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 the proper standards, in particular, as it relates to accessibility and public 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.

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 million: Is that $2.9 million the total amount of money that the provincial government will be spending right across Newfoundland and Labrador?

MS KELLY: Yes, for this year.

MR. FITZGERALD: For this year.

MS KELLY: Yes, that is this year's funding.

MR. FITZGERALD: So the $2.5 million that you identified is what will be spent in the town or in the Bonavista area.

WITNESS: Through economic renewal.

MS KELLY: You see, there are two different pots here, I guess is what we are saying. Some of it is economic renewal. Most of the funds that are going to Bonavista, I think, for the stadium are being done through economic renewal. Then there is the regular appropriation here under the Cabot, which is for the whole Province, which is $2.9 million.

Do you know offhand how much of that is allotted to Bonavista? That is where Brent's salary would be and that sort of thing, isn't it?

MR. HAYWARD: It is all mixed up there. We are talking about part of the Matthew downpayment. It is really difficult (inaudible).

MS KELLY: Most of it would, though, involve the Matthew contract and the staff who are presently in place, and the work we are doing with I don't know how many volunteer groups right throughout the Province. Some of it also is training that we are offering, SuperHost training, I think.

MR. FITZGERALD: How are you planning on dealing with accommodations on the Bonavista Peninsula for the 1997 celebrations? Have you given that any thought?

MS KELLY: We certainly have. It has been one of the major items of discussion that we have been having with the committee. I've met with the chair of the committee, George Clements I think his name is, down in that area, and he certainly identified it as a concern. We are looking at the Home Stay program, also designating - I think they are sort of looking at the whole area and identifying where open fields are so you could have temporary camp sites and temporary trailer sites and that. We have even gone so far as - and it is being studied right now - looking at the Hibernia site and running a shuttle bus up and down the peninsula. Also, very actively looking at bringing a cruise ship into the harbour. We have been able to ascertain that the QEII that they thought might be available, is not available. We are following three or four other leads at the moment, looking at identification of cruise ships that would be allowed to do this in Canadian waters. There are a lot of very restrictive covenants on some of these ships of what they can and can't do in circumstances like that.

MR. FITZGERALD: I don't believe I have anything else. I think that is pretty well it for me.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Fitzgerald.

Mr. Osborne.

MR. OSBORNE: Just a couple of more questions. I promise they will be a little bit easier. The Fort Amherst historic site, that is a federal historic site. I'm just wondering if the provincial government has any aspirations of doing anything with that site, or indeed following through with their federal counterparts to have the site restored. Right now it is in a serious state of dilapidation.

MS KELLY: I would have to check for you under the ERA, but it doesn't ring a bell with me that they are there under the site appropriations for this year. I've read through just the draft documents where we are putting money this year and that one is not on the site plan for this year. I don't know if Ms Batstone can -

MS BATSTONE: I guess one of the sad parts about any aspect of down sizing and budget restraint is that we have literally dozens - I would be almost tempted to say hundreds, but certainly dozens - of significant historic sites around the Province, that if resources were available we would certainly want to start to develop. Develop might mean something as simple as stabilizing, holding on to what we have.

What we have had to do, unfortunately, is be extremely stringent about that which is identified as needing further stabilization from the point of view that they are already named as significant sites, and trying to identify those that in the near future are going to need some attention. That would be one of them. As you say, there is federal work going on there, and at the moment we don't have the resources to do anything from a provincial standpoint. Whether we will be able to in the next few years is another question.

MR. OSBORNE: Is there federal work?

MS BATSTONE: I don't think there is any actual federal development, but there is certainly an interest in that whole area out there by the federal government.

MR. OSBORNE: That is probably an area, Minister, that I would ask if you can check on; I would appreciate it. That is an historic site that probably hasn't had any restoration work done on it for the better part of two decades. If we don't do something with it very soon - I know that the concrete stairs and walls of the old ammunition shells out there now, and the gun shelters and so on, are just falling apart. If there isn't something done with that soon it isn't going to be there for the next generation to see, for sure.

MS BATSTONE: Yes, and I think you are making an excellent point there. Even a place like the Quidi Vidi Battery this year, we are going to have to do some serious looking at how we are going to keep the parapet there from crumbling. All of these sites, once they are identified, are the Province's responsibility to keep safe and stable. As our dollars decrease our needs don't decrease, and that comes down after all to establish some very difficult priorities. Not everything is going to survive if we don't have the resources.

MR. OSBORNE: No, for sure. If that is a federal site and they have been neglecting it, is there some way we, as a provincial government, can have the federal government do something with that?

MS KELLY: Well, I would certainly check into that on your behalf. There are various designations inasmuch as some sites, such as Cape Spear, are designated as a national historic park and that brings a certain level of care to it. Sometimes it is just recognized as having national significance and plaqued, which means they don't have any financial responsibility to do anything with it.

For instance, the Fleur de Lys quarry that was identified by Mr. Shelley earlier will be plaqued this summer actually, to recognize that this is a prehistoric site having national importance, but it won't be taken over by the federal government to do anything with. So there are various designations which carry differing responsibilities.

MR. OSBORNE: Just on an employment initiative type of question: If the federal government is not going to do anything with these sites, they are just going to simply plaque them and leave them there, I wonder if there is any way we can probably have a private operator take over a site like this where they can charge a small admission, and in so doing both create employment and probably sustain the historic site?

MS KELLY: In some areas that would be appropriate to consider, and something that would have to be approached very carefully in the Province, as I think Ms. Batstone has said. There are different responsibilities that go with different designations, but there is also a need to do this, certainly in concert with public consultation. I think we have recently seen the amount of public interest in Signal Hill when it was looked at charging an admission fee for something as precious really as that resource is. I think the people of the Province have indicated in many ways that they are not prepared to pay on some sites. So I think it would have to be something that would have to be very carefully planned, but I think in light of the discussion that we have just been having about how tight resources are, it is certainly something that will have to be looked at in the upcoming year as we go, but it is something with which I would proceed very cautiously.

MR. OSBORNE: Another question that I have as well: I had a discussion with a gentleman who has a licensed chip-vending truck, I guess you would call it, and set up two years ago on the Cape Spear site. He had brought out with him garbage disposal containers, picnic benches and so on, and kept the area he had set up just outside the park well-manicured and tidy and so on. The federal government officials basically evicted him because of the fact that he was not allowed to be selling there.

Now, I find that quite strange, that in a province where we are starving for more employment, if you go out to Cape Spear there are no snack shops and no fast-food outlets. There is nothing out there in that regard and yet, you know, somebody with a chip-vending truck, who is employing two or three people, will be asked to leave the site.

MS BATSTONE: Was he outside park limits?

MR. OSBORNE: No. He was outside of the actual lighthouse and so on, but apparently most of that area is recognized as federal.

MS BATSTONE: There is a park boundary. Was he within the park boundary, which goes out -

MR. OSBORNE: Well, that I am not sure of. He was set up in a small green space on the side of the road and he was asked to leave. He was told that he was not allowed to be operating there.

MS BATSTONE: The chances are he was inside the park boundary, in which case that would be a federal decision. If he were outside of the park boundary, it would not be a federal decision and I don't know whose decision it would be at that point.

MR. OSBORNE: So, indeed, would somebody be permitted to set up just outside the federal boundaries there?

MS KELLY: I think it would have be a matter whereby you would have to really have all of the zoning, all of the land use plan, in front of you. You know, usually with these things, there are two or three different issues that can come into play here. I am not sure where the closest municipality is, whether they would have any land use planned for there or if it is Crown land or if it privately owned. It is something that you would really have to be prepared to sit down and have the appropriate Federal people there to understand the rationale behind their decision and to find out was it even a matter of not applying for the appropriate permits. There are too many questions here, I think, to sit down and discuss this this evening and understand what is happening without the appropriate people here and the appropriate facts.

MR. OSBORNE: That is probably another area that, as a provincial government, you, or we collectively I guess, can explore. I mean, maybe if the Federal Government were approached and were paid a small fee to lease a certain area of land within the park even, that would create employment. I was told that there are upwards of 300,000 people who visit Cape Spear every summer.

MS KELLY: That is true, but I think it is a matter, for instance, whereby the tourism development officers that we have in place could work with the individual that you are referring to and see where the problems are.

MR. OSBORNE: Not even just particularly him, but anywhere in the Province, whether it be a provincial historic site or a national historic site. Maybe we should start making provisions, and make it more professional looking than just a snack truck set up.

MS KELLY: We have been certainly doing that. I mean if you look at the initiatives in our provincial parks, we have worked with private operators and allowed private operators to go in there and certainly work very closely with them. That is why we have tourism development officers. It is very difficult in a Province as vast as this one, with as many different parks and historic resources, federal and provincial and all at different levels, to ever have a broad policy that would cover everyone. I think that government have indicated they are certainly interested enough in economic development and tourism development and also to ensure that things are done appropriately.

As regards to setting up concessions and everything like that, it would be a matter of individuals who are interested in working with tourism development, either associations or our own department, in that area and then working it through the appropriate system. On the whole, the ones that I have been working with, as minister, you know, it is not a long onerous process, you can usually tell right from the beginning whether you can be of assistance or not, and you just sit down and work it through. We have had some very successful concessions started in some of the parks that have been privatized, and we are certainly ready and willing to listen and to work with anyone who would like to pursue initiatives like that.

MR. OSBORNE: Okay. Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Osborne.

Are there any further questions?

Well, thank you very much.

MR. FITZGERALD: What is the federal/provincial breakdown for the Economic Renewal Agreement?

MS KELLY: Eighty/twenty.

MR. FITZGERALD: Eighty/twenty. Eighty federal and twenty provincial?

MS KELLY: Yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

So the next Order of Business will be - I believe the Minutes were circulated. Has everybody read the Minutes?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: There is an error.

CHAIR: Okay, what is the error?

MS KELLY: Anthony Sparrow filled in for me on Thursday and it is not indicated.

CHAIR: We will adjust the Minutes.

On motion, Minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Madam Minister, we appreciate your time this evening. I believe I can speak for the whole committee when I say that we are impressed with the enthusiasm with which you approached this particular ministry. This is another resource department. It is the last one in our estimates committee. It has tremendous potential. I think you are in the business of marketing our people, our heritage, our culture and our natural beauty.

We thank your officials. The questions that were raised tonight were thoughtful and the answers were equally thoughtful.

Before I go to the motion on the headings, I would just like to say that, given that this is the last meeting of this estimate committee, I just want to say how much I appreciate the work of the committee members. The decorum was ten out of ten and I appreciate that. The questions were always thoughtful, not in just this particular department but all departments and I appreciate that this particular committee was able to unfold like that.

I would now ask the Clerk to call the headings, inclusively.

CLERK (Elizabeth Murphy): Subheads 1.1.01 through 6.2.02, inclusive.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 6.2.02, carried.

On motion, Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, total heads, carried.

On motion, Committee adjourned.