The Committee met at 5:20 p.m. in the House of Assembly.

CHAIR (Harding): Order, please!

Good afternoon, everyone. I have the go-ahead now to start our meeting.

This afternoon we are debating the Estimates of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

First of all, I would like to ask the Committee members to identify themselves and their districts.

MR. BAKER: Jim Baker, Labrador West.

MR. DALLEY: Derrick Dalley, The Isles of Notre Dame.

MS CAMPBELL: Lori-Ann Campbell, Researcher.

MR. PARSONS: Kelvin Parsons, Burgeo & LaPoile.

MS MICHAEL: Lorraine Michael, Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HUNTER: Ray Hunter, Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South.

MR. VERGE: Wade Verge, Lewisporte.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

First, we will approve the minutes of our meeting that was held yesterday. I ask for a motion now to adopt the minutes as circulated.

MR. BAKER: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by Mr. Baker that the minutes, as circulated, be adopted.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: We will follow the same procedure as we did before, and what has been done in previous years. First, we will have the Clerk call the subhead and then the minister will have up to fifteen minutes to introduce his officials and give an overview of his department's Estimates for the year. Following that, the critic or the vice-chair will have up to fifteen minutes to respond with questions. Then we will alternate with the Leader of the NDP, Ms Michael, and back to you. However long it takes, that is what we will do.

I will ask the Clerk for the first subhead.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Subhead 1.1.01.

Does that carry?

Minister Jackman.

MR. JACKMAN: For the introduction?

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you know, and as folks would know, the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation has three main lines of business, all of which have reported successes this past year.

I would like to introduce our staff now. To my immediate left here is Mr. Brent Meade. He is the deputy minister. Next, we have the ADM of Tourism, Mary Taylor-Ash. Next to Mary we have Mark Jones. Mark has only been with us as the ADM of Culture and Recreation - I think Mark is into his third week at this particular point, and we are very pleased to have Mark on board. Mark joined us from his previous position with the Department of Education. Next, we have Judy Power from the Finance division, and Heather May is the Director of Communications.

Mr. Chair, I would like to start with Tourism. As many of you know, we are in the process of completing a visionary plan for tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador. This plan, being developed in partnership with industry, will provide the framework to continue and grow the industry.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. JACKMAN: Is it all right to continue?

CHAIR: Go ahead.

MR. JACKMAN: Tourism performance in 2007 was virtually on par with 2006, despite challenges that we faced associated with air access and ferry capacity, the rising Canadian dollar and the like. These issues combined resulted in a slight decline of 1.3 per cent in non-resident visitation, but in this industry we recognize that it is much more important that we look at the longer-term trends. From 2003-2007 non-resident visitations have increased by 15 per cent with an average annual growth of 3 per cent. That success is no doubt directly related to our increased marketing efforts. We have put an additional $1 million into marketing in Budget 2008 and we have, in effect, doubled it from $6 million at that particular point to a figure of $12 million right now. To put it simply, we are out there. We are in the global marketplace, with national award, winning advertising campaigns, and I believe that is directly as a result - we are reaping the benefits of our investment in marketing.

In this Budget 2008 we also see that there is an investment of $425,000 into the tourism industry research. This is something that we need. It was something that the industry was asking for and needed, and the key to this is that if we are going to remain competitive in this global marketplace we have to keep on top of the research and stay ahead of and current with the trends that are happening.

In the arts and culture and heritage funding, as you know, we announced a three-year funding commitment of $17.6 million to our long-term cultural strategy, Creative Newfoundland and Labrador. We announced that in 2006. This strategy has strengthened our arts, our cultural and heritage sectors. It has provided increased annualized funding to artists and arts organizations, and has provided much needed improvements to our provincial historic sites and the arts and cultural infrastructures.

Many of the initiatives that we announced at that time, and the commitment that we made at that time, come to full fruition in Budget 2008. For example, there is an extra $300,000 for the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council, and that is the $300,000 that is committed to complete what we had committed to earlier. As I have said, this fulfills our three-year commitment that we made in 2006 to more than double the financial support that has gone to the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council up to $1.8 million. I believe initially it was eight point six, and that is up to $1.8 million in 2008-2009.

We are already evaluating and assessing the success of the strategy, and we are planning how we will move forward in 2009. I have said in some of the interviews and whatnot that I have done, that we are now in the final year of phase one. We are, in fact, now moving into phase two and we have been doing some assessments and evaluating around that.

Meanwhile, in 2007 we released a Recreation and Sport Strategy: Active, Healthy Newfoundland and Labrador, which identified the need to enable all citizens to be physically active on a regular basis and to provide more access to recreation and sports opportunities to all of our citizens, and working jointly with other departments in that.

Last year, we provided $2.39 million in new funding for sport and recreational initiatives for a total of $4.93 million. Funding for provincial sport and recreation organizations has been annualized this year, stabilizing this growth in preparation for the next steps.

One of those next steps will be to look at the organizational structure of the rec and sports division. The key of what we are looking at in that regard is to explore how we can work with our partners in the sector to improve upon the delivery of the programs and services - key to moving ahead with this.

We look forward to some major events and milestones this year. The Newfoundland and Labrador Summer Games and the Ironman events are being held in Corner Brook. The Labrador Winter Games will be held in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and in particular the opening of the Newfoundland and Labrador Sports Centre, which is an incredible facility which will serve our athletes well along into the future.

That is generally where we are and where we are going. I welcome your questions as we move through the Budget Estimates. I will answer as many questions as I can, and any that I think we need further explanation on, or further detail, I will refer to the staff and their particular expertise in that area.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister Jackman.

In the event that you do need to call on your officials to respond or assist, please ask them to identify themselves because it is being recorded by Hansard.

MR. JACKMAN: They have already been told, Sir, and I am going to keep track of it.

CHAIR: Okay. Good man.

Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, maybe we will do some line-by-line stuff first. I refer you to your Estimates, 1.1.01., Minister's Office, 01., Salaries. Could you tell me what is included, who is included under that Salaries heading there? You are estimating $215,500. I am just wondering what positions are covered there. I assume the minister's salary is in there.

MR. JACKMAN: The minister's salary is in there, as is my executive assistant, as is the departmental secretary and my constituent person.

MR. PARSONS: When you say your constituent person, that is not your political constituency assistant? I understand that comes under the House of Assembly budget.

MR. JACKMAN: No, it would be my EA, the secretary, and myself.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: In the system, where does your communications director fit? Would that be under Executive Support?

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: Under 1.2.01., Salaries?

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

Albeit communications directors, I believe, at one time used to be considered political staff, they have now been made bureaucratic staff, but it is not the minister's office directly that they are salaried under. They are salaried under the Executive Support section.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Under 1.1.01., again staying with the Minister's Office, item 03., Transportation and Communications, I noted last year you had a budget of $80,000 and you spent $30,000, which would appear to be an overestimate of $50,000, and this year you are using a figure of $65,000.

MR. JACKMAN: Right.

MR. PARSONS: I am just curious as to what happened. How come you had $80,000 but did not spend it? Did anything happen that you did not need to spend it?

MR. JACKMAN: I think there was a thing that happened in October that might have – the election, with that pending, the minister was not as much into departmental stuff and the amount of travel and expenses that would have been incurred were not used to the extent that they normally would have been.

MR. PARSONS: I guess you obviously felt, too, that the $80,000 originally done last year might have been over a bit so you backed it up to $65,000.

MR. JACKMAN: We have adjusted, yes.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Also, under 1.2.01., Executive Support, could you give me some idea of whose positions are included in that salary there for $607,000?

MR. JACKMAN: Do you want to do that one?

MR. MEADE: The minister has referred this to me, Brent Meade, Deputy Minister.

Under Executive Support, Salaries, we have the following positions: the deputy minister; two assistant deputy ministers; a director of communications; a communications specialist, which is a new position that was approved in this Budget; and a position of senior advisor.

MR. PARSONS: What is the difference in the job descriptions between a director of communications and a communications specialist?

MR. MEADE: These are common positions across government. A director of communications would be more strategic in providing communications support. A communications specialist would be drafting press releases, speaking notes, et cetera.

The department brought forward to the budget process that, given the level of activity in our department – and as an indicator, for example, we are one of the most active departments in press releases, speaking engagements and the like, not only for the minister but for other people in government, such as the Premier, in terms of providing speaking notes, as he performs functions, so we saw a need to have more communications support in the department.

MR. JACKMAN: The person was put in there last year on a temporary basis and, as the deputy has indicated - the demand, the volume - it was felt it was a necessary position. It was put through the budget process and approved.

MR. PARSONS: Minister, it is my understanding that a communications specialist did not exist in government until a year or so ago. Is that correct?

MR. JACKMAN: This particular position?

MR. PARSONS: Not this particular position, but the fact that we now have – and the deputy minister referred to it as being common across government, so I take it from that comment that it is now fashionable for every department to have a director of communications and a communications specialist. Is that correct?

MR. JACKMAN: Well, I think in this particular case here – I cannot speak for other departments, but I know that in this particular department - because of the number of press releases that were going out, and the volume, it was felt that it was necessary in this case and it was applied for. It went through the budget process and (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Maybe the deputy minister can answer my question. Is it common practice, and what departments, to your knowledge, as a deputy minister? Do you know that all departments have both a communications director and a communications specialist?

MR. MEADE: I know the larger departments have communications specialists. Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and the Department of Education are two, for example. I would assume the Department of Health as well.

Honourable member, I do know that communications specialists have been in the system for quite some time, and have come and gone. I do know that the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation once did have a communications specialist and it was a position that was a temporary position several years ago. The position was not filled up to the last three or four years, and again the demand that is in the department led us to ask for it in the budget.

I certainly would not characterize these as new positions. They are positions that have been, in some form or other, in government for quite some time, and come and go depending on budget allocations.

MR. PARSONS: Would I be correct in saying that quite some time is post-2003?

MR. MEADE: No. The example that I would give you, I know of communications specialists in the department that I have been affiliated with for many years, they would have been in the department in the late 1990s.

MR. PARSONS: Okay, thank you.

Continuing under that 1.2.01.01., the Salaries component there again, $607,000, albeit you had budgeted last year $514,300, you actually spent $442,100. I guess you overestimated by approximately $72,000 from what you budgeted, and yet we are seeing a bump this year from $442,000 to $607,000. So, even though you did not spend what you had estimated last year, it now is bumped up by $175,000 roughly.

MR. MEADE: The reason for that, I remember, is that the ADM position was vacant for almost a full year. I was appointed deputy minister on May 30, 2007. The position was not filled. I was assistant deputy minister, at the time, in the department. I was appointed deputy minister. My position was not filled, the position I vacated, until two weeks ago when Mark Jones joined the department.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

So I take it that would account for the $72,000, would it?

MR. MEADE: Right.

MR. PARSONS: What accounts for the other? Because you are still gone beyond last year's estimate even of $514,000. You are gone up to $607,000, so it is still $100,000 in addition to that $72,000 that you did not spend.

MR. MEADE: If you look at $514,000, as I would suggest to you as a base, given a deputy minister and full executive, the two new positions in the department would be the position of senior advisor and the position of communications specialist.

MR. PARSONS: Okay, so the communications specialist was not in there before?

MR. MEADE: No.

MR. PARSONS: Now it is made permanent and built into your –

MR. MEADE: We were able to bring the communications specialist on last year on a contract, so someone who would be doing communications specialist functions on a contract. It was late summer, I believe, when we brought someone on.

MR. PARSONS: The other position you referred to, besides the communications specialist, you said?

MR. MEADE: Is the position of senior advisor.

MR. PARSONS: What is involved in that?

MR. JACKMAN: That is an individual who have taken on a number of projects. We have had events such as - the ECMAs is one in particular, and some of our special celebrations that will be happening around the Province.

Can you think of a couple of others?

MR. MEADE: Cupids and Bartlett.

MR. JACKMAN: Cupids, Bartlett, and that is (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: What is that person's name who fills that position?

MR. JACKMAN: That person is Peter Noel.

MR. PARSONS: Peter Noel.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: Is that the same Mr. Noel who used to be in the Premier's office?

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, it is.

MR. PARSONS: How long has he been in this position?

MR. JACKMAN: He came on – gosh, I can't tell you the exact date.

OFFICIAL: It was in January.

MR. PARSONS: Under 1.2.01.03., your 2007-2008 Budget, you allocated $51,600 for Transportation and Communications - that was in 2007-2008 – and you spent $49,000. It looks like this year you bumped it up again from $51,600 to $66,600. I am just wondering why. That is, what, a 20 per cent increase?

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, there is a variance there of roughly $70,000. One of the things that has happened there is, we have a number of documents that get sent out over the course of the year.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. JACKMAN: You are down to 02.?

MR. PARSONS: I am referring to 1.2.01.03., Transportation and Communications. Albeit you did not spend your full Budget last year, you have increased it up to $66,600.

MR. JACKMAN: This one here in 02.?

MR. PARSONS: No, it is 1.2.01.03., Transportation and Communications.

MR. JACKMAN: Under Executive Support.

MR. PARSONS: Under Executive Support.

You have gone from $51,600 which was estimated last year, actually $49,000 spent, and yet you have it up to $66,600. I am wondering why you would increase it by 20 per cent if you did not spend what you had there last year. What is causing that?

MR. JACKMAN: Some of the projects that I have mentioned already, that have come on with the senior advisor coming on. There are expenses incurred around the travel of that individual in organizing events, and we are looking at our involvement in the Olympic file. Those are things that this individual would be involved in, so that is the additional expense there.

MR. PARSONS: Moving on to Administrative Support, 1.2.02.02., Employee Benefits, last year it was $39,400 and you only spend $6,900, so you had over-budgeted, I guess, by $39,400. I am just curious, first of all, why the $32,500 was not spent and yet you have again estimated for this year $39,400.

MR. JACKMAN: This one represents attendance at less conferences than we had initially thought.

Just hang on, I have to get my papers straightened out. Hang on, Sir, and I will get my papers straightened out.

MR. PARSONS: No problem, take your time.

MR. MEADE: I will answer that question, as deputy.

Employee Benefits include, in this case, injury-on-duty billing from the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. It varies from year to year. What we see in this number - it goes up year to year - basically we had a reduction in our injury-on-duty billing from Workers' Comp.

MR. PARSONS: That's not what he told you last year, was it?

MS MICHAEL: Not last year, I had a different explanation.

MR. PARSONS: My colleague here, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, thought the explanation last year as to employee benefits that we are talking about here, she recalls the explanation being given that it did not deal with, as you say, worker type injury benefits, that it dealt with expenses that might be incurred by employees who attended conferences and stuff like that. That was her understanding of what the explanation was last year, but you are saying it deals strictly with injury compensation.

MR. MEADE: In this case, under Administrative Support, it would. It does mean, in some of the other activities it would refer to employees attending conferences, professional development and opportunities like that. In this particular case, under Administrative Support, which is an activity that supports the department overall, it largely deals with the issue around injury-on-duty billing.

MR. PARSONS: The same heading, Administrative Support, 1.2.02.03., you had allotted for Transportation and Communications last year $499,000, you spent $572,000, which was $73,000 over budget, and this year you have estimated again $499,300.

I am wondering why, if you found you did not have enough last year, you did not take that into account, or was there something last year that caused it, that was a one-time incident, that put your over?

MR. JACKMAN: I think I have my stuff in order here now.

One of the things that have come forward here is, departments such as ours have enormous bills as related to postage, and so on and so forth. This year it has been indicated to me that there were. We have put out our guides, for example. Postage has been up, and that would account for some of those expenditures.

MR. MEADE: If I may add to that, I remember one of the challenges we have when it comes to some of these activities is that we normally do not restate the budget until we see a trend. If we see a trend that, over a period of two or three years, we are consistently going above budget or below budget we will then make the decision that we need to start restating our budget. In this case we do see a variance this year largely related, as the minister said, to postage. This year that may not be as large, so it does vary from year to year.

MR. PARSONS: Item 1.2.2.04., under the same heading, Supplies, I notice again you had estimated $30,700 last year, you spent an extra $11,000, but you have only estimated $30,700 again.

MR. MEADE: You will notice as well under 07., we have expenditures under Property, Furnishings and Equipment. Last year the department moved. We moved from our previous space on the second floor of West Block to another space. We actually flipped with the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. That led to increased expenditures around supplies, property, furnishings and equipment in order to accommodate that move.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

In 06., Purchased Services, you had allocated $121,800, spent $75,000 - a $46,800 difference - yet you have allocated again $121,800.

MR. MEADE: Again, it speaks to where variances come on particular activities.

MR. JACKMAN: Advertising, printing, copying.

MR. PARSONS: It just seems to be - maybe again I guess it is trending you call it, but for the person looking at this it would appear that there is very little rationalization of why you would estimate this certain figure. In one category you spent more than you allowed but yet you have not bumped it up. In another category you did not spend what you allowed but you kept it up. It just seems, to the observer looking at this here, and I have just gone through six or seven different incidents of that, the perception that the public has, or I certainly have anyway, is that it makes one wonder how the budgeting is taking place.

Do you have any comment on that? It seems to be there is no rationalization here; you just take a bunch of figures and plug them in when you come up with your estimates.

MR. MEADE: Honourable member, within the activities under the area of Administrative Support there is certainly a desire on departments - and certainly I speak as a deputy minister - that we state our budgets as we see the expenditures will occur. I can tell you, as someone who is a new deputy, certainly in working with our finance admin people, we do try to state our budgets as we see the expenditure to occur. That being said, you do have variances on a year-to-year basis, and fluctuations, depending on the activity and the type of things that may come up during the year.

In this case, yes, there are a number of variances based on a number of things here. Certainly what we will do, as we begin to look at whether this is something that occurs over a two or three year period, taking it all into account, we would want to restate our budgets.

I will tell you that every year we do go through a process of restatement within different activities within the department as we try to more accurately estimate and project expenditures by activity.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I will turn it over to my colleague

CHAIR: I was just going to interrupt anyway.

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

If I may, I would like to come back just to get total clarification for myself around a couple of the things that we have already discussed.

Once again, looking at the Executive Support which is 1.2.01., and the issue of the Salaries section 01., I am just cross-referencing with the book that gives us the Departmental Salary Details and there is a difference in the two figures.

My question - I think I know the answer, but I want to be sure - is it that the senior advisor and the communications specialist are not permanent? Because the salary details indicates permanent employees, and in the salary details, the Departmental Salary Details, the total for permanent employees under Executive Support is $461,222, which gives us a difference of about $148,178 between what is in the Estimates booklet. So I am assuming that a couple of the employees who are not accounted for in the detail book must be temporary, not permanent.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: That is the answer? Okay. Just so I will get that clear. Thank you.

If you could, Mr. Meade, so that I am clear on this, too, because I remember last year, which was my first time doing Estimates, and it was not - when I made my comment to Mr. Parsons, I was referring to my general knowledge with regard to the employee benefits. I do not know when I first asked the question, but I asked it a number of times, and each time I was told that in actual fact it did not refer to benefits attached to salary and the employee's employment situation. It referred to money that was spent on the employee for other things, liking training or going to conferences.

Are you telling me that, in your budget, the meaning of employee benefits goes back and forth in its meaning, or do you have one meaning in your budget, and other budgets have a different meaning, or this year employee benefits means benefits attached to the employee situation?

MR. MEADE: Employee benefits, hon. member, in, I would suggest to you, almost every other activity would be related to the description, the activity that you have described in terms of conferences, professional development opportunities, and things like that.

In the case of Administrative Support, which is a function that provides support to the full department, its definition in this case is to deal with injury on duty.

MS MICHAEL: And that is the only case?

MR. MEADE: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Do you know if that is true, then, right through all the budgeting process?

MR. MEADE: I would not be able to speak to other departments. I can only speak to my own, sorry.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, that is fine. I just want to be clear.

Well, I am going to stay away from the line by line for a minute. I do have line by lines, but Mr. Parsons seems to like doing that so I am going to leave him to some of that.

This is a broader question. I actually raised it in the House today, in response to the minister's statement. I do recognize that we have had a big increase with regard to the money that is going to the Arts Council, and I am very pleased about that. I know you all know that when it comes to comparing us to other parts of Canada our per capita contribution is very low. We are one of the lowest. We are not the lowest. I think we used to be third-lowest. We might be better than that now, I do not know. I just know the latest statistic.

I went through the last report from the Arts Council, which is the 2005-2006. That would be the last one we would all have, I think. I looked at the total of the requests for grants and then I looked at the total granted. Now, I only included the straight grants. I did not include ArtsSmarts and I did not include the other designations, so just the grants. The Arts Council had a request in that year for $1,413,214 and they were able to grant $592,481. I think they probably granted every cent they could because they actually had a deficit that year. I do not know if they had one in 2007. So they were able to grant about 42 per cent of the requests that came in.

Granted, I would know that not every request probably - even if there were no other requests, there might be requests that would come in that you would not grant, but I would imagine that a lot of the 48 per cent would have maybe been good applicants but just not enough money to give them. Besides the upfront money that happened last year, do you have a plan in place, over a period of time - three years, five years - to bring the money up more quickly so that we can be doing better with regard to the per capita ratio? I know this year we have $300,000, and I am pleased to see that. Is that part of an overall plan?

MR. JACKMAN: You talk about the per capita basis, but I guess what we need to do is just to look back three years ago and see where we are now, and in fact, to recognize that we have doubled the overall budget. I think that, first and foremost, is recognition that government values the arts and want to do more. Will we ever have enough money to do it? I doubt very much, but I know one of the things that have been discussed around our Cabinet table and with the Premier is the emerging side of the arts and the need to support that.

My comment to you would be that this right now, we are in the final year of our three-year commitment. We are assessing, evaluating and then, as we go forward, I think you will see continued supports for the arts. No one has to speak to me or I do not think anyone has to speak to any of the staff here to the importance of the arts. You and I both have been to a number of activities that have happened in the last month. You see the turnout and you recognize the importance of it across the entire Island. I think, as a government, we recognize that. How the plan unfolds from here, it is premature for me to say, other than we are very committed to it, we are in the final year of that plan, we have doubled our budget initially, and we will be looking favourably towards that on a go-forward basis.

MS MICHAEL: Minister, I am not questioning the commitment of the government. I am not, but I am just trying to see – I am a planner and an organizer, and I think that way. For example, when I look at this statistic of the Arts Council only being able to – well, at least in 2006, I do not know what happened in 2007 – give money to 42 per cent of those who requested, or 42 per cent of the amount of money that was requested, I just think - because of the mind that I have and my experience, has anybody thought about doing an evaluation, sitting down with the Arts Council and saying – and even looking at other places – what would be an expected percentage? Would you expect, maybe, to be able to give 75 per cent of the request that comes in? If that looked like that was a bit of a standard, then say: Well, we would like to work towards that standard, and how soon can we get to that standard? Do we need another three years of focusing to get to that standard? That is the kind of thing I am talking about.

MR. JACKMAN: I think that is a good recommendation. It is something I would certainly take into consideration and take a look at.

MS MICHAEL: I appreciate you saying that, because I think it would be good to get a sense from the Council, how frustrated they might be because they cannot give, and to get a sense from them: What do you think annually are the ones that legitimately could have gotten money if you could have gone further down the line with the money? I would really recommend that. Thank you for understanding what I am getting at with that one.

I think I will come back and do what I said I would not do, but I have some time left, so I will start some line-by-lines. I am trying to see where Mr. Parsons ended. He was in 1.2.02., was he?

MR. JACKMAN: 1.2.02., yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Okay, then, if we come to 1.2.03. Again, we seem to have an increase of almost – well, just slightly over $100,000, I think, in the salary. Are these new temporary positions or new permanent positions, or filling positions that were not filled?

MR. JACKMAN: Yes. One of the things that has happened here is that there are some vacant positions there and delayed recruitment. So those positions have now been filled, and there have been three new human resource consultants hired. That would account for the increase there.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

Some of those are temporary, I take it, because again, the figure in the detail book is lower than the figure here, and the detail book is permanent.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, that is fine.

Thank you.

In 06., under that same head, Purchased Services, what are the services that are normally purchased under this heading? Then, why has it gone up - only about $60,000, I guess, but still - more than $60,000 from the revised $60,000 from the budget?

MR. MEADE: Under Purchased Services for 2008-2009, it would include learning and development activities for the purchasing of learning development activities for staff. This year, a new expenditure here is for leased space for the HR division. They were, in the past, housed in the West Block but they now will be going to a leased space.

MS MICHAEL: Right. There is a lot of that happening right now. We are really running out of space in the buildings, yes.

I will let Mr. Parsons take over.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Michael.

Do any of the other Committee members have a question at this time?

OFFICIAL: No.

CHAIR: We will go to Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, just a couple of general questions now. What kind of interaction and relationship does your department have with Marine Atlantic? Are there any lines of communication, and to what extent?

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, there is. Since I have come into this role, myself and the deputy have met with the Minister of Transportation and Works, and staff from Transportation and Works around services around Marine Atlantic. I think it would be fair to say that we, as a department, would be joined by many people across the Province in some of their concerns around the service that Marine Atlantic has provided. We have been working with them to take a look at such things as amenities that are offered onboard their vessels; menus, for example, that would be more representative of the cultural side of our Province; getting information out to visitors prior to them landing on our shores, so on and so forth. So, we are developing that.

MR. PARSONS: Is there a set process or anyone in your department specifically designated? Because Marine Atlantic is a pretty big interest, I would think, when it comes to the tourism sector. Is there anybody whose job it is to keep regular contact with Marine Atlantic? If so, who in Marine Atlantic are they in contact with?

MR. MEADE: Honourable member, I would suggest to you that the executive has contact on an ongoing basis with the executive of Marine Atlantic. The deputy minister, and in particular the Assistant Deputy Minister of Tourism, would have, on a number of levels within Marine Atlantic, a working relationship. Of course, the other big partner for us to speak of here is the industry and we would work to facilitate that dialogue as well with, particularly, Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, that is the role that we play as a department in ensuring that the concerns of the tourism industry are heard loud and clear within Marine Atlantic; regular meetings at a number of different levels within Marine Atlantic.

MR. PARSONS: To another topic, the T'Railway passes and so on. What is your involvement, your department's involvement with –

MR. JACKMAN: Oh, the T'Railway, provincial T'Railway.

MR. PARSONS: T'Railway, yes, excuse me.

MR. JACKMAN: That would fall under the Department of Environment and Conservation.

MR. PARSONS: Okay. So it does not fall under - you have no involvement in it at all?

MR. JACKMAN: Well, we have some involvement around, I guess, if you want to take a look at the snowmobile situation and grooming to that degree. I mean the promotion of it as an attraction, and so on and so forth.

MR. PARSONS: Correct me, I could be wrong here. Isn't there a pass requirement now to use the rails? Who administers the pass situation?

MR. JACKMAN: Pass in terms of using -

MR. PARSONS: Users of the T'Railway have to have a pass for snowmobiling, for example.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, there is. That was instituted in 2004, I believe.

MR. PARSONS: Right. So, which department administers?

MR. JACKMAN: That is administered right now under the Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation.

MR. PARSONS: Okay. So it is not involved in government at all?

MR. JACKMAN: No.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

Again, some things that we get thrown at us - and it is a great opportunity to ask you people rather than sometimes having to write a letter.

MR. JACKMAN: We always respond to our letters now.

MR. PARSONS: Oh, yes.

Is it correct that the girl's hockey team had issues this year in terms of funding? Did you cut back funding to the provincial girls hockey team?

MR. JACKMAN: I would –

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: You do fund?

MR. MEADE: We fund provincial sport organizations and we also fund travel for competitions that would be held in Eastern Canada, Atlantic Eastern Canada National Championships. We would support travel for teams to go to that. I am not aware of any particular issue around hockey teams.

MR. JACKMAN: Certainly, one of the things that I have found, since coming into the department, the number of requests that you get come in for sponsorships of hockey teams here, there, or out of the Province or what not. There are criteria developed around who gets funded and who does not. The number of requests are huge, and therefore I think the criteria that has been set up with the department is a good one, is a fair, equitable one.

MR. PARSONS: It seems from an overview, again of the budget, there are some fairly substantial increases in the tourism, in the culture and the heritage side, whereas –

MR. JACKMAN: Where are you? Yes.

MR. PARSONS: This is a general observation of your budget.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: There seems to be fairly significant increases in some areas in the tourism side and on the culture and heritage side, but yet, not in the recreation and the sport side.

MR. JACKMAN: There again, it goes back to the point around the cultural side. The investments that were made last year in the sport and rec. side of it are still unrolling, unfolding. The funding was implemented over a time span, and that continues to be rolled out.

Second to that, I will say from a departmental perspective, now that we have an ADM that is in place, in terms of Mark coming in on the rec. side of it, I think there are things – I do not think, I know, there are things that we will be moving with and that will be doing an analysis and an evaluation of how the department, the division, is interacting with organizations across the entire Province. In light of that, and the funding that has been rolled out, I would expect that you are going to see more advances coming to those particular areas.

MR. PARSONS: It seems to me that the only salary cuts in your department were in the recreation and sport side. What particular positions within that were cut?

MR. JACKMAN: Which one are you looking at, particularly, now?

MR. PARSONS: I am looking at Recreation and Sport.

MR. MEADE: I guess, hon. member, you are referring to 4.1.01.01 Salaries under Recreation-Operations.

What has happened here is a position actually has just been moved from one activity of the department to another. We have a position in Happy Valley-Goose Bay that has been moved from the Recreation Division to the Product Development Division. It is an administrative position that still provides support, in reality, to all lines of business in a department, but we moved the salary over to that side of the shop.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

Again, it is not a decrease, like you say, it is a restructuring piece of it.

MR. JACKMAN: It is restructuring.

MR. PARSONS: In the Grants and Subsidies section of the Tourism Marketing Division, let's see where I am here.

MR. JACKMAN: What number are you on?

MR. PARSONS: Under 2.1.01., Tourism Marketing. There seems to be cuts in the Grants and Subsidies piece, $950,000 down to $875,000, but an increase in Professional Services and Purchased Services, both. I was just wondering why that would be. Who is affected by that?

MR. JACKMAN: We have entered into a number of marketing partnerships, such as Destination Labrador. We had a one-time grant to the Humber Valley, but now there is a West Coast Destination there so we will be involved with that. Those are the groups that would be involved there.

MR. PARSONS: I take it in the Grants and Subsidies reduction by $75,000, that means there is less organizations or groups funding available this year than last?

MR. JACKMAN: No.

MR. PARSONS: Who would get the Grants and Subsidies under the Tourism Marketing piece normally?

MR. JACKMAN: Well, those groups that I just mentioned to you. We are entering in with destinations such as Destination Labrador. The Humber Valley would have received one here in the past year, but now we are working in conjunction with the Western Destination.

MR. MEADE: Grants and Subsidies, under Tourism Marketing, remember, changes from year to year. It is usually one-time expenditures that we budget for, on a year-to-year basis, based on particular partnerships that we want to enter into. The only constant, in fact, that we can find on the year-to-year basis in this activity would be the operating grant to Marble Mountain. Within that, there is an operating grant of $400,000 for Marble Mountain; it is a constant. Everything else would depend on the year-to-year basis, the type of marketing partnerships we enter into.

MR. PARSONS: On the general area again – I guess general but yet specific - the Arts and Culture Centre, it has been brought to our attention that there are some issues with accessibility at the Arts and Culture Centre for certain functions. I refer specifically to an incident where I believe Memorial University was using the Arts and Culture Centre for their convocation and there was an incident where a young lady, I understand, who is wheelchair bound could not access the stage area. I am just wondering if that issue was subsequently addressed.

MR. JACKMAN: We have specifically, in this budget, allocated $500,000 towards specific projects that would be undertaken in terms of the Arts and Culture Centre. I am not certain if that one has specifically been identified, Brent.

MR. MEADE: No. We are aware of this particular issue. The issue here, hon. member, what occurs is that during the convocation people cannot actually, if they are in wheelchairs, move to the stage.

MR. PARSONS: That is right.

MR. MEADE: They have to be positioned somewhere prior to. In most cases, from what I understand, they are actually positioning them on the stage. It is admittedly not ideal, and we are aware of that situation. The Centre is accessible. The Centres are accessible -

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

MR. MEADE: - but in this particular case we are not able to accommodate, in the running of this type of event, exactly the way that we or the client would prefer, and that is that the client could move to the stage area and disembark on the stage area. Unfortunately, the stage area right now does not have that capacity.

MR. PARSONS: Therein lies the question. When we talk about accessibility, we talk about it so that we can normalize people's access. Normally, in a graduation ceremony, a student would sit with students, and then the student would enter the stage and pick up his or her diploma when the time arrived.

We now have a situation where this particular student, because of the lack of accessibility at the Arts and Culture Centre, has to be posted upon the stage for the whole of the convocation. To me, that is not what the intent of accessibility is all about. That is not normalizing a situation for someone; that is making them stand out again. That is why the question is, why wouldn't we address that issue? Has anybody looked at it to see? There might even be an easy solution at the Arts and Culture Centre, or it might be a $100,000 solution, I don't know, but identifying the problem has been done. The solution is what I am looking for.

MR. JACKMAN: I think right now there is an overall review of the Arts and Culture Centres being completed. That report is due to be ready by the end of this month or early next month. In light of the things that will come out in that particular – I would expect the accessibility issue around any venue is something that you always move towards and you hope to improve and correct upon. So, in light of knowing the situation, you have raised it here, it is certainly something that I will keep front and centre.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

I will turn it back over to Ms Michael.

CHAIR: Ms. Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

I would just like to ask one more question under head 2.1.01.

OFFICIAL: Subhead 2.1.01.?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, 2.1.01., Tourism Marketing. Under 02., Revenue - Provincial, what would the revenue be? What would account for the revenue?

MS TAYLOR-ASH: I can answer that.

We do have a revenue target, and the revenue comes from ads that are sold in our travel guide.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you very much.

Sticking with revenue, then, because maybe you will have the answer to this one, too, the very next head, 2.1.02., this year that also has a revenue amount. Last year there was nothing, but this year there is a revenue amount for $55,000.

MR. MEADE: This is revenue from the City of St. John's for the VIC at the airport. We have entered into a partnership with the Airport Authority and the City of St. John's in the running of the provincial Visitor Information Centre at the airport.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you very much.

We might as well stay with that head, then, just above that in the same 2.1.02., the Grants and Subsidies. In this area, what would the grants and subsidies be? Who would be the groups - I presume it is groups - who would get these grants and subsidies?

MR. MEADE: Grants and subsidies here would be grants to Visitor Information Centres across the Province. We provide an annual grant to the Grand Concourse Authority. This year it will also include - industry has budgeted now a grant to the East Coast Trail, and from year to year it varies but we also would provide some funding towards a program called the Market Readiness Program where it is basically a professional development program where we support the industry.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you; that is interesting.

If we could just go back to head 1.2.05., please.

MR. JACKMAN: Subhead 1.2.05.?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, section 06., Purchased Services. Last year the budget was quite high and the revision was down to $692,000 from $1.5 million, and this year it is back up to $885,000. What would be the purchased services there, and why the big expectation last year and then back down by almost $1 million?

MR. JACKMAN: That centres around the VIC in Whitbourne. Money was allocated to it, but it has not been spent yet.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, so the $885,000 is holding on to it.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes. The design work and that has been done; that is it.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, because that was what I was confused by. It was under Capital and I could not understand the Purchased Services under Capital sort of sitting there.

All right. Thank you very much.

A lot of my questions will have to do with the Grants and Subsidies and Purchased Services. Under 3.1.01., Culture and Heritage, Grants and Subsidies there, number 10., I think I have a sense of where they are going but I still would like to hear it.

MR. JACKMAN: There are a number – I can run down through a list. For example, we have $475,000 going to the Heritage Foundation. We have $2.2 million going to the Cultural Economic Development Plan. We have $300,000 going to MUSICNL. We have sponsored things such as Shallaway. We are getting into discussions around the Olympics 2010. We are into the Mealy Mountain Park. We put $225,000 into the Bartlett Celebrations. Of course, the latest one is our ongoing struggle to acquire funds around Cupids, and we are certainly hoping that the federal government will step up there. Any support we can get in that regard would be very much appreciated.

MS MICHAEL: Therefore, under the description, Minister, I presume when it says archaeology programs it means actual digs like Cupids.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, I would think that would – yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Then, down in the same head, 3.1.01. Revenue, the federal, I presume, is federal grants. What would the provincial revenue be?

MR. MEADE: The federal revenue would be a partnership we have on a program called Historic Places Initiative. That has been ongoing now for a couple of years, and this is administered through the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador. It comes into us as revenue and we then, in turn, would be providing that funding to the Heritage Foundation to deliver on our behalf. The provincial revenue is the Provincial Historic Sites.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. They have revenue coming in through fees and that kind of thing.

Thank you.

Subhead 3.1.02., the next head, could I have some detail there on the Purchased Services? Because I am really not clear why there would be purchased services relating to the Arts and Culture Centres, what they would be.

MR. MEADE: Purchased Services in Arts and Culture Centres would include, in this case, for the last number of years, infrastructure, so if we were to do infrastructure expenditure. The last part of it, though, would be program expenditure; purchasing of programming for the Centres would be included there. It would also include advertising and things like that, that the Centre would undertake as well.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Then, under revenue, the federal I could understand, it is probably a cost-sharing thing, but what is the revenue under the provincial? Is that rent or something that is paid back?

MR. MEADE: For our own shows it would be revenue, but it would also be client rentals. It would be what people – what we enter into when people rent the Centres.

MS MICHAEL: So that includes income from the shows as well, then?

MR. MEADE: Yes, it does.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. I did not realize that.

Thank you.

On page 172, subhead 3.1.05., the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation has gone up by $35,000, and it is better to see it go up than not go up. I didn't have time to locate their report, so I could not look at the report, so I don't have any details on that. What moved you just to put it up by $35,000?

MR. JACKMAN: There was a request around operational funding.

MS MICHAEL: So, it was a direct request.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Not having the report in front of me, I do not have any specific questions around that.

I will send it back to Mr. Parsons.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Any questions over on this side?

Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Just to follow up on that Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation, I notice on page 173, item 3.1.07., the Loans, Advances and Investments section, it says there that that provides for equity and other business financing assistance to telefilm companies in the Province, and it is down by $250,000. Any particular reason why you decided to put less funding into - because we did have a ministerial statement in the House today talking about cases where a movie now is going to be shown at Cannes, which is certainly world class. I am just wondering why if we are trying to promote them - and we always have been big promoters - why would we at this point be reducing the assistance to this group or possible groups to the tune of $250,000.

MR. JACKMAN: I think the group are very much appreciative of the funding that they have received over the past number of years. Secondly, this fund is disbursed on a demand that is out there, lets say on an annualized basis. Having come forward this year with the initiatives that they are taking forward, that is the amount. It is around $750,000. Therefore those funds were committed to that. Now, that may change next year and so on and so forth.

You know, in light and in reference to that, we certainly recognize - like the ministerial statement that was made today and some of the highlights that you have mentioned over the past number of years, and there is another film that is happening in the Province right now - as a government we recognize that and this is another continued support. It does fluctuate from year to year.

MR. PARSONS: That is why I was surprised to see the reduction, because we have done so well in promoting. You talked about, yourself, the social and economic benefits that these types of investments make, and to see a $250,000 reduction it is hardly encouraging to that initiative. It seems to be that you are not giving it as much profile, you are taking money out of the pot.

MR. JACKMAN: Again, the only thing I can say to you is that the demand fluctuates, so if we look at $750,000 as compared to where it was two years ago, then there was a million that was committed. I cannot say where it will go in the coming year, but again going back to my point, things change from year to year and therefore this $750,000 is a strong commitment to the industry again this year.

MR. PARSONS: On page 171, the item with Arts and Culture Centres, 3.1.02, there has been $400,000 extra there for Purchased Services. I am just curious, I guess. In the Deputy Minister's hometown of Stephenville, where the Stephenville Arts Festival is quite successful over the years, my understanding is that there was comments made by the artistic director, Ms Moore I do believe, that some of this $400,000 is for a paint job on the Stephenville Arts and Culture. She was of the view that you should put it into seats as opposed to paint. I am just wondering what comment you might have to that?

MR. JACKMAN: I am going to start to say the deputy is from Stephenville, we do not want to show favouritism, but I will let him answer that one.

MR. PARSONS: It speaks to who makes the priorities, I guess. This is the person who is putting off the festival saying this.

MR. MEADE: I guess, two things: first is that Transportation and Works are still responsible for the maintenance of the Arts and Culture Centres cross the Province. We work in close partnership and consultation with them on what we feel the priorities would be on the centres from an infrastructure point of view. However, in the last two to three Budgets as part of the cultural plan, the department has received over $2 million in our own infrastructure vote for the Arts and Culture Centres to deal with what we see as pressing needs to complement what Transportation and Works would be doing.

The issue in Stephenville, in particular, is that we did have a problem with the exterior of the building. It is a cladding issue; they are going to redo the cladding. It may be characterized as a paint job but it is much more than that and it is to protect the integrity of the building. It was much needed. Now, that being said, there is a need for other things to be done in the Stephenville Arts and Culture Centre, including the seats. What we have in this year's Budget for the centres for our department is $600,000. I can say to you, clearly, that seating in a number of centres, including Stephenville, is something that we are in the process of looking at now as we try to recapitalize the centres.

MR. JACKMAN: I think in the Arts and Culture Centres, the reviews that are being done are the first time in ten years. They are well utilized facilities and it is time that we take a look at them.

MR. PARSONS: I am assuming that information and explanation that Mr. Meade just gave has been passed on the artistic director, that seating, albeit you did not do it this year as the priority, is in the works or will be considered.

MR. MEADE: I am not certain that was communicated directly to Eva Moore or not. I cannot be certain.

MR. PARSONS: I am just thinking that obviously Ms Moore plays a very substantial role in the festival out there, which is probably the reason why the Arts and Culture Centre exists, to a large extent, in Stephenville. It certainly keeps it on the map out there. Communications again, if that an issue, and it is obviously an issue that was picked up - I became aware that it was an issue. It was being commented on by someone in her capacity and yet you have what appears to me to be logical explanation. I am just wondering if the two shall meet and maybe she would be satisfied with your explanation, it would not be an issue, but at this point, I understand it is an issue. I am just wondering if you have not, maybe it would be advisable to at least bring it to her attention. I am sure you do not want criticism if you do not deserve it, for sure.

Another issue: I guess this is tied into budgeting - of course, you have pretty wide sessions here as to what you can ask – and that deals again with the comments by Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, who were on record as saying they did not recommend that the minimum wage be raised. In fact, they recommended against raising the minimum wage for workers in the tourist industry.

I am just wondering, as the minister, how do you feel about such a comment? We know government has certainly raised the minimum wage. I would think maybe in your own department and with your employees it is not an issue, because I doubt if anybody who works for Tourism, Culture and Recreation makes the minimum wage. You are responsible for the industry in the Province, and yet here you have Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador saying, do not give them the raise. How do you handle that? How do you deal with that apparent inconsistency?

MR. JACKMAN: Well, I think, first and foremost, a lot in the hospitality business will tell you that many of their establishments are at the minimum wage level now, and probably would be at the level of the increased wages. Secondly, they certainly did raise this concern. They presented it when Minister Marshall was going around with his budget consultations. They met with us - and I think, first and foremost, anyone who is going to be in a business, anytime your bottom line has to be increased, it would be of concern - and to find a balance for that, we sat and we listened to them. The tax break, the raising of the bar at the tax levels, was certainly something that the industry welcomed and would help offset some of the expenses that they would incur at the other end.

MR. PARSONS: So, you are on record as not being supportive of that recommendation by Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador. You are in favour of raising the minimum wage, I guess, for all persons. You are a member of the Cabinet that did it.

MR. JACKMAN: Certainly! You can put me on record as saying that, as an initiative. But second to that, the important contingent fact on that is that we helped industry then, to find ways that they can offset, whether that be we enter into being partners with them in their conferences, or we assist them on the marketing side, or we give them tax breaks, which we have done as a government to help offset the costs that they have incurred.

MR. PARSONS: My final question, minister - I asked you this in the House already, but I think it deserves to be discussed again – is the issue of the historical documents and the preservation of them.

We have a situation that, as I said yesterday, nobody in this Province would have known about, if it had not been for this court case. The documents would have been shredded and that would have been the end of it. How serious are you taking this issue, that we potentially have historic documents here that are being shipped off to shredders?

First of all, dare I question how many times this has happened? How many historic documents have already been shredded, we do not know, I take it we do not know. What are you going to do to ensure that it does not happen, because besides having a monetary value – that to me is the lesser piece of it. The important piece is that nobody should be selling them anyway. If they are property that belongs to this government or the courts in this Province, then they should be preserved. Where do you see this going, in terms of seeing it does not happen again?

MR. JACKMAN: First and foremost, I think in my response to you I said that the historical significance of it certainly far supersedes the financial aspect of it. Secondly, I think that right now in this Province we have a structure that would guarantee against that. Storage was a major concern. Now, with the establishment of The Rooms and their control over the archival records, there is a safer, cleaner, drier – if I could put it that way – environment in which they are stored.

Thirdly, the three levels that are established, in terms of disposing of records, I think is one that involves experts, as I said. Archivists are the first line, then they go to a director for assessment, and then they go to a panel, if I could use that term, that are made up of various departments.

I certainly would have to leave it to the experts in the field to determine if artifacts should be disposed of or not.

Second to that is documents that are put on microfilm, so that they ensure we have them for the future.

MR. PARSONS: I take it, being on microfilm was not an issue here. They had been put on microfilm. The question, the concern I have, is you seem to be confident in the existing protocol. I am not near as confident, and I think that court case is a perfect example of why we should not be, because we have had evidence from various experts saying they are good or they are not good. How do we make sure that we just do not risk it? This happened. We were going to lose 200 boxes of valuable documents in a shredding machine. Your experts who are deciding this - somebody decided, some of these experts decided it, yet we have archivists at MUN who say, no, no, no, not only are they historic, not only are they valuable, but they actually have a monetary value potentially up to $250,000. How can you be so confident that your protocol is working given that this happened?

MR. JACKMAN: Well, specific to that: when this story broke first, the week before you asked your question, we as a staff had sat down and discussed it. Second, prior to you raising it again as a matter of fact, we had met and we had an archivist in who I have had a discussion with. It is not something that, you know, I would just say to you, well, I cannot comment on it as to the court case, it is something that we are taking very, very seriously. No one wants to see historical documents of significance destroyed, but we discuss, we review it, and then if there are measures that we need to tighten the thing up then that is what we will do.

MR. PARSONS: You mentioned departments. You said representatives from different departments on this panel. Where does MUN fit into the equation here, or do they, in terms of making that assessment? It seems to me, your panel consists of government departmental representatives. Does Memorial and the people at Memorial, the historians and the archivists, play any role in this and should they, because they seem to be giving some pretty good answers in the court case anyway as to what is valuable.

MR. MEADE: Memorial University does not sit on - the panel's title is the Public Records Committee. The Public Records Committee, if I can recall, consists of representation from the Department of Justice, Finance, The Rooms, including the archives, and our own department. It does not include Memorial University which would be in this case considered an external institution to the process.

MR. PARSONS: External to the process - the bottom line here is that we need to preserve and ensure that we preserve valuable documents. We pass laws for all kinds of things that need to be protected. I am just saying, as a prudent step why wouldn't we have somebody from other external agencies who have historic documents or have access to them and control over, why wouldn't we have them as part of our vetting process? I just use MUN as an example, maybe there is a provincial libraries board, for example, as well, that it might be advisable to have someone on, because they access all kinds of information.

MR. JACKMAN: As I have said, we have discussions ongoing within the department. Where they will eventually take us in terms of Memorial or others, I cannot say to you right now, but it is something that is not going to be just left to the side.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, because I do not know who - Mr. Meade referenced a representative from the Department of Justice. Now, I do not know the quality or skill sets that that person has to determine whether documents should be disposed of or not. Is there some lawyer in the Department of Justice or whatever? Because whoever it was, that committee is existing - they let 200 boxes of judicial documents go out the door to a shredder. That should say something is not working. Who are the representatives, and what skills do they have to be making these recommendations of disposal?

Finance, you mentioned. Did Finance make a decision and that representative looked at the dollars and cents of it and say we have to store them and this is what it costs, we have to have the heat on a certain amount, it takes this much space? My concern is not of what it costs to keep them. To me that is an unavoidable cost. If you are going to make the decision to keep them, you have to expend the money then to whatever it takes to keep them.

I do not have much confidence in what you are saying. I am not trying to berate or be nasty to the individuals on the committee, but the preservation of historic documents and the decision to destroy should be left to those who know, not to people who just might happen to be told by their minister: Well, you are going to sit on that board. What skill sets do they have to sit on that board? Right now, you certainly seem to have excluded a major group, such as Memorial University, which probably has as many records as government does of an historic value.

MR. JACKMAN: Well, where they were in the past as compared to where this situation will end up right now, it could be quite different. So, I cannot commit to you that Memorial will be or will not be on it, but the one thing that I can commit to you is that the discussion is ongoing around this particular thing and where it finally sits, we will have to see.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister Jackman.

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, just two more questions actually. One is a line item, head 3.1.06., Historic Sites Development.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Three in a row, beginning with 06., Purchased Services, big fluctuations up and down there. I am just curious as to why, from the budget to the revision and then up to this year's estimate.

MR. MEADE: Honourable member, you are asking about the variance in 2007-2008?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, that is right.

MR. MEADE: The variance in 2007-2008, the $1.675 million that was in the budget included $1 million for the Colonial Building and $675,000 for the Provincial Historic Sites. The $1 million in the Colonial Building was not spent.

MS MICHAEL: Right, and we are hoping that is going to get spent. Everybody is really looking forward to what will happen with the Colonial Building.

MR. JACKMAN: We should probably mention, there are two that have been completed around the interpretation study and the structure report and it is ready to go to tenders now on the design.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, great. That is good. I am glad to hear that.

Then, with regard to Property, Furnishings and Equipment, $110,000 budgeted last year, only $20,000 spent and $110,000 being estimated for this year. Might that be related to the Colonial Building as well, or other –

MR. MEADE: The $110,000 that sits in 2007 for Property, Furnishings and Equipment is a long-standing A-base item in our budget. The reason it was only $20,000 last year is because you can see there was a restatement of the budget when we went through the year.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. MEADE: And you can see, of course, we have restated the budget for the coming year. So that would have just been simply moved from that.

That $110,000, for all intents and purposes, is for recapitalization for Provincial Historic Sites. What we have done, for project planning purposes, is essentially roll it into the $675,000, for example last year that we would have had, and we would roll it into the amount that would be there this year, from a project planning perspective.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Under Grants and Subsidies, is it that you normally do not have Grants and Subsidies in this area? Because I noticed there was nothing budgeted for 2007-2008 but you did spend $115,000 and there is nothing budgeted for this year. Is that just a rare, one-time thing?

MR. MEADE: Yes, it is. It is unusual for us to have Grants and Subsidies under Historic Sites Development, because it is our own activity and our own projects and sites that we operate and own.

In this case, the $115,000 was for funding the Trinity – associated with a rock wall that we were putting out there to stabilize a roadway and whatnot. An example of where we worked with the Town of Trinity on a partnership, on a particular project out there. We moved it into Grants and Subsidies so we could issue that.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you. Then, my last question is more a point of information for me. It has to do with recreation. Obviously, it is very specific what this department does with recreation. As it says, you provide for consultative and support services to provincial sports governing bodies, et cetera, everything that is spelled out there.

When it comes to recreation from the perspective of trying to encourage people to become more involved in recreational activities for the sake of fitness and all that kind of thing, where does that fit? Is that under health, is it under education, or do we have anything?

MR. JACKMAN: Well, I could get the deputy to speak specifically to it, but certainly working closely with the Department of Health. I think from a personal perspective and from a directional perspective that I will be discussing with department officials is that, key to the obesity situation that we have in the Province is getting people more active. That is a direction we will be definitely moving in with Mark on stream here now. It is something we will definitely be moving forward with, but if you want specifics I can defer them to the deputy.

MR. MEADE: I think the title of our rec and sports strategy, in many ways, speaks to the spirit and intent, it is Active Healthy Living. That was a very intentional title, in that we were trying to encompass and embrace physical activity and wellness as a key theme of why we should be supporting rec and sport. In the development of that strategy, we built very strong partnerships with the Department of Education, Department of Health. So, we have our support to recreation commissions and supporting groups throughout the Province and a number of other initiatives.

The Department of Health would have the wellness strategy, which looks at certain components of physical activity and wellness. The Department of Education then would have particular initiatives, particularly in schools, like Healthy Students, Healthy Schools. So, it is very much a partnership. In fact, there is an interdepartmental steering committee where we are, on a day-to-day basis, trying to better coordinate and plan for how we tackle these issues across government, and not just within departments, and how we want to avoid clearly duplication. We want to maximize how we can complement each other in our program delivery within schools and within communities. So, that is the approach we take.

MS MICHAEL: Are you planning sort of a high-profile program with regard to that?

MR. MEADE: Do you mean like a social marketing campaign?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, that is right.

MR. MEADE: We are in discussions actually with our Atlantic colleagues around a social marketing campaign to look at trying to get people more active and moving. Of course, we have also had discussions with Participation. You may have noticed Participation is now back again.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I have noticed.

MR. JACKMAN: It is certainly one that I want us to be more out front with.

MS MICHAEL: Is there anything in this budget geared towards taking part in that partnership around that program, or is it you are just really still in the planning stages at the moment?

MR. MEADE: Within our programs we have the ability to do much of this. Do we have a particular line item associated with social marketing? No, we do not. Certainly, if we are able to come to agreement with our Atlantic colleagues around a project, we would be working with the Department of Health and Education and other key players to try and resource that, certainly. So, that would be the approach we would take there.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

That is all, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: I just have one brief question.

The $2,000 recreational grants that were given out to districts, does that still exist, and is it going to be increased?

MR. JACKMAN: I can tell you that it is at $3,000 now.

MR. MEADE: Yes, it is $3,000.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, it was $3,000 last year. Is it going to be increased or –

MR. JACKMAN: No. It is staying at the same thing, but I will tell you we are just taking a look at it. They are in place at this particular point. I just want us to do a review of how it is going, how they have been spent, how we get the best bang for our buck out of them, but they are in place still.

MR. PARSONS: Okay, thank you.

I have no further questions.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Any further questions from the committee?

Okay, I will ask the Clerk now to call the subheads.

CLERK: 1.1.01 to 4.1.02 inclusive.

CHAIR: Subheads 1.1.01 to 4.1.02, do they carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 4.1.02 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates for 2008-2009 Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, Estimates for the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation carried.

CHAIR: I just want to take the opportunity to thank the minister and his officials, and also the members of the committee and the House of Assembly staff.

Our next meeting will be tomorrow after the House closes, and it will be here. We will be doing the Department of Business.

I guess that is about it. So we will have a motion to adjourn?

MR. DALLEY: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Moved by Mr. Dalley, that this meeting adjourn.

This meeting is now adjourned.