look at regional operations, that was a major policy change in our

department. The way our department is set up has been totally revised, besides

losing craft development. So all the changes that were done were done to reflect

the reality of the work we were doing. I think it would not have given you a

very fair reflection of what had happened last year if we had left things

exactly as they were and did everything totally differently. This reflects what

happened last year.

MR. HAYWARD: In the accounting principles and

practices that the government used - I have been with the department three

years. Wildlife is in and then it is out of the department, crafts came over,

and these numbers keep changing. So the bottom line of the appropriations does

not change. A reallocation of the appropriations do occur and Treasury Board and

government have accepted the reallocation of the budget amount to try to make

the comparative figures as best they could. That happens in a couple of areas

there, you are absolutely right. The craft

section has been moved over to

Development and Rural Renewal, called a Client Services Activity over there. So

if you go to the Department of Development and Rural Renewal there will be some

- you have no comparative figures per se except for those sections that came

from the department; CNL and ERC, those kinds of numbers are problematic in

getting.

MR. OSBORNE: Okay. Just a couple of more

questions. I will try to get off that particular topic. As I say, I fully

understand what you are saying. It is just that I have to sit down and

re-examine the books and probably even sit down with you for half-an-hour so I

can get clear in my mind exactly the flow of funds from last year's book to this

year's book.

MS KELLY: It is not a difficulty. That can

certainly be arranged very promptly, to sit down when both of you are working

with the same information, from the same books from last year to this year. I am

sure that it could be done very quickly.

MR. OSBORNE: Yes. I mean, it is not a matter of

trying to find something, it is just a matter of -

MS KELLY: Understanding why.

MR. OSBORNE: In reading last year's and this

year's Estimates, understanding where the money went and why, type of thing, so

that it is clear in my mind as to the actual channel of funds.

MS KELLY: We can certainly arrange for that to be

done.

MR. OSBORNE: There is only one other question, I

guess, in regards to that. In last year's book you had a Linear Park

section and

this year you have what you call the T'railway, I believe, 4.1.02. I am

wondering why or where the Linear Park

section has gone, because again, the

amount that was allocated in last year's estimates do not completely jibe with

the Parks and T'railway. I understand that there may be a couple of

sub-departments merged to make the Parks and T'Railway. I am just wondering

where Linear Park went and where, I guess, the Parks and T'Railway originated?

MS KELLY: Well, it is a name change partly because

of the legislation that is before us now, in that the Linear Park has become a

provincial park. Last year, I guess it was last fall, there was a

re-organization of the provincial park system and they are now totally

regionalized, you know, their re-organization has been done. So what you are

seeing reflected in this year's budget is the re-organized parks division with

the Linear Park as a provincial park in it. Some of the money is allotted in

there and others, if I remember correctly, are allotted under the Economic

Renewal funds. So there are two places that the funding for the T'railway would

be reflected in the Budget.

MR. OSBORNE: Okay.

MR. HAYWARD: If you look at, I guess, 4.1.02 in

last year's which was Park Operations, there was a big activity there called

Park Operations.

MR. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. HAYWARD: Well, to reflect what we have done in

the department, we have moved most of that money to regional -

MR. OSBORNE: Parks and T'railway

MR. HAYWARD: No, no. That Park Operations activity

has been moved to the Regional Operations activity this year because that is the

way the department is going to operate this year. So the Budget number, the Park

Operations activity, is no longer there, it is moved over to the Regional

Operation activity in 1996/-97. I don't know if that helps you in any way. The

parks are a regional activity in our Regional Operations new setup.

MR. OSBORNE: Okay.

MS KELLY: I can understand the confusion; I went

through this very same thing when we were preparing the budget and we were

trying to figure out, you know, why this huge cut or this huge expansion here.

MR. OSBORNE: Yes. Certainly, I am not trying to be

a thorn in your side here other than the fact that I am trying to figure out

exactly where departments or sub-departments were closed and where they began a

new life, I guess, under a different name, just so that I can follow through.

MR. HAYWARD: I thought that last year's Park

Operations example might have been a good one to go to the Regional Operations

activity to reflect a new organization that we have, and the new approach that

we have to that particular facet over business.

MS BATSTONE: You do understand, though, that the

Linear Park didn't go anywhere, it was just renamed?

MR. OSBORNE: Oh yes, I understand that. I am aware

of that.

MS KELLY: I guess it should be pointed out too

that when we sit down to do this again next year, it is probably going to be

quite confusing again because of the fact that all of the Regional Operations

are not in place as yet. So next year, we will have some more of this confusion.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you.

MS KELLY: I am sure you are very delighted to know

that.

MR. OSBORNE: Actually, I may be able to follow it

next year because, through the legislative process, I will probably be aware of

MS KELLY: Changes as they occur.

MR. OSBORNE: - changes as they occur as opposed to

going back and trying to find out, you know, the rooting.

The Publisher's Assistance Program, I guess we are all

aware of that?

MS KELLY: Yes.

MR. OSBORNE: I couldn't find any mention in last

year's estimates of that program. Now -

MS KELLY: It would have been under the Cultural

Industries Agreement, I think it was?

MS BATSTONE: No, it was under Grants and

Subsidies, under Cultural Affairs. If you go back to the Cultural Affairs, that

was $120,000, I believe, for last year and this year it would be reduced by

about $54,000.

MR. HAYWARD: Your activity, 3.1.01. in the 1996/97

estimates would identify it for you, Sir; 10, Grants and Subsidies decreased

from $120,500 last year to $69,500.

MR. OSBORNE: What page?

MR. HAYWARD: On page 191, $69,500 this year.

MR. OSBORNE: I am sorry, 3.1.01

MR. HAYWARD: 10, Grants and Subsidies.

MR. OSBORNE: Okay.

MR. HAYWARD: It went from $120,500 budgeted to

$69,500.

MR. OSBORNE: Okay, I got you.

MR. HAYWARD: There is a group of those in there,

LSPU Hall, Them Days Magazine. Every grant that we give out is not specifically

mentioned in our estimates.

MR. OSBORNE: No, okay.

MS KELLY: It should also be pointed out that in

looking at this, under The Economic Renewal Agreement, if you look at, for

instance, a lot of the other groups that remained funded this year, the Art

Procurement Program, -

MR. OSBORNE: The Arts Procurement, as well, that

went from $120,000 down to $100,000.

MS KELLY: Down to $100,000. yes.

Most of those programs were left virtually intact. The

Publisher's Assistance was not, but under the ERA funding there is an ability

for the publishers to apply for funding, under that program. So while it was not

something that you would want to do, it was felt that with the cuts that had to

be made it was wisest to make the cuts in that area because there would be an

alternate source for the publishers to be able to apply to as long as we have

the Economic Renewal Agreement, which will be for the upcoming three years.

MR. OSBORNE: Okay, so where was that they could

apply? Through the -

MS KELLY: Through the Economic Renewable

Agreement.

Further down on the same page, 191, under Cultural

Industries Support, if I remember my figures correctly, through that program I

think the publishers have received assistance of $300,000 in total. I just

remember reading it on the weekend. So that agreement has come to an end. Then

under Grants and Subsidies, they have been cut, but the new Economic Renewal

Agreement, they will have access to apply under that fund. So we felt that it

was somewhat of a substitution. At least -

MR. OSBORNE: Now that's a very nominal figure,

though, I guess this year as compared to what was given to them last year.

MS KELLY: No, it was only $53,000 last year, I

think, in total that went out through publishers assistance grants, $53,000

right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty-four thousand dollars.

MS KELLY: Fifty-four thousand dollars, I am sorry.

MR. OSBORNE: What is available now through the

Economic Renewal?

MS KELLY: You better answer that one. I do not

remember the figure.

MS. BATSTONE: Under the Economic Renewal Agreement

there is an amount of $1.75 million for Cultural Industries Support, that is to

continue to help the various artistic and cultural disciplines to develop their

economic potential. So the publishers are eligible to apply for project money

out of the $1.75 million.

MR. OSBORNE: Out of that $1.75 million, what is

actually allotted to the (inaudible)?

MS KELLY: They are not allotted according to

discipline. For instance, if you take the Cultural Industries Agreement that

just ended, over the past three-and a-half years the publishers did apply and

get over $300,000 for publishing projects which, next to the film discipline,

was the highest access to the agreement.

From a department perspective, I would never want to

take that amount of money and just sit down and arbitrarily say we will allot

this much. It would depend on the quality of the applications, of course, that

would come in. I would much rather leave the total amount there and then,

through Culture Industries, they would apply. Of course, you would allot the

money based on the quality of the applications that you would receive. So it

could end up that they might receive, you know, the lion's share of it. It will

depend on the quality of the applications. From their point of view it will

depend on what writers apply, you know, and what actually is happening out there

in their discipline. So I would never agree to do it that way. It might look

good on paper, but that is as far as it would go.

MR. OSBORNE: Okay. Thank you very much. I

apologize for the line of questioning.

MS KELLY: It is not a difficulty. I went through

the same line myself a while back, except I was not comparing the two books. I

might have been really confused if I had started doing that.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Osborne.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you.

MR. MERCER: Just a couple of short questions.

MS KELLY: Short answers.

MR. MERCER: That was the corollary to that, yes.

In your introductory remarks you mentioned about

regionalization of your departments services, and throughout we have heard a lot

of talk about it. What services exactly are you regionalizing? What are your

regions and how do these regions fit in with the existing governmental

structures?

MS KELLY: Let's see, there would be Labrador,

Western, Central and Eastern.

MR. MERCER: Four regions?

MS KELLY: The Avalon too. Wait now, I have them

all confused in my mind.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MS KELLY: Yes, right on. Avalon and Eastern have

been joined because of budgetary cutbacks and wanting to keep the

regionalization process in place. We joined the Avalon and Eastern regions. Of

course, each of them will be done in the regions somewhat differently. It will

depend on the needs of the region. There will be a director in each region, but

we presently have tourism officers out in each region and parks and recreation

people. So what we will do now is that they will not work in isolation any

longer, they will work together as a team in each region.

MR. MERCER: So what exactly are the services that

you are regionalizing?

MS KELLY: Tourism.

MR. MERCER: What is that?

MS KELLY: Tourism development officers, for

instance. I guess the best way I can describe it to you is by example. If the

Kiddie Wake Coast tourism out in my area want to work a project through, as it

relates to, for example, the Fishermen's Museum out in Twillingate, well they

would approach the tourism development officer in the region and -

MR. MERCER: There are four of those across the

Province, one in each region?

MS KELLY: Pardon me?

MR. MERCER: There will be four of those, one in

each region?

MS KELLY: No, not necessarily, it will depend on

what the needs and wants are in the region, but there is a tourism development

officer in each of these regions. Obviously the projects will be different.

WITNESS: Two in Western.

MS KELLY: Oh yes, and there are two in Western,

correct.

MR. MERCER: What other services? You have

recreation, you have community services. Are any of those aspects being -

MS KELLY: Well parks would, and obviously the same

work that has always been done in parks. I think the parks officer, as in

Central Newfoundland, works out of the Notre Dame Park, but all of the parks in

the Central region would come under that person and he would be the liaison

person between the other disciplines. Recreation: it would be the same thing.

I guess the most experience I have is out in my own

area, Randy White, who would work with all the small recreation committees. You

find that this is more a rural service than it is for the larger towns that have

their own recreation departments, that the recreation specialist that are out

there helped in particular with developing programs and putting appropriate

referees, clinics and everything in place.

MR. MERCER: One of the things we find in

government, of course, is lots of duplication of services. How do these

positions in the regions interrelate, say, with the regional services of the

department of forestry, the department of wildlife and on and on? How do your

people interrelate with those people or do they?

MS KELLY: They would work the same way, I guess,

as a one-stop shopping concept, that everybody works as a team out in the

regions. For instance, in the area that I know best, out in Central

Newfoundland, if there was a difficulty - let me see if I can think of an

example - between the parks and a Crown land issue well they would interrelate

with the government service department out there, with municipal affairs or

Crown land or wherever they need to work. So the person in the Lewisporte, Notre

Dame Park area would work with the government service department in Gander that

Crown lands comes under.

MR. MERCER: A couple of other questions. Under

section 2.3.02, there is something called Salmonid Enhancement. I am just

curious: What is that doing in your department, I guess, is my short question?

MS KELLY: As it relates to Tourism, of course, the

salmon enhancement of rivers and everything is a big concern in my department.

That person is there to work with the other departments to make sure that

tourism's perspective, as it relates to the recreational fishery - what do we

call it?

WITNESS: Sport fishery.

MS KELLY: Sport fishery. I thought you said shore

fishery. I was going to say, don't tell me there is another one. - as it relates

to sport fishery would be addressed.

MR. MERCER: So this is really then, the marketing

of a product as opposed to the enhancement of a resource?

MS KELLY: Well, not necessarily marketing. We will

be looking at the tourism implication of all the enhancement agreements and all

the work that has been done on salmon rivers. You know, there is so much

inter-relationship between all of this. Today I spent two hours meeting with the

Department of Forestry Resources and Agrifoods as it relates to the new guide

regulations. So that is what this person would be doing in relation to

recreational fisheries.

MR. MERCER: Yes. I just thought that it would

perhaps be more appropriate - anyway, if it were an enhancement activity I would

see it more under the department of wildlife than anything else.

MS KELLY: It is not to work on the actual

logistics of the river and what decisions will be made, which ones will be

hatcheries and all the rest of it; it has nothing to do with that. This is just

strictly from a tourism point of view.

MR. MERCER: Yes. Two other short points. It was

mentioned in the Budget that the funding for Marble Mountain this year, the

operational side, would be reduced. Where is that in your estimates?

WITNESS: Page 189.

MS KELLY: Page 189. Oh, no, 190 isn't it, Travel

Generators - Marble Mountain?

Oh yes, under Tourism Development, Grants and

Subsidies, under 2.3.01.10.

MR. MERCER: So what is the amount that will be

allocated?

MS KELLY: The amount for Marble Mountain for this

year is $171,000 and that is all of the funding. That includes everything that

government will be assisting Marble Mountain with this year.

MR. MERCER: One other district-type question. The

T'railway, going down through the Humber Valley: As you know, the department of

transportation has done a great job in disrupting the rail bed and it no longer

exists in many places along the way; what are your department's plans for

continuity of the Linear Park down through the Humber Valley?

MS KELLY: Actually, I am expecting a report on

that very shortly, but, if I remember correctly, just before I went to Bristol a

verbal report of a meeting that was held, I guess now two weeks ago, indicated

to me that they have met and determined - I think, in particular, one of the

areas of concern was they are close to Marble Mountain and they have determined

now how they can accommodate that; also I think, accommodate a snowmobile trail

too that will go up one side of Marble Mountain and down around the back. So I

think what the people in the area have proposed as being a good alternative was,

in fact, approved in principle two weeks ago. I don't have any of the details,

though. I have not seen the written report of the meeting or anything else. I

just know that as it was verbally reported to me that they seem to have a

solution to the T'railway, where the gaps were in the system in your area.

MR. MERCER: Yes. I am aware that there was a

meeting in Corner Brook and I am aware that there was a proposal laid on the

table. I am just wondering if it has been accepted by your department or not.

MS KELLY: It has not come to me in writing yet. I

have not received it and been able to act on it yet.

MR. MERCER: Another concern that has been raised

in the Valley is that with the four-laning of the highway, a number of the

tourism facilities are on the edge of the Humber River, and the cross- country

hiking and cross-country skiing type activities are on the other side, and the

four-lane highway poses a bit of a barrier to get from one side to the other.

Has your department looked at the possibility of any pedestrian underpasses,

from a tourism point of view, to get from one side of the highway to the other?

MS KELLY: Other than the verbal report that I was

given just before I went to Bristol - apparently one of the rail overpasses that

were there, they have identified how that can be used as an area for skiers and

snowmobilers and that. That is the only knowledge that I have at the moment. I

would expect that the report that is coming to me would have those types of

recommendations in it. I have not met or worked on that since I have been the

minister.

MR. MERCER: Now the problem that is coming up is

from one of the cabin owners along the way. Of course, if he were to gain access

to the other side where all the forested land is, and all the ski trails and so

forth - he has to find a way to get across. It is just surprising perhaps that

there has been no consideration of that in the design of that highway down

through the Humber Valley.

MS KELLY: Because I do not have detailed knowledge

of it, certainly does not mean that it is not in the works or not being

considered or not in the plans. It is not something that I have worked on since

I have been the minister. We can certainly check but please do not take my lack

of knowledge about that as a sign that it might not be there.

MR. MERCER: Perhaps we could have some of your

officials make me aware of what plans tourism does have.

MS KELLY: That is certainly not a difficulty. Just

call my office with the appropriate questions or to set up meetings, whichever;

E-mail, I'm hooked in, I can certainly respond to all of those questions. Most

of the things I have been working on in your area since I have been the minister

are things like Marble Mountain and the Canada Games.

MR. MERCER: Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Mercer.

Mr. Fitzgerald, I believe you have a couple of

questions.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I have a couple of questions,

Mr, Chairman, thank you very much.

Madam Minister, is your department doing anything this

year to fund amateur sport over and above what has been done in other years? I

brought this concern up with you in private conversation one day. It bothers me

no end to see so many of our young people, especially at the high school level,

compete today and win awards, the provincial championships, if you will, to go

and compete in other areas - I think of the Atlantic area or beyond - and not be

able to attend and compete because of lack of funding. It is great to say, go

out and raise the money. You may be able to do that very well here in St. John's

or Gander or Corner Brook, but in places like Bonavista and King's Cove, I can

tell you it is very, very hard to go out and raise enough money to take a team

to travel to Halifax or somewhere else out of this Province.

If I recall correctly, I believe when the Atlantic

Loto Corporation was first brought about, and we seemed to have accepted

gambling here in the Province, that was one of the things that was put forward

in order to promote and justify it, that some of the profits would be directed

towards amateur sport.

Is there anything extra being done or are people just

going to be left hanging there like they have been in the past? I would like to

see you make a commitment yourself that you would look at that and probably look

at funding some of those smaller areas that have competed provincially, have

done very well and have been denied the opportunity to compete further. What are

your thoughts on it?

MS KELLY: From under the category of Canada Games

Sport Development Fund, we have $100,000 and this is a new initiative which is

phase two or a four-year sport development plan to prepare the Newfoundland and

Labrador Contingent because obviously we are the host team in 1999. Other than

that there has not been extra funding identified.

From a priority point of view, it was felt very

important for us to try and keep the funding there for NLPRA which certainly

does a lot in the amateur program for Sport Newfoundland and Labrador which is

the umbrella group for all of our sports groups and for the high school

federation which is probably really the core of development sports programs for

our youth, as it relates to teenagers from ages thirteen to eighteen in

particular.

There isn't any new money for travel subsidies in this

budget. It was felt to be of prime importance to protect what we have and to be

able to give out the money that we give to softball associations, soccer,

volleyball, and so on.. Then it is up to them how they use that money. Of

course, because the funds are so limited for them, it is of more use for the

development of the sports here in the Province.

MR. FITZGERALD: There is certainly a need there,

that is for sure, and it is one direction, I think, where we should be spending

some money, or at least allocate some money for the reasons I've just put

forward.

Minister, how about the Arts and Culture Centres? Any

thoughts on privatizing the Arts and Culture Centres or having them on a stand

alone basis? I think you made some comments today. I didn't hear them, but did

somebody say that you had made a statement today, or put out a news release,

regarding Arts and Culture Centres?

MS KELLY: It was not a news release as such. It

was the media calling me. I had met with the managers of the Arts and Culture

Centres on Friday afternoon when they were here for regularly scheduled

meetings. We had a discussion of the future of the Arts and Culture Centres, in

light of the fact that funding is very limited for them, and looked at new

options that might be available, and looked at putting some plans on the table.

Of course, the mangers are the experts in the system. For a long time many

people have been saying that the Arts and Culture Centres could be run

differently and more efficiently.

In light of the fiscal realities, we asked for their

advice, really. They will put a working committee together that will report back

to me, and then of course we will consult with the regions where there are Arts

and Culture Centres. We came from the basic premise that we want all of them to

remain open and we want all of them to be viable, but also recognize that each

of them are very different. Two of them have swimming pools in them, two of them

have libraries in them. One, in Stephenville, I think, is a stand alone Arts and

Culture Centre. It doesn't have a library or a pool or any extra facilities in

it.

We are certainly taking a look at it. I don't know

what advice they will come back with, whether it will be anything from

privatization to community involvement, to a non-profit corporation, to Crown

corporations, to a modified status quo.

MR. FITZGERALD: One other question, for

clarification. On the John Cabot 500th Anniversary Celebrations, the

appropriation there for $2.9 milli