Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Ernest McLean, MHA for Lake Melville, replaces Lloyd Matthews, MHA for St. John's North, and Paul Shelley, MHA for Baie Verte, replaces Ed Byrne, MHA for Kilbride.

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

CHAIR (Alyward): Order, please!

Today, Mr. Shelley will be substituting for Mr. Ed Byrne, and Mr. McLean for Mr. Matthews. Very good substitutions, I think.

Welcome, minister and officials. It is good to see you all. Familiar faces, one and all, it is good to see you. This is the Resource Estimates Committee of the House of Assembly and we are going through the Estimates of Tourism, Culture and Recreation this evening. If we could have the Committee MHAs introduce themselves, then we will go to the minister.

MR. TAYLOR: Trevor Taylor, MHA for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. SHELLEY: Paul Shelley, MHA for Baie Verte.

MR. H. HODDER: Harvey Hodder, MHA for Waterford Valley.

MR. McLEAN: Ernie McLean, MHA for Lake Melville.

MS M. HODDER: Mary Hodder, MHA for Burin-Placentia West.

MR. BUTLER: Roland Butler, MHA for Port de Grave.

CHAIR: Madam Minister, if you would like to introduce your officials.

MS BETTNEY: What I will do is ask them to introduce themselves.

MR. NORRIS: Good evening.

I am Garry Norris, Deputy Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MS MacLELLAN: Heather MacLellan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Culture.

MR. JANES: Vic Janes, Assistant Deputy Minister of Tourism and Recreation.

MR. MAHONEY: Shane Mahoney, Executive Director, Science.

MR. CAHILL: Mike Cahill, Director for Parks and Natural Areas.

MR. HANCOCK: Jim Hancock, Director of Inland Fish and Wildlife.

MR. CROCKER: Gerry Crocker, Director of Finance and General Operations.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Our normal routine is to have the minister do the introductory remarks. If you would like to do that, then we will have some thoughts from our Committee.

Minister.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

For those who are not familiar with the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the thing that I would say that would introduce you to my department best would be, that it is very diverse, as you can tell from the list of officials that I have with me, and the kind of areas that they represent.

Our department deals with the tourism industry as a piece of the economic development of this Province; but, in addition to that, it also deals with our culture, with our heritage. It looks at preserving our culture. It looks at more than even preserving our culture, also cultivating our contemporary arts.

When you look at our heritage from the natural heritage perspective, we are responsible for managing wildlife, inland fish resources. We also have responsibility for recreation, sport, and all of the issues associated with trying to promote active living in the Province.

When you stop and think about it, we cover everything from parks to historic sites, Arts and Culture Centres, moose, fish, recreation centres, swimming pools and so on and so on, as well as some artifacts that are probably in the order of hundreds of thousands of years old.

WITNESS: Three million.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, in the order of 3 million artifacts.

It is a very diverse, very interesting department.

From the tourism perspective, it has been a significant economic generator that affects all parts of our Province, but I would have to say it affects the rural areas of our Province more so even than the urban areas. It has grown steadily over the past decade or so. Now, it represents a $600 million industry, half of which, $300 million of which, is really non-resident tourism.

One of the big things that we undertook as a department last year was to do a marketing review to ensure that as we try and use our resources wisely to promote tourism, that we are doing the best job possible. We have completed that study now and are moving into the implementation phase. That is one of the things that is top on our list from the tourism perspective this year. We will be establishing a marketing council that will be industry driven. We are in the process of getting that established at this time.

If you look at the culture division, of course, The Rooms is the big project that is ongoing for us, and has been for a couple of years. It is scheduled to be opened in the spring, 2004. You can all see it take shape in front of your view, I am sure, as you look out from Confederation Building and perhaps wherever you drive or walk within the City of St. John's. It is a $50 million project, give or take. I believe $47.8 million is the exact estimate. At the present time, my officials are very busy in trying to prepare all of the exhibits for moving to The Rooms. The construction project is one project in and of itself that is huge in scale, but the task of trying to prepare the wealth of resources and exhibits that we have to place into this new facility is rather daunting as well. Heather has been working on that for some time. Any of you who caught the article in The Rooms would recognize that there is a lot of very interesting work going on that people are really excited about.

Scan across to the Science Division and we look at the importance of the work that this division has to do in doing good, solid research in order to provide us with the best possible information in order to manage our resources in the natural area. We are facing a number of challenges. We are pleased that this year in the Budget we have added the extra $1 million, which was announced last year. A total of $2.8 million was announced for science, recognizing that we have some real challenges in making sure we know what is happening with our animal populations: with moose, with caribou, and even with the small game. This year we will be spending a considerable amount of energy, human resources as well as financial resources, in making greater gains in doing that research.

The Inland Fish and Wildlife Division, of course, manage the hunting system for the Province. They are the ones who establish the plans and rely on the work from the Science Division in order to do good plans. I understand from my notes that Jim has given me, that at the present time we have issued over 110,000 applications for moose and caribou licences and we have received back in 20,000 of those. Interestingly, this year 7,000 of those have come by the Internet, which is a new system for us to give access to register online, and we hope within the next year or so to be able to do the full process online. I think that will be tremendous advantage to hunters across the Province.

We remain committed, of course, to protecting our endangered species. One of the things that government succeeded in doing in the previous year - I think it was in 2001 - was the establishment of the endangered species legislation. We are pleased this year to continue with the listing of those species. It is good to see the level of buy-in that is taking place right at the community level to look after these species and to want to take action and stewardship within the communities to protect our plant and animal life. There is a great deal of excitement out there. I know on the Northern Peninsula, in particular, in the area of our endangered plants, there is tremendous excitement in the Burnt Cape area about what they are doing.

I have two other areas to scan and I will do it quickly. We have, of course, our Recreation and Sport division of the department, which has the responsibility to try and promote active living with people throughout the Province. One of the ways they do it is through the support to sport. The key issue for us this year is the replacement of the Torbay Rec Centre, which we had to close this time last year because of concerns about structural integrity of the building. We are in the process now of developing a proposal, which will go out and look for expressions of interest for public-private partnership in this area.

Within the next week I hope that we will be able to announce the house sites for the 2004 Summer Games and the 2006 Winter Games. Those invitations were sought for proposals in the fall. We are just about at the decision point now to be able to make that decision and then release the announcement.

Final area, Parks And Natural Areas. The Province has, of course, a core network of fourteen provincial parks, and the best provincial parks that you will find anywhere in the country. Some of the best parks you will find anywhere in North America and elsewhere. We also have six natural scenic attractions. They provide just a huge range of outdoor recreational experience, not only for our residents but, of course, for our tourists. They are well recognized as part of our tourist attraction as well. The 2002 season was one of the most successful that we have had to date. Camping usage went up in the Province last summer by over 16 per cent. Everywhere you went you seen people pulling in with RVs and trailers and there was an awful lot of tourist traffic on the go in our parks all summer.

So ladies and gentlemen, that gives you a snapshot of our department and some of the key areas and issues that we are looking at as a department. With that, I will conclude my remarks and turn it over to questions.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Madam Minister. I appreciate that.

Who would like to start?

Mr. Hodder.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I have to say that this is a new critic portfolio for me, although I have been around recreation and that for a long time, as Vic would know, and as the minister herself would know, but I have not been into this particular area. It is interesting. I just took over this critic role a few weeks ago, and I am in the process of learning something about a lot and I am not into all of the details yet.

First of all, I wanted to go to the Estimates on page 149. Minister, I just assume that in the Minister's Office and the Executive Support, these changes there are really just routine changes brought about by either steps, or there is not anything significant, I do not think, there. For example, in Salaries you changed from $279,700 to $301,900. That seems to be just a routine change brought about by rate increases and that kind of thing. The same thing, I think, is true for the Executive Support changes that are there.

MS BETTNEY: That is right.

MR. H. HODDER: I wanted to go over to Tourism, which is on page 151. We looked at Purchased Services in Tourism. Of course, we are talking here about developing tourism products, encouraging residents from other provinces and including, of course, I think, an area where we can do - better is not the right word, but we still have markets we can develop encouraging our own people in Newfoundland and Labrador to be tourists in their own Province, although there is more of that going on now.

When you mention Purchased Services, which is 2.1.01.06, you have $5 million there, up about $500,000 from last year. I am wondering what would cause us to have that kind of an increase in one year.

MS BETTNEY: This item refers to expenses that are incurred under the Agency of Record that we have for marketing and tourism. It also relates to our purchased advertising, so the amount of money that we have allocated in there includes an increase for a joint venture marketing program. Perhaps I can ask Vic to give you any specifics on that, that you would like. Essentially, it is not a large increase when you look at our marketing budget. For most of the case here we do have to go out and purchase that, so it is a costly item.

Vic, is there anything you can add to that, please?

MR. JANES: Thanks, Minister.

This particular increase, yes, references a program that the Canadian Tourism Commission has. The Canadian Tourism Commission offers a range of programs and they offer the opportunity for provincial governments, for tourism agencies, for businesses, in fact, to partner with them and to do additional marketing that would be marketing some particular part of Canada. In this case, this joint venture marketing program is a marketing effort that we will launch into the U.S., leveraging money from them and some of our own money.

It is interesting to note that right now that program is on hold until we see what is happening with respect to the U.S. being at war and so on. The Canadian Tourism Commission themselves are monitoring very closely the impact on tourism decisions that are being caused by the war, and once that stabilizes we will then move on and do an actual campaign in the U.S.. Primarily, this is a U.S. focused effort that we will make and it will be new for us using those CTC dollars.

MR. H. HODDER: That $350,000 there from the federal government, is that part of a federal-provincial agreement that we have that has been ongoing for some time?

MR. JANES: No, in fact, Minister, if I may -

MS BETTNEY: Go ahead.

MR. JANES: That $350,000 is the CTC portion of a $375,000-plus that we will be spending in that U.S. campaign. That is the actual money that is coming from the federal agency.

MR. H. HODDER: We hear some talk that some of the federal-provincial agreements that are across government have expired or are about to expire. Is there any concern about this particular vote of money from the federal government? Is this agreement in place for this year, and what is the status of - or is this one affected at all by the current problem that the provinces are having negotiating agreements with the feds on joint ventures and sharing arrangements?

MS BETTNEY: There are two issues here. The first would be with respect to this specific vote of Purchased Services, which is the program that Vic referred to as one which is partnered with the Canadian Tourism Commission, which, of course, is not part of the federal government. It is an agency, a Crown corporation, Vic?

MR. JANES: (Inaudible).

MS BETTNEY: So, on that front, we continue to partner with the Canadian Tourism Commission wherever we have the dollars to be able to provide our share, and it is more a question of whether their markets are the primary markets that we are going after; and can we afford to buy in with them. So, there is not an issue there.

Where there would be an issue, however, is from the larger tourism marketing budget. In fact, last year we were able to access $1 million from the federal government through the CEDA program, and at this point, of course, the CEDA agreement ceased as of March 31, so we do not know that we have a replacement for that extra $1 million from the federal government at this time. We have, as a Province, invested ourselves extra into this area but, of course, overall our marketing plan has told us that we should be investing in the order of $9 million to $10 million. We have been on a path over the past two years to increase the amount that we are investing but we are still $3 million to $4 million away from where we would like to be. So, that $1 million from the federal government would be critical to helping us increase our efforts in marketing.

CHAIR: Mr. Hodder.

MR. H. HODDER: Just - and I will move it down then to one of the other people.

In the next subheading, Marketing Agreements, which are some of the things you just mentioned, I see here that you have mention made in the note, of "...industry partners to encourage international visitation from Europe, Japan and the United States." Have we done any studies to show how we break down in terms of where people are coming from? For example, since you mentioned Europe, Japan and the United States, do you have anything to show what returns we are getting in terms of the success of our advertising to show that the dollars that we are investing are prudently spent?

MS BETTNEY: The marketing review that we did last year undertook to study that specifically, and what the study showed was that 80 per cent of our tourism market comes from the Maritimes and Ontario. Another 15 per cent comes from Alberta and other parts of the country. That leaves us with a very small portion of our tourism visitor who comes from either the U.S., Europe, Japan - those are the three areas. In terms of scale, you would see a larger number of visitors from the U.S. Although, as I say, relatively speaking very small compared to the Canadian numbers. Following that it would be Europe and then Japan, in that order.

We really only go in partnership with the Atlantic Canada Tourism Partnership agreement to try and tap these markets. We simply do not have the resources to make an impact on the European market, even though we know that Great Britain and Germany, even France, would offer a significant tourist to this Province. There are a lot of tourists who would really look for this kind of experience but it is a very sophisticated market and it is a very costly market. So to make an impact on that would take far more marketing dollars than we have. We keep a presence by our Atlantic partnership money but we realize that we have to focus on maintaining the base that we have, within the country particularly. So that is where the bulk of our marketing money goes.

MR. H. HODDER: In terms of the difficulties that, for example, the air line industry is having right now with the difficulties in getting flights into Newfoundland and out of Newfoundland or even travelling within the provinces, particularly if you are looking at Labrador, it is very problematic. What impacts or what studies have you done to address the concern? What is the concern and impact on the tourism industry in 2003, of the changes in the air line industry? Which I know changes from day to day because what was supposed to happen last week has probably changed this week.

MS BETTNEY: We have ongoing discussions with Air Canada, in particular, on this subject. We are very concerned about the changes in the European market and the connection between Heathrow and St. John's. Those flights have been decreased significantly, particularly in the shoulder season. The ironic part of it is, for us, we are trying to build our tourism industry into the shoulder seasons in order to make it a more viable industry; but, at the same time, because of the nature of the airline connections now, we are significantly restricted in airline travel between Great Britain and this Province.

I had some discussions with a business group in Corner Brook, who bring in tour groups of school children from Manchester to Marble Mountain to ski for a week at a time. They said the impact of this decision - because it will add a whole day of travel for these young people, and will make it so that it would be a very difficult sell to get them to take the trip when they have to spend fourteen or fifteen hours more in getting here.

I am very concerned about the impact of our air connections. It is an issue - through, of course, our intergovernmental efforts - we have been trying to address. We just keep getting the message to Air Canada of the impact that this has on our industry. We have heard it, as well, from other sources - from Deer Lake, as you say, from Labrador as well - but I would say that the efforts of Provincial, and also of Air Labrador, have helped to fill in behind the Air Canada moves in some of our regional airports. It is still an issue though.

In talking to the outfitting industry, it is a huge issue for them; not only one of access for their hunters, but of capacity in terms of the airlines in taking out the meat when they have their hunts. Now with these small aircraft, there is not the same capacity to ship out the meat for the hunters who are successful when they come here. That is something that industry, which is close to a $40 million industry in the Province, is extremely worried about.

CHAIR: If you could identify yourself when you speak, just for the officials, in particular. Once you do it once, they will get you, but you need to do it a couple of times.

Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: Minister, I will start off with a question on 6.1.02.10, Community Sports Facilities, page 159, Grants and Subsidies. I notice a fairly big - there is probably a very obvious explanation that I missed somewhere along the way. In the Budget last year there was budgeted $227,000 and it was revised subsequently to $977,00 and now we are back to $227,000 this year. Would you -

MS BETTNEY: Can you tell me which number you are on again? I missed it.

MR. TAYLOR: I am sorry. Page 159, Community Sports Facilities, 6.1.02.10. It was budgeted for $227,000 and was revised to $977,000. It was a fairly big revision, obviously. I suppose there is probably a very obvious point that was in the news somewhere that I missed, but anyway -

MS BETTNEY: This refers to the construction, the building fund for the recreation centre in Sheshatshiu. I believe that was the amount of $750,000 which was earmarked for that project, otherwise it was status quo.

MR. TAYLOR: I said there was an obvious explanation there that I missed.

Minister, you mentioned Burnt Cape in your opening remarks and talked about endangered plants and reserve areas, and what have you, in The Straits area. I know that over the past couple of years government, one department or another - as I understand it, last year your department provided some funds to the Friends of Burnt Cape or - I am not sure which committee it was provided to, or the town council, whatever, for the provision of a couple of guides for a short period of time during the summer when the tourist season was on the go. Where in the Estimates would that be found?

MS BETTNEY: We should pick that up under Parks and Natural Areas, and perhaps I can ask my director, Mike Cahill, to comment on the specific subsection that you would find it in.

MR. CAHILL: Mr. Taylor, it is 4.1.01 Provincial Parks and Natural Areas. It would be, in this particular case, under either .05 Professional Services or under .10 Grants and Subsidies, that we would once again provide funds, as we did last year for the guides.

MR. TAYLOR: Am I to understand from what you just said that that will be done again this year? There is some concern there that - not that there would not be, but they are concerned about the timing, I suppose, and had not heard anything up to - two weeks ago they were wondering where it was and brought it up to me.

MR. CAHILL: It was simply a question of this year whether there would be either back as guides under our salaried positions or under the grant. That was the only debate, really.

MR. TAYLOR: What was the decision?

MR. CAHILL: It would be under the grant approach, the same as last year.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

Is there any particular reason why it would be under grant? The question that came to me from them on the grant thing was - this is a growing concern, I suppose, in the area. It is an attraction, and visitations have obviously increased fairly significantly and they see it as a tourism attraction and what have you, as something that the community wants to build upon. Is there any thought within the department to rolling it into a more permanent arrangement than grants, something similar to Pistolet Bay Provincial Park type of operation with the staffing or not?

MS BETTNEY: I can comment on that. I think the first thing that we want to recognize here is that there is a significant community partnership here. Part of what we want to try and enhance and nurture is that partnership arrangement and the grants and subsidies tend to work well in that regard.

One of the things that we will have to do as we get further into these natural areas and preserving some of the many endangered species that we have, and other areas developed like the Burnt Cape Ecological Reserve, we will have to look at what kind of resourcing will it require to provide the appropriate (a) protection, but also (b) interpretation and (c) assistance in that area. It will be a big issue for us if it has a large price tag attached to it. For the moment, with what we have, we want to stay with the grants and subsidies but I think it will be something we will have to look at more comprehensively as more of these areas come on stream.

MR. TAYLOR: I guess, because of my background - I know you said that if any of us look out our window we could see The Rooms going up -

MS BETTNEY: You cannot miss it.

MR. TAYLOR: When I look out my window, I see the Fisheries College and I suppose that is only fitting, isn't it?

I will ask the same question that I asked of you last year, and of the former minister the year before, who actually attended a function that I attended - the former minister, that is - a little over a year ago.

MS BETTNEY: Could I ask: Did either of us answer it?

MR. TAYLOR: You did, but it has not been actioned. Let me put it that way, Minister.

CHAIR: The Chair (inaudible) this year. Keep going.

MR. TAYLOR: Like I said, I asked the question last year and the year before. Last year, we were at a function down at the Convention Center here in town and there was a substantial amount of money committed by Persona Communications and thereafter a significant - by indications of the willingness to make a significant contribution on the part of the fishing community to the establishment of a fishing industry monument in the Province. Personally, it is something that a few of us - the Folk of the Sea, the Fishermen's Union and the fishing community - started kicking around about ten years ago. It is a very personal thing with me now. I did not mind two years ago; I could ask it with a little - it was getting away from it a little bit, but after ten years, personally, I think it is disgusting. The only reason we ever came over here is because of fish and, as a people, we have never recognized, never put up any kind of a monument or anything to commemorate the people who worked in the industry.

I have to ask again - I will never get the opportunity to ask it in Question Period with everything else that is on the go. When is somebody in government going to make an appropriate financial commitment - I just listened to you say $47 million for The Rooms. Somebody is going to have a hard time explaining to me how we cannot find $500,000 to put up a suitable monument, when you go to Gloucester and find 300 or 400 fishermen's names sitting on a monument down there. It is deplorable. So I ask you if you will help make it happen?

MS BETTNEY: I know that there are discussions taking place on this subject with my officials and, as Heather has indicated, there is planning taking place with respect to trying to achieve the same end that you have just spoken to.

I believe that within the department, and certainly from my own perspective, we would support what you are saying. To have a monument to our fishery and to fishers is something we would all appreciate and would like to see happen. At the current time we do not have funding in this present Budget to undertake that. I think we have to continue to work on some planning and see what sources can be tracked and what else we can do to try and get it on a path where you will not be here in another year and another year. I can appreciate the frustration you have with it but in the budget situation that we have been in, we did not have the capacity for a new expenditure of this sort.

One of the things I would like to ask my ADM to speak to is, one of the initiatives that is happening with cooperation from the federal government is some work to preserve our fishing heritage, our built heritage, when it comes to the fishery. Heather, perhaps you can describe a little bit about what is happening with that because it is a relatively new program.

MS MacLELLAN: We put in place last year a Fishery Heritage Restoration Program with the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are the agency responsible for the preservation of the built heritage of the Province. We had allocated them some money to initiate a program, which they did, and they designated five projects around the project to receive some grants to do restoration on the exterior (inaudible) work on buildings. After that, we gave them an additional $30,000 to do some further buildings. Some in Woody Point, some in Change Islands, one on Grand Bank, and different fishing communities around the Province.

Subsequent to that, the federal government has put in place $8 million across Canada to assist provinces in encouraging the preservation of built heritage. In our Province that will mean a substantial amount in terms of our fishing heritage. This program is to put a national registry in place that will be computerized and will be linked in across all provinces. That will set certain standards and guidelines for preservation and leading to, hopefully, some new changes in the federal taxation system which would give benefits to people who are doing restoration for commercial purposes. This year we are taking three of our projects and testing the new standards and guidelines that are going to be developed as part of this project in several of these places that have been designated for fishing structures that are here. So that program is proceeding and we are really pleased with that.

I could also add that two members of the Department of Tourism are sitting on the Folk of the Sea Committee and we are providing professional and technical advice as this project is moving along. As the minister said, we are in the planning phases. We are presently negotiating with the Ports Authority for the lease of land right down on the harbour for the location of the monument. This was the site chosen by the fisherpeople themselves. They wanted to have it in St. John's. That partnership is coming together as we speak.

We are also presently putting together a committee to look at the fundraising portion of it. So when the final plans get completed, because we are now just also starting to initiate the actual planning for the monument, the actual landscape architecture and the sculptures of doing up a terms of reference for that work. When that scope of work is finished and the actual -

MR. TAYLOR: I have a picture.

MS MacLELLAN: You have a picture, do you?

MR. TAYLOR: Actually, I have been looking at it for ten years.

MS MacLELLAN: So, we are in the planning. When that piece of it gets finished they will be in a position to be able to see what the actual amount would be, that the request would come into government.

MR. TAYLOR: I am glad to hear that. I am certain that there is a fair amount of money out there in the private sector, both inside and outside of the fishery, which would be prepared to commit to that, but I think that everybody would be waiting for government to, at least, make the first move. They cannot make the first move now but they can still make the second one, I guess - for lack of a better way of putting it.

Anyway, on the fisheries infrastructure side of it, it is, as you said, part of our culture and heritage, and certainly worthy of preserving. I agree that we really need to move on that. I am not very old - and I am soon going to have to stop saying that. I have a while yet before I get to Harvey, so I can keep it going for a while yet. We are losing an awful lot of our fisheries infrastructure out there. Places like Raleigh, for example - I keep going back to Raleigh because Burnt Cape is there. There are certain locations where there are a whole bunch of different types of fisheries infrastructure that needs to be preserved. I see places like the Ryan Premises and I see places like - out in Bonavista North -

MS BETTNEY: Barbour House.

MR. TAYLOR: Barbour House and places like that. But there are those little stages, wharves and stageheads out there that really need to be preserved, in places like Croque - if you ever get the opportunity to go there. It is worth your while just to go down and look at it alongside the French graves. It is absolutely beautiful. I know there are issues of private ownership which have to be dealt with and all these types of things, but these things are quickly wasting away. There are places like Quirpon where everything is gone now. Twenty years ago it was full of wharves sticking out here and there, but there is not one left now. So we do not have much time left. Every spring every time the ballicatters fall they take a few more sticks. It is imperative that we find a way of catching the last of that before it is all lost to the future generations. I have to get off that because it is too close to me. I have to get away from that.

The French Shore, the French 400^th Anniversary, is there anything in this budget that I should see there, which is provincial funding committed to any kind of a lead up - promo, I suppose - to 2004?

MS BETTNEY: In the 2003-2004 Budget there is no specific allocation. In 2002-03, in last year's budget, we did provide the Francophone Association with a grant of $150,000 in order to help them do their preparations for the 2004 celebrations. They have applied to the federal government through the fund that is available for all of Atlantic Canada to leverage that money, really, in order to take on the key projects that they have planned for various parts of the Province. They have some tremendously exciting projects that are planned for communities all over the Province, from Baie Verte up to the Northern Peninsula, the West Coast, here in Placentia, all areas of the Province.

CHAIR: St. George's.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, that is right. The Port au Port Peninsula. I missed that, Mr. Chair.

They have succeeded actually in getting the interest of the Government of France as well in participating in some of these projects. We were recently informed - did they not receive a grant in the order of, I think, $15,000 towards one of the key projects? Was it the Chaloupe?

WITNESS: Yes.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, the building of the Chaloupe, the french dory equivalent that the Basque sailors used. So, they are using the funds that we provided them with last year. They are hoping to get more significant contributions from the federal government and they have been successful in even getting some interest from the Government of France, which we are very pleased with.

MR. TAYLOR: I just have one final question for now. Again, this is not really related - it is related to the estimates, I guess. How, in trying to, I suppose - and I know, as you said, you have millions of artifacts. Has the department done, or is it in the process, or any plans for - I know this is probably a monumental task, maybe never achievable, but as I go around, friends of mine on the Northern Peninsula who are divers talk about the substantial number of artifacts that they are aware of on the bottom from the French or whatever. It does not really matter what it is from I guess - it matters, but anyway. Is there any initiative in government to try and catalogue any of that? I know you could consume endless numbers of dollars in that kind of stuff. I am trying to ask this with some degree of realism attached to what I am asking. You can chew up a lot of money for probably not a lot of good. But, is there anything like that? Do you understand what I am asking?

MS BETTNEY: I know what you are asking. First of all, I would say that there is not a dedicated initiative that you would see resources allocated in this budget to apply to that. There would be a certain amount of tracking that would be done as things become known. Then, I believe, within the department that would be mapped and noted and that would apply. Of course the legislation would also apply to preserve and protect artifacts of that nature. They could not be removed.

Again, to go back to your original point, it would take considerable resources. We have a wealth of artifacts and resources that by virtue of being in a seafaring community and a seafaring island, rest on the bottom of our shores. We simply do not have the resources to try and go after those in a dedicated fashion at this time. Heather, is there anything you can add that would respond further to Mr. Taylor's question?

MS MacLELLAN: Mr. Taylor, the resources are protected under the Historic Resources Act. In order for them to be removed they need to have a licence through our division of archeology. Anything that is removed needs to be recorded. We inventory it and it becomes the property of the Crown. So anything that is happening, we are certainly recording it and preserving what we can. In some situations it may be best to leave some of the material where it is. We do have a fair number of collection in the collection already, in terms of items received.

The Sapphire, which was a very early wreck in Bay Bulls, was a wreck that had been dived on in - it an early 1700s wreck. It had been dived on. It had work done by both the federal and provincial governments about twenty years ago. These resources were with Parks Canada in Ottawa and they are now returning all of those artifacts to us as we speak. So, where there have been dedicated and professionally managed dives, we have that collection.

MR. TAYLOR: I will leave it there for now.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

They were very good questions, sir. I think they were very good questions. Very good answers, too, by the way.

MR. TAYLOR: That is rare in this House, isn't it? Not the questions, I mean.

CHAIR: I will leave that one alone altogether.

Mr. Shelley, you are on.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much.

Minister, I want to start off on marketing again because, personally, I have been at these before with the former minister and so on. I believe it is the key. I do not think anybody would argue that, that the marketing for our tourism industry is the key. Especially, I suppose, even in light of - when you talk about recent history, even in recent weeks and months when you look at the rural situation and 9/11 and so on, definitely marketing is the key for this Province. We know what we have. Besides the fact we have to build the infrastructure to make sure we progress from there, but marketing is the key.

A couple of the comments you made earlier, you said that somewhere between $9 million and $10 million would be a target that we are looking for, as a Province, when it comes to marketing money. Is that correct first, to get started?

MS BETTNEY: Yes, in the marketing study that we did last year, when we hired external consultants to review everything that we are doing and to help us develop a strategic plan, this was the amount that they targeted and indicated that is where it should be.

MR. SHELLEY: Where it would be appropriate.

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: You say that you are $3 million to $4 million short of that. Was that including the $1 million we lost from the federal government?

MS BETTNEY: At the present time, in this year's budget, we will have close to $6 million - Is that the correct figure? - and if we were to get the federal money replaced it would be $7 million.

MR. SHELLEY: So you are still $3 million short. The $9 million to $10 million amount that came from the study, would that be the optimum amount or would that be a lower level amount that we would need?

MS BETTNEY: I did not interpret it as optimum.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay. This is the point I am trying to get to.

MS BETTNEY: My understanding of the area of marketing is the more money that you have the more you can saturate a market, the more you can get results from it. So, I would say that the $9.2 million would give you a modest estimate.

MR. SHELLEY: Another question on marketing. When we talk about the $9 million, how much of that is for in-province marketing and how much of that is for outside the Province?

MS BETTNEY: Vic.

MR. JANES: Annually, we do not spend big money in-province. In fact, the last couple of years our in-province campaign has been only in the order of $130,000 that we spend. What we do with the in-province marketing campaign is we tend to partner with local operations and operators. So the actual program that gets expended is larger than our $130,000 because we have to use our money to leverage up and partner with industry, and it gets spent that way. Obviously, the biggest portion of our target with our marketing money is the non-resident went into (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I would expect the most of it is.

The next question on top of that then: Where is the focus, the strategy, on the marketing? Obviously, when you are talking about marketing - are you marketing Europe? Are you marketing Ontario and Quebec mostly? Is it going to the Eastern Seaboard? What is the strategy on the focus of marketing?

MS BETTNEY: What the consultants have advised in the review, in the study, is that we focus the majority of our resources where the majority of our tourists come from. That means that we focus the bulk of our resources on the Maritimes, Ontario, followed by Alberta and westward. Then following after that would be the U.S. Coming behind that then Europe and a very small (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: That is dynamic. That changes all the time. This year people studying the market might tell you that the Eastern Seaboard, et cetera, would be a place looking for travel. Depending on the dollars, there are all kinds of reasons that changes. That is why I asked where the focus would be.

On top of that, the marketing, I still believe that it is the key for our tourism industry. To get a little bit more specific, the provincial brochure, the booklet -

MS BETTNEY: The booklet?

MR. SHELLEY: When will it be ready this year? Will it be ready on time?

MS BETTNEY: It is out.

MR. SHELLEY: It is out now?

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: How long has it been out?

MS BETTNEY: About a month.

MR. SHELLEY: Not that long, is it?

MR. JANES: In fact, it was in our hands December 15. It was in circulation January 1.

MR. SHELLEY: It was in circulation January 1?

MR. JANES: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: I remember last year the Green Bay - I just want to put this by you and said I would ask it. It was an example, and I did not zone in on a lot of them, but Green Bay Tourism had a complaint that out of all the whole booklet they had a four or five line description. Just to take that specifically, there were some other complaints about that throughout the Province in different areas. I did read that particular section. They do have a lot more to offer than that. How is it this year? Was that complaint taken at heart by the department? They did get the complaint officially because I remember there was a letter gone to the minister up there.

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. JANES: Mr. Shelley, what happens normally with our guide - you need to see how this operates. Our guide, we try to keep to a certain size and that has to do with mailing; both mailing costs and mailing time. When you get beyond a certain weight in the mail system it not only costs you more to send it, it takes two and three times as long. To accomplish that we try to be concise with what goes in. We normally go out to organizations and ask them to provide us with information that they would like to see put in the guide on their particular operation or whatever it happens to be, but unfortunately we are not in a position to be able to take it all and put it in, because if we do, then, of course, the size begins to expand and then we have set ourselves to a point where it costs us more to deliver the guide to those who request it, plus the delivery time slows down, and delivery time is really important, this whole marketing effort to get that information in the hands of a person who is ready to make a decision about planning a trip. Because of that, we end up having to condense and put minimum information, but we do try to listen to folks when they do call us and write us and say they want more. Very often, we collaborate with them and give them something that is different to try to make sure that we do key on the highlights of what they want to promote.

MR. SHELLEY: That is fair enough. I have looked at theirs. They said that they sent in a lot more information that was there. I do not expect it all to be in there, but I think they had (inaudible) argument last year that they did not have very much for what was in the area.

I guess we all do a little plug on our own areas of the Province at times, but that Green Bay, White Bay area, that whole section, we all argue the scenic beauty of every section of our Province, like we should do, but I find that many times that part is left out. I know other members have argued, on all sides, that sections of the Province are left out when it comes to the attention it gets, especially in our own brochures and things of that nature. I guess it is an argument that will go on forever.

MR. TAYLOR: Icebergs (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: But scenic Green Bay is still scenic Green Bay.

Just to comment on this, Minister, I just note from the remarks you made on the Torbay Rec Centre and you are looking at public-private partnership, how long will you be looking at that, and what are your views on that centre?

Personally, I know it very well because that was my first job when I graduated university. I was with Basketball Newfoundland, worked up there, saw those teams come through it, and saw how important it was to a lot of the kids. I coached provincial teams and that was very important; very important. So, really the future of that facility, what will happen to it, is an important matter. How do you view that centre right now?

MS BETTNEY: We are moving on that as we speak. We are in the process of developing the proposal which will invite Expressions of Interest. I would expect that we will have the proposals ready within - Gary, I am going to have to ask you help me on my memory here - four weeks?

MR. NORRIS: Four to five weeks.

MS BETTNEY: Four to five weeks. So, that would put us into mid-May to go out and look for those Expressions of Interest. I think, realistically speaking, by the time you would go through the process of then developing proposals we are going to be looking at the end of the calendar year before we really know what we are working with here. I would say it will be well into the fall before we know if any of the proposals that come forward are satisfactory and we can move on them. Then that will give us a few months to actually go into construction.

MR. SHELLEY: I might have missed something on this. So the report that came back on the structure that is up there now, is it feasible to refurbish or it has to be a new -

MS BETTNEY: No.

MR. SHELLEY: It is not, is it?

MS BETTNEY: No. The report that we had done indicated that there would be over $1 million worth of repairs that would be needed, and that did not take into consideration if there was any difficulty that we would run into with asbestos, things that you would typically find in an older building. With that in mind, we came to the conclusion that trying to refurbish the building out there just was not a cost-effective option.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay, that is fair enough.

Minister, we saw the Canada Games, and for people who followed that, for people who follow our athletes, which I do, we need some work in this area, there is no doubt about that, a facility like that or something to help our own athletes has to be found somehow.

MS BETTNEY: If I might just comment on the issue with respect to the Games and the performance of our athletes in the Games, I think one of the things that people sometimes overlook is the fact that if you were to track back over half-a-dozen Games or more in the Province, we consistently perform as we did this year: in the order of six, seven or eight medals. That is a normal performance for us.

I think part of what has influenced people's thinking around our performance in these Winter Games is the fact that in the last Winter Games we hosted them in Corner Brook and, as the host, we succeeded in winning nineteen medals, which was a huge blip. The year before that it would have been the seven or eight.

So we are tracking on a par with what is our normal performance, but I am sure everyone would like to see that increase. There is no question about it. The other good news from the last Games was that we did win gold medals and we won them in areas in which we have not done so before. I think our athletes performed extremely well, and I am sure it was a very rewarding experience for them regardless of medal counts. It is one of those issues where you can never do well enough.

MR. SHELLEY: That is always debatable. It is not always the medals, I would say to you.

MS BETTNEY: That is right.

MR. SHELLEY: I follow the placings that our teams come and how well they do compared to - I do not compare us to Ontario and B.C. because we cannot, but I can certainly compare us to P.E.I., New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. That is the more real comparison that I see.

MS BETTNEY: I think in that comparison, Mr. Shelley, we do fare well when you look at the other Atlantic Provinces. I believe this time we came in second to Nova Scotia -

MR. SHELLEY: Overall?

MS BETTNEY: Overall, when you look at the Atlantic Provinces.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay.

Moving on, I have to ask a question on The Rooms also. On page 153, under 3.1.04.10 The Rooms Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador, Grants and Subsidies, just an explanation, really. From your comments, again, from before, is this on what are doing on collecting, getting things ready and doing all these types of things?

MS BETTNEY: That is correct.

MR. SHELLEY: You budgeted it, and it was revised at the same amount last year, it is over $3.5 million, and you are going to spend another $4 million this year preparing those things that go in there?

MS BETTNEY: That is right.

MR. SHELLEY: When are we ready to open? Another year from now?

MS BETTNEY: In 2004.

MR. SHELLEY: So, another $4 million next year to keep getting things ready? Are we saying that?

MS BETTNEY: I am pretty sure and I believe that if we had double that amount it could be put to very good use. We have the largest collection, Heather, in the country?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MS BETTNEY: Items that just have not been prepared for exhibition or documented to any large extent, and there is a huge amount of work that has to go into getting them ready to go into a climate controlled facility like The Rooms in a way that you can display them and interpret them so that people can appreciate them. It is just a huge task.

MR. SHELLEY: That is what I am getting at, just to get the cost of it right. I am not questioning the importance of what you are doing. Basically, The Rooms will cost about $47 million, or $47.8 million?

MS BETTNEY: That is the capital construction costs.

MR. SHELLEY: It started at $42 million capital construction, wasn't it, or $43 million?

WITNESS: (Inaudible)

MR. SHELLEY: Forty, and went to $47 million.

MS BETTNEY: Forty-three.

MR. SHELLEY: Whatever. So, $42 million or $43 million, and it has gone to $47.8 million. It cost $3.5 million last year, $4 million this year, and probably another $4 million next year in getting things ready to go into The Rooms. Is that right? So, $47 million plus $12 million.

MS BETTNEY: Perhaps I can ask Heather to respond specifically.

MS MacLELLAN: This covers the operating budgets for the Provincial Museum and the Archives and the Art Gallery, so this is the regular budgets that were there prior to The Rooms project. So, as part of this initiative, we had the Museum and the Archives and we recently brought the Art Gallery over from Memorial University. They were getting a subsidy through the Department of Education of about $450,000. So, that money now gets put into The Rooms Corporation and also as part of this now showing, this $4 million, there is about $1 million that is going to preservation of the artifacts themselves. The staff are then doing a considerable amount of work on the artifacts, and then there is also some money here to prepare for the occupancy costs that we are going to have to incur when we take occupancy next year. So, it is a combination, but we have a approximately eighty staff now working in the three institutions, and we have a target of about 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the collections will go into The Rooms. That is 30 per cent to 40 per cent of about $3 million. So, each one of those of items has to be inspected and it has to be treated and it has to make sure that we are not bringing anything into this climatic and this environmentally safe environment. We have had mold, we have had insect infestation, and it is one of the main reasons that we had to build the facility, to ensure that we could put it in a facility that was going to increase longevity of all the collections.

MR. SHELLEY: So, you are saying that eighty staff are preparing those things?

MS MacLELLAN: Approximately eighty staff, yes, and that includes our regular staff as well.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay.

The next one I would like to make a comment on, the Member for The Straits has already brought it up, (inaudible), and my area is Petit Nord and they are developing a lot of that along there and doing a really good job with it and did some presentations on it, are having trouble now in moving on to the next stage of getting a consultant and putting their program together because they have done a lot of volunteer work with it. They are having problems there now. Isn't there a federal-provincial agreement or arrangement there that is some help with funding? Is there no provincial money to help those smaller groups to prepare for the 2004 celebrations?

MS BETTNEY: What happened last year was the Francophone Association came to the provincial government with more or less a master plan that they wanted to undertake, which included the area your referred to as well as the others we have spoken of. Their interest was in being able to approach the federal government in particular for a share of the funding which the federal government has allocated for the Francophone, the Acadian Celebrations, L' Acadie 2004. There has been $20 million allocated, is that the correct figure?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MS BETTNEY: Ten million dollars allocated for the Atlantic Provinces for these Acadian celebrations, and the Francophone Association here had put in a very comprehensive application to the federal government to get our Province's share from that funding. I believe at the present time they have received somewhat less than $100,000 in federal support. I believe it is in the order of $50,000 that the federal government has responded to the Francophone Association. I am still hoping that is simply a very small first installment and that they will succeed in leveraging some more money. One would think, knowing the extensive French presence in our Province which even predated the Acadian by 100 years -

CHAIR: Yes, it did, too, big time. We are the real ones, we were the first ones.

MS BETTNEY: That is right, first in North America.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Sorry about that, Madam Minister.

MS BETTNEY: We have the Chair engaged.

To respond to your question, I would hope that there will be more money forthcoming to add to the $150,000 that this Province has identified for these celebrations because you are right; there is considerable interest in our communities now and there is a whole piece of our heritage that up to this point really has not been celebrated and explored in the way that it can be. This is an ideal opportunity to do it, so we are encouraging the federal government and we are supporting the Francophone Association as best we can to carry on with their plans. They have some tremendous plans.

MR. SHELLEY: I am just using my district as an example because I have heard in a couple of places - my suggestion to your department is to get in touch with them, because there are not a lot of these groups around - Petit Nord, the Northern Peninsula; I forget the name of the group.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: The same crowd.

They are having trouble now moving on to the next phase. I do not know where the hang-up is. I am going to be meeting with them over Easter, in my way, to find out where it is because they have some great plans in place and a lot of volunteer work has gone into that. If they do not get this consultant and get this work done now, a lot of work could be lost. So, my suggestion is that you make that connection. I will certainly do it from the local members' point of view so that we do not lose out on this.

Personally speaking, after seeing these presentations on this here, yes, with Cabot and all these things, this thing here, with the impact that it could have on so many communities and for such a long time over the summer, and with France and Quebec getting so interested, it could be a major boost to the tourism industry in this Province. So we have to make sure we do not miss out on it.

I have two more questions. One more is on the science. I will skip over a little bit but these are the ones I picked out. On Wildlife, 5.1.05 - before I ask a specific question on the Estimates, I notice under Wildlife Ecosystems Monitoring where it says, "... ventures for the monitoring of ptarmigan, caribou and other species." I assume one of those other species is moose.

MS BETTNEY: I presume.

MR. SHELLEY: I thought it would be the first one listed, but anyway I assume it is moose.

I will ask for comments on that first. On our moose population, how accurate are our numbers? For this year, were all our counts as accurate as they could be as far as: were we getting the returns, the information, the jaws and everything needed to do a proper count of moose in the Province?

MS BETTNEY: First of all, I would say that generally speaking, in terms of the moose population, we do not have good numbers today but we are actively working to change that picture. One of the reasons why government invested $2.8 million last year in science was in response to what we recognized were concerns that were being brought to us by hunters across this Province, as well as people generally saying that they were very concerned with what they were seeing in the moose population, caribou population, and in some other areas. We have undertaken now a program of doing these counts and in the areas that we have completed I would say we have very good data. We have a plan in place to cover the Province more extensively and we expect that within the next year we will have considerably better data to put into the review of our big game management plan.

Before I say anything else, I would invite Shane Mahoney, if there is anything specific that he can add in response to your query.

MR. MAHONEY: Mr. Shelley, the answer to the question of accuracy and precision in these counts: Generally speaking, for moose populations, for any technique that is financially feasible at all, the best that researchers can do anywhere in the world is to come in with an estimate that is about plus or minus 25 per cent. The process is that, in the area where you have a population, you randomly choose a percentage of that area to actually survey because the cost would be prohibitive to do it over the entire area. Statistically, that results in an estimate that usually is about plus or minus 25 per cent. In the case of caribou, we have developed a different technique which will give us an estimate within plus or minus 10 per cent.

MR. SHELLEY: They herd, right?

MR. MAHONEY: Yes, but with moose the challenge therefore is that if you do not have sequential accounts and you have an estimate that is only plus or minus 25 per cent, then you have a fairly wide margin of error potentially. The longer you go between counts, then obviously the more difficult it becomes to implement the appropriate strategy for a census.

In terms of the status of these populations, it is certainly true that, with the exception of some areas on the Northern Peninsula, most moose populations are either in a stable or decreasing pattern, and we know that in some cases we have very substantial declines partly because there have been long periods of time in between successive counts.

The good news is that, with the provision of monies that we now have, we will be able to set up a plan for sequential counts. Ideally, what you would like to be able to do is count these moose populations, and similarly with caribou, about once every five years. It will never be feasible to count them more than that. If you can count them once every five years, and do a good job, and with a good job you have to have good aircraft, good personnel and good snow conditions. We have to have good snow conditions, so the weather is a factor here. If you do that every five years, you have a chance of staying on top of these.

The declines that we are seeing are not inexplicable. Moose do tend, as everybody knows, to rise in numbers and they tend to decline over time, generally in a cycle of about twenty to thirty years, in response to changes in forage, food supply. In this Province, food supply is driven basically by two factors: fire and logging. Both of those practices, despite many of their negative attributes or negative reputations, actually generate the kind of new growth that is essential for really productive moose populations.

The expectation would be that the moose populations on the Northern Peninsula will begin to stabilize, then go into a decline there slowly at first, in about 2005, unless we can hold those populations below the food supply.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you.

Under 5.1.05 on page 158 still, just for an explanation, I do not know if I am reading it wrong or if there is an explanation there for it, but in your amount voted, as I look down through the list here, you have budgeted in 2003 for $766,600 and you spent $350,000. You spent less than half. What happened there?

MS BETTNEY: That was due to -

MR. SHELLEY: Why did you not spend what you had?

MS BETTNEY: This sounds like a broken record.

We had planned on certain projects that we are involved with the federal government on, where we put in a certain amount of money and we try to estimate the extent of the projects that they will come on board with. In 2002-2003 we estimated that to be in the order of the $615,000; we actually got considerably less than -

MR. SHELLEY: You got? Okay.

MS BETTNEY: We received - we estimated it at $500,000. That was the amount that we estimated we would get in projects. It came in at $80,000, so we consequently spent far less last year than estimated because the projects simply were not there to do.

MR. SHELLEY: They were not there to do.

What I am getting at is: You were budgeted to get $615,000 revenue from the federal government but you spent $200,000. Did you not get that because you did not do the programs?

MS BETTNEY: No, it is the other way around.

MR. SHELLEY: The other way around.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, that is right.

We would have spent this full amount if the federal government had agreed to the projects that we had hoped to do.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay.

MR. MAHONEY: Thank you, Mr. Shelley.

Minister, for the point of clarification, if you want to look at the actual monies that were spent fundamentally towards science, it is more appropriate to look at the vote 5.1.04 because the vote that you are looking at in 5.1.05 is a separate vote that deals, as the minister has indicated, with some federal-provincial arrangements. But the real circumstance in terms of actual monies, Mr. Shelley, allocated to science accounts and so on actually should be looked at in 5.1.04.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay.

That is all on the Estimates, but I have some more questions to do with outfitters, outfitter licences. I am just going to ask for some information and I hope to get some because I have been asking questions lately and I have not gotten answers to all of them. I am sure you have the information so I am going to request the information, if I can get those. It is pretty general information. It is probably available on your Web site for all I know at this point.

The number of outfitters licences in the Province right now, how many are there? Is there a map - I assume there would be - of where those outfitters' licences are situated in the Province?

MR. JANES: The number of non-resident - I am assuming you are talking about the number of moose or caribou licences granted to -

MR. SHELLEY: Non-resident, yes.

MR. JANES: Those numbers are dictated by a policy of government that says we will only allocate 10 per cent of the total available moose licences to non-residents and 25 per cent of caribou. Those numbers represent - in the case of moose, we have 2,936 non-resident licences available. In the case of caribou, 1,960. Those are, of course, distributed through the outfitters that exist. In fact, we have had no new entrance into the outfitting business since 1998.

MR. SHELLEY: There were twelve new ones in 1998, wasn't it?

MR. JANES: Yes, that is correct.

The second part of your question -

MR. SHELLEY: Do you have a map - I would assume - of where those licences are, those outfitting camps are?

MR. JANES: We have a breakdown of those licences by area. We know precisely how many outfitters are in any given area and how many licences are allocated to those outfitters. It is available in that chart format.

MR. SHELLEY: Can I see that chart? Can anybody have that chart? Is that confidential? I do not want to be -

MR. JANES: No. What we try to do is protect, for proprietary purposes, the information about the number of licences that any individual outfitter has, because, of course, that represents that individual's business.

MR. SHELLEY: I do not want that.

MR. JANES: But we certainly can make available something that would show you the number of licences that are allocated in each area -

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, that is what I wanted.

MR. JANES: - and the number of outfitters that are there. Absolutely, the chart that would give you very clear answers.

MR. SHELLEY: The reason why I ask for that is because arguments have been made that with the map of the Province there are some bunched in some areas, and where some should be there are none, in the way they have been spread out throughout the Province. I understand that different people own those and that is private information of those proprietors and so on, but how they have been situated throughout the Province has been a discussion too.

MS BETTNEY: There would certainly be a circumstance where the outfitting lodges have grown up, and you will find them in various areas across the Province. As you say, in some cases you will see some in close proximity and in other cases you can see whole areas where you would not find any. One of the issues, however, for the industry is that there is a bottom line in the sense that there are a number of licences per outfitter which is almost required in order to have a sustainable business. With the number of outfitters that we have there is considerable pressure to ensure when you have an existing outfitter who requires more licences in order to become more sustainable, in order to break even or make a profit, there is always considerable pressure to satisfy that demand before you bring new entrance into the industry, which would further dilute the capacity for these outfitters to have licences.

As Mr. Janes has indicated in his comments, we are operating on a policy which says that we will only provide 10 per cent of moose licences and 25 per cent of caribou licences. When you do the plan over a five-year period there is a potential that you would even have to reduce the number of licences that outfitters will have. Of course, when you do that there is a direct impact on their capacity to sustain their businesses.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I understand that policy about the 10 per cent and 25 per cent. I understand, too, that in 1997-1998 you said there were twelve new licences and they went to already established licence holders, right?

MS BETTNEY: No, these would be -

MR. JANES: There were new entrants. These were new outfitters that came into the business and were given an allocation of non-resident licences. So, it is not just twelve big game licences. This was a number of outfitters that came into the system and they were each given a portion of what licences were available.

MR. SHELLEY: Up to then there was a freeze on, right? Up to then there was a freeze on licences for a number of years, up to 1997-1998?

MR. JANES: Yes, that's right. There was a period of time when -

MR. SHELLEY: Then twelve new ones came in. How many applications were there for those licences, for those twelve spots? What kind of demand did you have for those? Because I know a lot of people are looking for them all the time.

MR. JANES: I do not have that information presently. It is obviously available but I do not have it with me.

MR. SHELLEY: Could I get that information of how many licences there were?

MR. JANES: Sure.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay, that is it for me, for now anyway.

CHAIR: There is some coffee out in the caucus room for about ten minutes. How is that? We will take a little break and then we will come back. Are you okay with that or do you want to keep going?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: There is some coffee out there. Do you want to do that? It is up to you. If you want to finish it off, we can just finish it off. Do you have a couple of questions? Okay, alright.

MR. SHELLEY: I only have one. I do not care, if you guys want to break that is fine.

CHAIR: Well, the coffee will be available.

MS BETTNEY: If we are going to be able to finish in a reasonable period of time before 9:00 p.m, I would just as soon carry on.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Take ten minutes? There is some coffee out here in the caucus room for everybody.

MR. H. HODDER: I suggest we break for coffee.

CHAIR: We will break for coffee, all right then. Mr. Hodder has forced us to break for coffee.

MS BETTNEY: Let the record show.

CHAIR: Are there any questions from the government members there, who might want to ask a question?

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: It is not altogether a question, just a comment and a partial question. Maybe it has changed, but here in the Province our provincial parks - and I know our seasons are not long like they are in some other provinces. I was just wondering, has there been any consideration - and maybe last year they were open a little bit longer than they usually are, but I came back from holidays one year on the Labour Day weekend and had a job to get in a park coming across the Province. Maybe that was changed last year, I do not know because I did not travel. That was the only question I had.

MS BETTNEY: Perhaps I can ask Mike Cahill to respond. I do know that we have some parks which do have an extended opening, but he can give you more specifics on what we are doing there.

MR. CAHILL: Mr. Butler, we have, in the past, tried having extended seasons to take in the shoulder seasons but the amount of visitations just were not there to keep it up. It seems like once the bug is on people to go berry-picking they are not interested in parks anymore after that.

MR. BUTLER: Very good, fine.

CHAIR: Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Butler. Anybody else?

MS M. HODDER: No questions, thank you.

CHAIR: Okay, any members on -

MR. H. HODDER: Do you want to go first?

MR. TAYLOR: It makes no difference. (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Go ahead.

Mr. Hodder, the hon. critic.

MR. H. HODDER: The other day I met with a group called the Partridge Forever group -

CHAIR: The what?

MR. H. HODDER: Partridge Forever.

Certainly their concern is, of course, with the openings of the partridge season. I have the correspondence that they wrote to you, and also I have a copy of the correspondence that the minister wrote back to them. When you are setting the times for the season, they hold the opinion that they would like to have the partridge opening season, which is about a six-week season, to open in the latter part of September, perhaps the last weekend in September, whereas the date you have given them tends to be somewhat earlier. They tell me that they have surveyed their members and that the overwhelming opinion is that a later opening season would be better.

In your correspondence, then, you mentioned that you consulted with others and I assume this might be the outfitters, or groups like that. Would you like to comment on the rationale? They say that if we had a later season the birds would be bigger. When I asked them if they had any scientific data on that, they did not submit any to me. That does not mean that it does not exist. I wanted to know what the rationale would be for having a later opening season, particularly in view of Newfoundland weather in October might be better than it would be in September for that kind of a hunt.

MS BETTNEY: We went through a very extensive consultation process with the groups involved with the Partridge Forever Society and with the outfitters. I cannot recall now if there were other organized groups that were involved in that consultation, but essentially what we were trying to do was to find an area of compromise, because this is an issue where the dates had been set in previous years at an earlier time, and then for last year they had been set at a later time and this was an ongoing issue. So my intent in trying to deal with it, given that, according to our wildlife management people, there is no science-based reason, no management reason, why you would set the date at one time or the other. It was not an issue of moving the date later in order to preserve greater management for the partridge, to keep them safe or to keep their numbers in tact. That is not what we are talking about here.

In the absence of having any management reason to move the dates to a later time, what I attempted to do was to bring the outfitters group together and try and come up with a date that they could both agree on. From the outfitting perspective, their view on this is that having the date for the partridge season open earlier gives them an opportunity to offer that package as well when they have their hunt packages so they can have the big game as well as the small game. If, for some reason, the hunting is slow for their numbers when they are looking for their big game they also have the fallback of having a small game hunt.

Ultimately, in the absence of agreeing absolutely on a date that you could annualize every year, what we did decide to do was to set the dates for a five year period so that there was some stability from the outfitters perspective in knowing what the dates would be, and also to try and accommodate as much as possible that requirement that they have, as well as take into account the views of the Partridge Forever Society.

I know from their perspective it is a preference in a sense that they want to have it later when they say the weather is better, and they say the animals are bigger and so on. That, I am sure, is a choice that they can still exercise because, although the season is open earlier, perhaps, than they would wish, they can still choose to hunt the birds at a later date.

This is something on which I think we have reached the best compromise we could, but as you indicated, there is not really a science-based reason to establish the date, late in September, middle of October or wherever.

MR. H. HODDER: About how many licences would be going out to the outfitters? I think there are probably about 20,000 small game licences in a year issued in the Province.

MS BETTNEY: I will ask Jim to comment on that. The number of licences that would go specifically to the outfitting industry, I would think, would be very small by comparison to the number of people who would hunt small game in the Province as a whole, the resident hunters.

Jim, perhaps you can comment on the number piece?

MR. HANCOCK: The number of licences that are purchased by hunters every year, the small game hunters, varies quite a bit according to the cycles of the small game populations. When there are more partridge, when there are more rabbits, you tend to get more people participating and the licence sale goes up. When the populations drop, as they do normally in a cyclic manner, then the licence sale is lower. It can range from as low as about 13,000 licence sales in any one year up to probably a maximum of about 30,000. Your estimate of 20,000 is probably a good one in many years.

MR. H. HODDER: The next set of questions I have relate to something I mentioned to the minister in the House yesterday at the end of Question Period and it deals with the Newfoundland and Labrador Legacy Nature Trust. I have had more paper flowing forward on this thing than I have space here on my desk.

I have a copy of a letter that was written on the stationery of the Newfoundland and Labrador Inland Fish and Wildlife Advisory Council in March, 1998, written to the Deputy Minister Robert Thompson and signed by John Perlin and Thomas Humphrey. They talked about setting up some kind of a foundation.

Then, I have the letter written to the Premier, Brian Tobin, in December, 1998, in which there is - again, they talk about a proposal coming forward from interested people to establish this particular trust, the Newfoundland and Labrador Legacy Nature Trust. It identified the need for non-government organizations, so on and so forth.

When this trust finally got set up - I have the articles here of incorporation - it says that the trustee or a settler in this case, which is the government, shall, as soon as may be convenient, pay to the trustee the sum of $1 million in Canadian funds. I am assuming that the $1 million was paid into the trust account with the provision that they could draw down a maximum of $200,000 per year, and that all the interest from the trust account would accrue to the trustee.

You mentioned yesterday, at the end of Question Period, your understanding is that they have (inaudible) $1 million which they have in their trust account. Thus far, they have only drawn down probably - they could have drawn down up to $800,000, but they have only drawn down about $200,000. Do you want to comment on that particular trust? Because it has become a topic - I think last weekend there was a piece in the paper on it by Anthony Rochel from Placentia, and it is becoming somewhat of a contentious issue. As I say, I have quite a lot of documentation that I have gathered in the last month on it.

MS BETTNEY: This is also something that was an issue approximately this time last year as well, and there are certain people that we have been meeting with and having these discussions and providing information on.

The situation that you describe is, for the most part, the way that the trust operates. The money would have been put into a trust. The agreement that was signed between government and the Legacy Nature Trust stipulated that they could use up to a maximum of $200,000 per year for operating and administration, but it also indicated that they could use the interest for projects that were aligned with the overall objectives of the trust, as defined in the agreement.

Over the course of the agreement to date they were, as I indicated during Question Period, slow in getting started, and I believe had occasion to have a changeover of staff on two or three occasions such that it is really only in the last year that you would consider them to be up and fully operational. Consequently, they have not drawn down to the extent that they were entitled to do according to the agreement. That leaves us with a situation where there is, in fact, still in the order of $700,000 thereabouts that is remaining in trust, that can be used for the purposes that government intended when it first established the Legacy Nature Trust. The trust has come forward. The group has come forward with a plan for the coming year and we will be meeting with them I believe next week, Mr. Deputy?

MR. NORRIS: A little bit later, I believe, probably the twenty-third, Minister.

MS BETTNEY: - to review that with them. That is the status of it. I think the concerns that have been expressed to me in the past, and the groups that I have met with - and I have met with all of them and provided them the same information that I am providing you. The concern was that the $1 million was given to his group and it was gone; it was used and we have not seen anything for it. That is the kind of debate that people have brought forward on this, but I have assured the groups that I have met with, as I have publicly, that is not the case. We still have remaining - and, Gary, perhaps you can confirm for me - is it the $700,000 or $800,000 figure? When you take the full amount, including the interest, it would be $800,000?

MR. NORRIS: I think $700,000 of the principle remains with about $100,000 in interest. So they have about $800,000 in the bank as we speak.

MR. H. HODDER: The intent, of course, of that trust was that they would use this as seed money and that they would then go and use that money to make arrangements across the country. This was just to get them started and they would be getting funding from a lot of other sources. I suppose it is appropriate to ask: What has been their success? Now we know that they were incorporated on March 7, 2000.

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: So two or three questions. One is that the Province's authority to really interact with that because under Article 8 it says: It is expressly agreed that the right of the settler, which is the government, to consent to such amendments shall expire upon the passage of the fifth anniversary. So on March 7, 2005, if the money is in the trust, then one would assume from that, that the ability of the Province to interact and have a direct role might be substantially diminished.

Thus far, I think what people are saying to me is: What other monies have come in? What have they spent their money on? They did have a convention, or conference, at Hotel Newfoundland which was a pretty lavish affair, and they have a suite of offices which they set up and were operating from. What is the benefit to Newfoundland and Labrador? What groups have gotten any help throughout the Province? The idea was to help different groups in the environment, and other groups like that, to fund projects. What has been, if any, the return to the community from the last two years of operation?

MS BETTNEY: I believe the Legacy Nature group would tell you that their success up to last year was marginal, and I believe they would point to the fluctuations that they had in getting established as being significant in that regard, so they did not meet with the success that they had planned in the first year, and I would say that extended to a year-and-a-half, well into this year. They would point to projects that they have supported and have co-ordinated funding from other sources during the past year in the order of approximately $250,000.

Burnt Cape being one example, you asked in terms of what have they done for conservation groups across the Province. Well, that would be one very, very small example of the kind of support where they would put a little bit of money in and encourage others, like the Nature Conservancy Fund, to come to the table, and the federal government, and our departments and so on.

They have had better success in the last year but it is still certainly not at the level that we would want to see. At this point, we are engaged in discussions with them on this very issue. It is not something that we are waiting until the five years runs out; because, as you indicated, at that point, that much more of the original $1 million will have been expended. So, our efforts right now are to deal with this at this time. We have been working with them over the past six months or more, and we will be having those discussions now at the meeting that takes place on the twenty-third.

MR. H. HODDER: I would assume from that - Article 12 says they are supposed to submit an annual report together with audited financial statements - that, to date, they have not submitted an annual report and they have not submitted yet the audited financial statements for the years that - because right now they are supposed to be into - by this time, I guess you should be getting your audited statements. Is the second year done, the third year almost?

MS BETTNEY: Gary, do you want to comment on that?

MR. NORRIS: Mr. Hodder, I talked to the executive director yesterday about that very point. The financial statements for last year are completed. He was going to send them to me. They are probably on file within the department, but I just do not know where to get my hands on them.

In the case of this year, you are actually right. They are completing those financial statements in the next couple of weeks and will be filing an annual report as well that will indicate, you know, what they have spent their money on and the projects that they have undertaken. So, that should be forthcoming.

MR. H. HODDER: Could I ask the minister, given the fact that there is a great deal of interest in this, and people are concerned about the public's money, which is what we are talking about here, primarily, that these audited statements could be either in summary form or actually as they are presented, made public documents perhaps here in the House?

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: Because there is a level of concern that might be addressed that way.

I know my colleagues are all excited about getting home early and all that kind of thing, but I still do have several other questions that I have to ask. They have files here galore that are building up, and all that kind of thing.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, I could do that, too.

I want to talk to you a little bit about the Association of Heritage Industries. There has been a lot of debate recently about the - I know that the group has made presentations to you in the last several weeks on getting the proper focus and approach from the Association of Heritage Industries. This group, of course, our heritage industries, that is worth $70 million in our economy every year. It is not a minor little thing. It is a big thing. But the issue that is consuming a lot of time is the whole issue around the future of the Colonial Building. That has been a topic of debate, letters in the paper. I have had letters from people, calls to my office, saying: What is going to happen here? Everybody knows that I have an association with the Historical Society and that kind of thing.

What is the status? Can we put to rest the future use of the Colonial Building and how that is going to be addressed? I know they have a proposal in. I wonder if you can comment on their proposal.

MS BETTNEY: Two things I can say at this point. First of all, I feel very confident in saying that whatever decision we make with respect to the Colonial Building, we will preserve that building in terms of its historic value and the role that it has played in the history of this Province and what was our country, a number of years ago.

With respect to the specifics of how we will do that, I am, at the present time, expecting to deliver a Cabinet paper to my colleagues within the next week or so and that will determine whether we can respond positively to the request of the heritage industries association of whether there is some other alternatives that government would want to look at, but suffice it to say that what the heritage industries has proposed is a way in partnership to help preserve the Colonial Building. Ultimately, I think we would all like to see it restored because there is certainly a lot of work that could be done to bring it to its former grandeur. I am sure that is what everybody in the Province would want to see. So that is our aim. We are looking seriously at the proposal from the heritage industries and I expect Cabinet to make that decision eminently.

MR. H. HODDER: So the possibility of having the Supreme Court relocate down there and putting an annex on the back -

MS BETTNEY: It is not under consideration.

MR. H. HODDER: - taking away half of Bannerman Park for a parking lot, that is not on the agenda?

MS BETTNEY: We are not considering that, no.

MR. H. HODDER: The only other thing I wanted to mention is funding for some of the archeological digs that we have in Newfoundland. I visited most of them, from the Northern Peninsula to the ones up in Labrador and Red Bay to the Ferryland district. Every year I make a visit to Ferryland.

Funding for this year, and the federal-provincial agreements, what is going to happen to these programs? Last year, I do believe, there was 22,000 or 24,000 people who visited Ferryland alone.

MS BETTNEY: I wouldn't be surprised.

MR. H. HODDER: I do a visit every year because it is such a nice thing to do. What is the status of the funding there? Last year I know that the federal member down there had to go and do a lot of tracking, and looking, and pushing, and cajoling, and everything else to get funding to keep that project going. It is such an important part of our tourism. Do you have any comments on what is going to happen this year?

MS BETTNEY: I would be expecting more of the same in terms of the cajoling, and the pleading, and the scrounging, and everything else that it takes to try and get the resources to really do the kind of work that we need to do, not only to keep these sites open and available with interpretation, but also to keep the archeological work going.

Heather, is there some specific response that you can provide further to that or is that pretty well it?

MS MacLELLAN: That is pretty well it.

MR. H. HODDER: My final comment is, the museum you have out in Boyd's Cove, in Notre Dame Bay, what a marvelous place. There is so little publicity about it. It is a beautiful site. I compliment those who have anything to do with it. It is worth seeing, but again, in promoting Newfoundland, we drive by it. If you do not take the time to go down and see it, you have missed something.

I will leave it at that. That is all my questions.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you.

CHAIR: No other questions?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I have a couple of more.

CHAIR: That is okay.

MR. TAYLOR: Minister, on page 152, 3.1.01.10, Culture and Heritage, Grants and Subsidies. Again, I am sure there is going to be a perfectly obvious explanation that I probably missed. Anyway, 2002-2003 budgeted and revised to $398,700, and this year you are budgeting for $936,200. What would that be all about?

MS BETTNEY: There are two major items that are included in 2003 for estimates that were not in the previous year. One of those is the Historic Sites Initiative, and that is the federal funding for historic sites in the Province. The other is the Corner Brook Museum permanent exhibit, which we have committed to as part of the exhibition centre on the West Coast.

Heather, do you have the breakout of those two?

MS MacLELLAN: The federal funding, the Heritage Places Initiative, is approximately, I think, $517,000. Then the $10,000 is to support the startup for the provincial exhibition at the Corner Brook Museum.

MR. TAYLOR: Further down the page there is a significant difference in the budget for last year and the revised for last year on the Arts and Culture Centres, 3.1.02.03. There is a budget of $55,800 and a revised of $109,300. What would that extra expenditure be related to?

MS MacLELLAN: Last year we received funding, again from the federal government. It was an additional $200,000 to put directly into developing and distributing new programs throughout Newfoundland and Labrador that had to do with promoting Canada's diversity. We had a number of groups come in, such as Inuit throat singers. Therefore, with our six Arts and Culture Centre programs around the Province we had a whole lot more transportation and promotion costs which were associated with these new programs that we put in place as a result of this program.

MR. TAYLOR: Under 3.1.02.06, in that same section, Purchased Services. Why would there have been roughly $140,000 difference in the budget downwards to $970,000 last year and now back up again to $1.2 million this year?

MS BETTNEY: There is a link between 01. Salaries, and 06. Purchased Services. What you will see is that we actually went over on our budget under the Salaries and came in under, under Purchased Services. So what we saved in one was further expended in the other, and then some.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

Let me see if I can add something else.

MS BETTNEY: Those changes would be based on whatever specific productions we happened to be doing. At the Arts and Culture Centres at the time last year, if a certain production required more in-house staff you used more salaries. If it required more outside expertise then you purchased those services. It tends to fluctuate that way on any given year, depending on the program you have to offer.

MR. TAYLOR: One final question.

MS BETTNEY: Final, final.

MR. TAYLOR: Final, final, final. Well, it could be.

MS BETTNEY: It could be.

MR. TAYLOR: Where would I find that $10,000 in there for that snow machine to tow around the groomer on the ski trail down our way? Where is that?

MS BETTNEY: I do not think you will see that $10,000 there, Mr. Taylor. However, under Capital Grants and Subsidies, I think you will see - although it would not be reflected in seriousness in this budget - you would see a contribution under our recreation capital grants of $2,000 to that organization. It will show up next year.

CHAIR: You are not allowed to announce it either. The minister is, okay.

Mr. Shelley.

MR. TAYLOR: Consider it done.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible) right into that one actually, that $2,000 that is there.

MS BETTNEY: I knew we would get to grant sooner or later.

MR. SHELLEY: That is still there, the same as usual, as of April 1, I guess, is it?

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: What I have been doing, as you may remember, or some other ministers may remember, because it is such a small amount, and where you have thirty-five communities in a district like ours, you have to try to break that up a little bit. A $500 grant means a lot to a small recreation facility, with equipment or whatever. That is what we have been doing.

That is not going any higher this year, is it? It is staying at $2,000?

MS BETTNEY: That is right.

MR. SHELLEY: Minister, where would it come in the Estimates for some communities or some recreational facilities that do get small grants? Because there are small grants that go out for help for capital works and so on.

MS BETTNEY: There is one item here, and the staff will give me the exact number, which is Grants and Subsidies under Recreation Capital, and part of that would be reserved for each district. Then the remainder would be used to respond to requests that come in for capital requirements under recreation. Perhaps one of the staff can inform me of the actual number, or page here, that we are looking at.

MR. JANES: On page 159, under Recreation and Sport, under 6.1.01.10, there in Grants and Subsidies is where you would find the money that would go to recreation commissions for operating grants.

MR. SHELLEY: For operating grants of recreation commissions?

MR. JANES: That is correct.

MR. SHELLEY: That is small recreation commissions throughout the Province? Some that are at arm's length from the councils and others that are under councils?.

MR. JANES: Only communities under 6,000 population are eligible.

MR. SHELLEY: That is not a problem. That is thirty-five of them.

MR. JANES: For the majority of cases, it will be recreation commissions that are sanctioned by and supported by the town.

I guess you know as well as I that in some cases they are an arm of the town and in some cases they are stand alone. They do come in both varieties, but they would be eligible to apply. Primarily, this ends up to be a subsidy that helps to provide recreation programming in the summertime?

WITNESS: Primarily. We do encourage commissions to be active year round, but primarily it becomes summer.

MR. JANES: Then, when you go down to subhead 6.1.02 Grants and Subsidies, that is where you would capture the capital grants that would go out per district with a cap of $2,000 per district.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes.

Above and beyond that - this one here was Sheshatshiu, right? That increase there in 6.1.02.10?

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: It is $227,000 again this year. That includes everybody's $2,000, right?

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: Everything in the one above there was all for operations and programs you said?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It is (inaudible), is it?

MR. JANES: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: There is $140,000 or so left at the minister's department's discretion that is used to cap it up.

MS BETTNEY: To respond to requests, yes, for capital.

MR. TAYLOR: That is where she (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I see.

MS BETTNEY: That is where the $2,000 would come from.

MR. SHELLEY: There is a little bit of money there that you have been using, right?

MS BETTNEY: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: There is a little bit there. It is not a lot.

MS BETTNEY: That is right.

MR. SHELLEY: We see where that is going.

The last question now is on provincial parks, and mostly it is clarification again because I have to ask questions on it, the ones that are not provincial parks but have gone private now. It is a two-part question, I guess, really.

What can be done as far as development on those sites? Is there a criteria list of what people can actually do in those parks now? Is there a set criteria of what they can do and what they cannot do? Some are talking about building lodges, some are talking about building -

MS BETTNEY: The way it exists right now, when those agreements were struck and those parks were decommissioned and then privatized, there would have been an agreement in place which specified what could and could not be done. It was fairly restrictive in terms of what could be done on that.

At this stage, I know, we have received a number of requests from people who now, five years out, want to look at different kinds of operations, and as a department we have to evaluate that now. We are committed to evaluate the whole park issue in terms of the privatization at this point. We started on that plan and a part of that will be to try and deal with these others parks where the people who have taken then over want to put a different use to it.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, and make them viable. So that have to come in with a business plan that you would deem appropriate.

MS BETTNEY: I will ask Mike: Can you comment on that, please?

MR. CAHILL: Mr. Shelley, you are right there. There have been quite a lot of people who did take over some of these parks when they were privatized and have had difficulty trying to make a go out of them.

According to the restrictions, as the minister spoke of, we tried to get people to come as close as possible in a business plan to what we were offering when it was a public park, but now that the first five-year period is over, they have been asking for renewals and these renewals - of course, now they know what kind of demands they would have that would make them viable, and these sorts of things, what kinds of conditions. So we have to, as the minister said, review what would be feasible, what would be appropriate, and come up with as positive a reply to them as possible.

MR. SHELLEY: So you are giving them a look and a consideration of what they are putting forward? Also, some of these parks now has been resold by the people who had them first and they have business plans coming out.

That is it for me. That is all I want to know.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Shelley.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you.

CHAIR: We will move the subheads.

CLERK: Subheads 1.1.01 to 7.1.01 inclusive.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 7.1.01 carried.

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

CHAIR: We have one other piece of business. We have to adopt the minutes of the meeting from this morning, for our Committee. That can be moved.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: I want to thank the members of the Committee for their diligent work tonight and very tough questioning of the minister and officials. I want to thank the minister and the officials for being well prepared, as usual, for this excellent work that we do here. Madam Clerk, thank you very much for your help here tonight; it was very nice.

Everybody have a good evening.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Sir.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

On motion, Committee adjourned.