Legislative Assembly of Ontario

ST LAWRENCE PARKS COMMISSION

KINGSTON AREA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

EASTERN ONTARIO TRAVEL ASSOCIATION

CORNWALL REGIONAL VISITOR AND CONVENTION BUREAU

GANANOQUE AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

TOWNSHIP OF FRONT OF YONGE

CONTENTS

Wednesday 12 October 1994

St Lawrence Parks Commission

Gary Clarke, chair

Frank Shaw, general manager

John Robertson, manager, Fort Henry

Paul Deault, manager, Upper Canada Village

Kingston Area Economic Development Commission

Marielle Laplante-Wheeler, acting senior tourism development officer

Eastern Ontario Travel Association

Ronald Huck, president

Cornwall Regional Visitor and Convention Bureau

Dick Aubry, president

Janet Parisien, executive manager

Gananoque and District Chamber of Commerce

Sylvia Fletcher, tourism marketing coordinator

Township of Front of Yonge

Edward Wight, councillor

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)

Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)

*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)

*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)

*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)

Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)

*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)

Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)

*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)

*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)

Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:

Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Ms Harrington

Morin, Gilles E. (Carleton East/-Est L) for Mr Bradley

Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC) for Mr McLean

Villeneuve, Noble (S-D-G & East Grenville/S-D-G & Grenville-Est PC) for Mrs Witmer

Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Iles ND) for Mr Ferguson

Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn

Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 0932 in the Best Western Parkway Inn, Cornwall, Ontario, following a closed session.

ST LAWRENCE PARKS COMMISSION

The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): Good morning. I would like to call this meeting of the standing committee on government agencies to order. We are going to begin our agency review of the St Lawrence Parks Commission. We would like to welcome to the meeting this morning our first two deputants, Mr Gary Clarke, the chair of the St Lawrence Parks Commission -- good morning, Mr Clarke --

Mr Gary Clarke: Good morning.

The Chair: -- and Mr Frank Shaw, the general manager of the St Lawrence Parks Commission. Good morning, Mr Shaw. Could you give us some idea how long your initial presentation is, because I know that all members of the committee are very anxious to be able to ask questions. They've had a very comprehensive package which they have received from our researcher, who has done some excellent background work in preparation for this hearing. We've also just had a verbal overview briefing from our researcher, Dr Pond, so can you give us some idea?

Mr Clarke: I'll try to keep the presentation to half an hour at the most and allow lots of time for questions. We are looking forward to being able to respond to questions.

The Chair: Okay, that's excellent. You do have two hours. It's just that members were interested to know that you not take up the two hours with your presentation.

Mr Clarke: No, most definitely not.

The Chair: Obviously, in response to questions you'll have lots of opportunity to enlarge on certain areas, so if you'd like to proceed, Mr Clarke, thank you.

Mr Clarke: Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of the committee and guests. It's with real pleasure that we meet with you to discuss the work of the commission. I must say I enjoyed the opportunity of touring eastern Ontario with you yesterday and seeing all of the individual pearls in this wonderful string of pearls that we have that functions overall as the St Lawrence Parks Commission.

I thought that just to refresh memories it might be interesting to refer to a map, and I'll do so very briefly. I know we're going to have a hard time seeing the map, so you'll have to take it on trust that what I'm going to show you is a map of the waterfront of Ontario, basically from Hamilton at the west end to the Quebec border at the east end.

If I take this map and fold it in half, a little conjuror's trick here, it disappears of course. But open it up, and halfway on the map is Adolphustown. Adolphustown is the start of the St Lawrence Parks Commission's area of responsibility. Basically half of the waterfront from Hamilton to the Quebec border falls under the mandate, the area of responsibility of the St Lawrence Parks Commission, so it's a huge territory in eastern Ontario for which we're responsible. I think it's very important to bear that in mind as we talk about some of our challenges.

Today we'd like to review with you some of the initiatives taken by the commission in the past seven years to improve our contribution to the Ontario tourism industry and the economy of the province and to respond to the new economic realities.

As you know, I'm sure, the commission was established as an agency of the Ontario government by legislation on March 31, 1955. What you may not know is that the original name of the commission was the Ontario St Lawrence Development Commission, and I stress the word "development." We were an economic development agency in the original concept, not a land trust.

The commission owns approximately 10,000 acres of land along the St Lawrence River, stretching across 280 kilometres, or 168 miles, and eight counties, from the Bay of Quinte to the Quebec border.

The parks include a wide range of facilities: two major attractions, Fort Henry and Upper Canada Village; 12 parks and campgrounds; two parkways, the St Lawrence Parkway and Long Sault Parkway; a golf course; a bird sanctuary; a marina; restaurants; gift shops; historical memorial gardens; scenic lookouts and, of course, bikeways. By virtue of the number of visitors attracted each year to the commission's facilities, we play a major role in tourism and related economic activities in Ontario east. In fact, we are unquestionably the largest tourism attraction in eastern Ontario.

A great deal of change has occurred since the commission last appeared before this committee in 1988. Not only has the commission been a full participant in implementing government initiatives such as employment equity and multi-year expenditure reduction, it has responded to the ever-changing and dynamic nature of the tourism industry by continuing to attract large numbers of visitors to its attractions each year.

In spite of difficult times in the tourism industry over the past few years, the commission has maintained revenue levels and in the past year managed to increase its revenues by 9%. Current trends for 1994 and 1995 suggest that we will continue to improve the rate of revenue generation. I'm sure some of our individual managers, in their presentations, will refer to specifics there.

Over the past seven years -- in fact, it's really over the past five years -- we have increased our self-sufficiency from a low of 29% to a high of 40% projected for 1994-95. I'd like to reiterate, we've gone from 29% to 40% over the past five years. That is a 38% improvement in our rate of self-sufficiency through a period that includes the worst recession in recent memory and a period when we underwent cumulative restraints of $15.4 million. That's incredible productivity for any government agency and I am very proud of the performance of our management in that respect.

0940

Since our last meeting and in response to the changing environment of the 1990s, the commission developed Vision 2000, a 10-year statement of strategic direction based on a consensus of key principles, values and beliefs. The commission has used this direction to guide its corporate planning, budgeting and tourism development. Vision 2000 noted that the commission will research and build upon its strengths and expand in areas where it can provide the greatest tourism and economic benefits. In addition, it suggested that the commission divest itself of programs which no longer contribute efficiently to tourism or which could effectively be delivered by other agencies or the private sector.

The initial corporate plan for 1990 to 1993 derived from Vision 2000 resulted in many achievements. Program innovation, visitor services, partnerships and marketing have improved the tourism product and economic impact in spite of significant budget constraints. I mentioned earlier that the cumulative effect of those constraints was $15.4 million.

At the same time, the commission embarked on an active program of capital revitalization to upgrade 30-or-more-year-old facilities -- you'll recall we started back in 1955, so some of our facilities are in fact up to 40 years old -- to revitalize those facilities and to meet new customer expectations. So we've been an active and efficient partner in deficit reduction but at the same time continued to build and renovate assets to build for a successful future. It's a challenge to weigh continuously those two goals.

The most recent corporate plan for 1992 to 1995 updated commission strategies and initiatives to reflect changing times and government directions through a renewed mission of focused excellence in attraction quality, in customer service and economic investment in eastern Ontario. It describes new initiatives and projects in tourism development, program renewal, strategic partnerships, capital investment and revenue generation which are directed to improve the commission's economic impact on the eastern Ontario tourism industry.

New emphasis was placed on three key strategies: first of all, that product development be market-driven, be a response to the needs of the marketplace; we stressed tourism partnerships in the public and private sector; and finally, agency-empowered financial management. I had to ask Frank what "agency-empowered financial management" was, and effectively what we mean is that we've moved to revenue retention status. We're able to keep what we earn.

Considerable progress has been made on our strategic directions and corporate initiatives, as evidenced by our attraction programs and in annual reports to the minister. Recent amendments to the St Lawrence Parks Commission Act have provided us with the authority to retain revenues and set our own fees. The commission began revenue retention operations on April 1, 1994, and these are discussed later in this presentation. We'd be happy to entertain questions on the subject of revenue retention and what are the implications for us and some of the challenges that we face.

Program restructuring: In the course of implementing our corporate priorities, the commission has absorbed significant operating budget reductions in the past five years, and again I'd reiterate that this was $15.4 million cumulatively. What that doesn't say, however, is the timing that we face occasionally with some of these budget reductions. For example, $1 million in constraint for the Ontario expenditure control plan was cut from our 1993-94 budget only a few weeks before the Victoria Day weekend opening. So you can imagine, a couple of weeks prior to opening our operating season, suddenly we're faced with a $1-million budget constraint. The kinds of machinations that management and staff have had to undergo to meet those kinds of constraint on very short notice cause all sorts of disruptions, but none the less, they were met.

The commission has had to make many difficult choices and permanent reductions to its operations. For example, since the 1989-90 operating season, the operating seasons at Upper Canada Village and Fort Henry were reduced, pro shop services at the Upper Canada golf course were contracted out, our sugar bush operations were eliminated, winter retail operations were reduced.

Following intensive analysis of cost, visitation and revenues, Fairfield House, Gutzeit House, Battlefield Memorial Visitors Centre, Adolphustown Park, Brown's Bay campsite, Grenville Park, Farran Park, Lakeview Park, Charlottenburgh Park and Raisin River campsite were closed to meet constraint targets. Evening performances by the Fort Henry Guard, the so-called sunset ceremonies, were gradually eliminated, along with commission funding for the biennial performance of the guard in Washington with the US Marine Corps. This year's performance in Washington was really only made possible through the volunteer effort of the Fort Henry Guard, backed by fund-raising efforts by the Fort Henry Guard Alumni Association and the ministry.

The commission has introduced many efficiency measures to reduce costs. Landscaping and grounds maintenance programs have been reduced in such a manner as to maintain aesthetic views for the travelling public while reducing costs substantially. Yes, friends, we don't cut the grass everywhere, but we happen to think it looks just fine and that it's more environmentally responsible in many areas not to be cutting the grass.

In addition, the restructuring of all divisions within the commission has resulted in a delayered organization with fewer reporting levels and reduced supervisory overhead. Administrative savings have also been made to ensure that administrative support is appropriate for the level of operations that we have now. At the same time, new visitor services, historical animation, family activities and special events have been introduced throughout commission operations to enhance visitor enjoyment, stimulate attendance and increase revenue generation. From the numbers that will be presented to you today, you will see that those efforts are working. Attendance is up in most cases, revenues are up everywhere, so the efforts are producing results.

Attraction closure, program restructuring and efficiency measures have resulted in staff reduction and related anxiety about job security, as can only be expected. Our total workforce at the peak of 725 in the 1987-88 season has diminished by 144 and our budget forecast for 1994-95 is 581 positions. When two thirds of your operating budget is salaries, naturally jobs are going to be affected. You can have no other anticipation. If we cut $15.4 million and two thirds of our budget is salaries, jobs are going to be affected.

0950

We've worked hard to place surplus classified staff and non-recalled seasonal employees in other vacant positions and we've had a 90% or better success rate in those placements. Our remaining staff resources are stretched to the limit more than ever in delivering new programs and core services. Local communities and our tourism partners have also expressed strong concerns about parks closures and reductions in our tourism operations -- our programming. But we've worked cooperatively with local councils and associations to seek other avenues for tourism on commission lands.

In making budget decisions affecting attractions, the commission has very carefully selected program changes which maintained core season tourism operations from Victoria Day to Thanksgiving weekend and modified shoulder season programs to reduce overhead and/or improve revenues. We're also pleased to report that some of the closed parks have been able to reopen under agreements and leases with community groups, municipalities and the private sector. These partnerships have had excellent results, and the financial return to the commission from Grenville Park, for example, has been excellent. The commission would like to pursue more long-term leasing with the private sector to make effective use of lands and facilities not directly operated by the commission.

I know there has been lots of focus on closed parks, but I would remind you that the commission owns 10,000 acres of land. So the issue for us is not simply one of leasing parks that may be closed; it's also an issue of what we do with lands that we hold in an unproductive state that are not environmentally sensitive; areas that aren't marshland, for example, what is our capacity to put those into some form of productive use?

Discussions have continued with the ministry related to our interest in leasing in particular Charlottenburgh and Raisin River parks through a public request for proposals and renewal of the long-term lease for Grenville Park. We believe that we're very close to a resolution on these particular parks.

Customer service: To be successful in a highly competitive tourism market -- and I'd stress again a highly competitive tourism market -- we don't compete any more with a private campground operator 10 miles down the road. We are competing internationally with tourism attractions and tourism regions all around the world. We saw yesterday, when we stopped in Rockport, busloads of Japanese tourists, and those Japanese tourists have a choice of thousands of tourism destinations around the world. So we must meet the changing needs of visitors, not only locally but on a world scale. We know that a satisfied customer is often our best source of advertising and return business. All program delivery is focused on quality, service and value in a unique environment.

Our pledge to customers, "Your satisfaction is our business," is posted throughout our attractions. Customer service is an integral part of staff training programs. Customer service manuals are updated annually to support commission information centres. Comment cards and other sources of customer feedback are used to evaluate and improve attraction operations. We continually monitor tourism trends as part of our market research.

There's a section that I want to refer to particularly, and that is one on environmental protection. The St Lawrence Parks Commission has been the first agency in Ontario to adopt the national tourism industry standards for environmentally sustainable tourism -- the first agency in the province of Ontario. We've taken a proactive leadership position that our commission would like to have guide our development and operational policies for the future. The natural and heritage environments are our most important assets in the creation of a successful tourism industry in eastern Ontario.

I'd like to stress, beyond that, that in addition to the codes of ethics -- and Frank has already passed them around -- our board of commissioners itself has now several of the leading environmentalists in eastern Ontario represented on our commission, as commissioners, to ensure that these environmental policies will be respected. So it's not only been a case of adapting codes of ethics. We've put the watchdogs in place to be sure that future actions are in accordance with the codes of ethics that have been adopted.

Target marketing: Since 1990, significant efforts have been directed towards target markets by developing comprehensive annual marketing plans for the commission. Our new corporate identity, Parks of the St Lawrence, has been implemented throughout the commission as the cornerstone for all marketing and communications activity. We've focused resources on strategic actions to reach target markets.

To maximize our marketing efforts, the commission has also initiated and participated in many partnership marketing projects. For example, cooperative advertising with the Eastern Ontario Travel Association, with the ministry, with Tourism Canada and with other regional tourism partners on special campaigns has stretched our marketing reach within very limited budgets. We have sustained our marketing budget in spite of constraint and this has helped us attract visitors and maintain revenues in difficult economic times.

Let me talk then briefly about economic impact. Outside of the national capital area, the Ottawa-Hull region, the commission presents the largest tourist attraction area in eastern Ontario. As was recommended by the standing commission on public accounts, an economic impact study was completed by the ministry in 1991. Four commission attractions -- Fort Henry, Upper Canada Village, Long Sault Parkway and Riverside-Cedar campsite -- were surveyed. The study found that these commission attractions stimulated $32 million in direct expenditures, generated for the province $15 million in tax revenue and created 1,000 person-years of employment in the area. Overall, sales volume derived from commission activity was estimated at over $79 million per annum; and by adding on attractions that hadn't been surveyed, the economic impact could be estimated to be as much as $100 million per year.

When you think of it, if we're now 40% self-sufficient, that would mean that with a net investment by the province of $8 million annually, there's an annual benefit of $100 million. If you consider the tax revenues on $100 million of economic activity, the St Lawrence Parks Commission is self-sustaining right now. It's got to be one of the best investments the province is making.

The commission has also worked very hard to increase the value provided for the entertainment dollar for all visitors to our facilities. For example, our campgrounds now have regularly scheduled activities for children and families, a special children's "Muster" parade takes places daily at Fort Henry and the children's activity centre at Upper Canada Village provides children with the opportunity to sample period games and crafts. As such, we believe the Parks of the St Lawrence is a good investment for tourists and an excellent investment for government in Ontario tourism and economic renewal.

1000

Capital revitalization: You've seen from the map the extent of our lands and responsibilities. The vast array of commission attractions and facilities requires a large capital infrastructure, for example, roads, buildings and utilities. The commission has developed a capital investment strategy to repair and replace 30- to 40-year-old facilities to meet health and safety requirements, to support new services for customers and to enhance revenue generation. Each year the commission tries to secure at least $2.5 million in capital funding to proceed with its capital priorities, and since the 1987-88 year we've invested about $18 million on capital renewal over that period. At the same time, the commission often applies for special funding under new programs such as the Jobs Ontario Capital fund.

Through the Jobs Ontario Capital and the anti-recession programs, the commission obtained funding to complete projects such as the revitalization of Crysler Park marina, which you saw yesterday, for upgrades to Upper Canada Village and Fort Henry, for the sewage project that you saw under way yesterday and the construction of the Village Café at Upper Canada Village. These projects were completed with 100% of the funding coming from the province. Total expenditures between 1991-92 and 1993-94 on these projects were over $3 million, creating approximately 43 person-years of direct construction employment in the midst of the recession.

It's important to note that additional projects carried out with regular capital funding over the same time period by the commission created a further 55 person-years of direct construction employment. Capital investments were made to maintain historic buildings -- and you know what the cost of maintaining historic buildings is these days; I own a couple of them and it's a very expensive business -- to install utilities, to overhaul park washrooms, upgrade campsites, provide sports equipment, add picnic shelters, install exhibits, upgrade food services, improve entrance facilities, and install visitor amenities, for example, for disabled persons.

These improvements have also contributed greatly to the quality of our attractions and visitor enjoyment. Where possible, we work with local municipalities and other agencies on joint capital initiatives to stimulate tourism development. One such venture is our current effort to extend the St Lawrence bikeway from Cornwall to Morrisburg as a priority project within the eastern Ontario trails network, and the opportunities for the trails network extend well beyond this bikeway simply from Cornwall to Morrisburg.

Revenue retention, our favourite subject, is perhaps the single most significant event since the commission last appeared before the committee and probably since we were formed in 1955. An amendment was passed last year to our legislation enabling us to retain revenues and set our own fees. To clarify the new operating relationship, a letter of agreement was signed by the ministry and the commission to amend a previous memorandum of understanding in terms of the financial, human resources and administrative authority to implement revenue retention. The new financial management system began on April 1, 1994, and the commission officially became then a transfer payment agency.

I suggest to you that one of our goals, and my goal as a chairman, is to see a new memorandum of understanding in place before the start of our next fiscal year. It's not sufficient for us to simply operate on a letter of agreement. It has to be more formal than that.

Instead of receiving a full expenditure allocation and returning all revenues to the Minister of Finance, the commission is provided now with an annual transfer payment to offset our net operating costs. This change in status releases the commission from a number of operating constraints which have been identified in previous years, such as the difficulties associated with replenishing retail inventory levels during high sales years, such as the timely approval of fees to meet ongoing changes in the marketplace, and will provide the mechanisms for the commission to achieve more self-sufficiency. As part of long-term business planning exercise, which is, by the way, under way right now -- one of the sessions was held yesterday at the guest house at Upper Canada Village while we were on tour -- the commission will be identifying through this process how we will work towards a goal of self-sufficiency over the course of the next 20 years.

I should point out to you that the goal of self-sufficiency over the next 20 years is one that has been imposed by the commissioners themselves. It is not a goal that has been imposed by government. This is our objective, which has been endorsed by government.

Future outlook: Looking ahead for the ingredients to success over the next 20 years, the commission is, with the ministry's support, embarking upon a long-term business planning process. The process is considering market opportunities, product development, the issues of land stewardship, corporate sponsorship, tourism partnerships, community investment and financial management. In the next few months the commission, with the assistance of a consultant acting as a facilitator, will be conducting workshops and consultations to develop a new vision and strategic directions to guide more detailed business planning and project implementation.

We anticipate that the new vision and resulting strategy will be market-driven and focus on the best bets for the commission to increase self-sufficiency. An important component of this strategy will be the development of strategic alliances and partnerships to ensure the enhancement of eastern Ontario's tourism destination appeal.

Those partnerships are not limited to the province or to Canada, but span our international border and include discussions with US partners in the Thousand Islands region and in the Seaway valley region. The stakeholder consultation process, that is, our consultation with tourism partners, with community groups, industry advisers, municipalities, commissioners and staff, will make an important contribution to the business planning process.

Unlike planning activities that took place 10 or 15 years ago, we're planning our future in partnership with the industry that surrounds us, and that's a very different process from the past, where wonderful plans and schemes were arrived at, dumped on the table and then people saw those projects as competition and not as a process of working together. So the process has changed.

Increased self-sufficiency will depend on our ability to invest increased revenues in new business development prior to future transfer payment reduction. It will also depend on the commission's ability to enter into long-term lease agreements with the private sector to develop and operate many new revenue-producing attractions on commission lands and to join with our many tourism partners in marketing the Parks of the St Lawrence and eastern Ontario. We'll also need to determine the future level of transfer payments to sustain provincial infrastructure that cannot generate substantive revenues.

For example, we hold and have mandated responsibility for things like historic monuments, Crysler Park, Queen Elizabeth Gardens, the Thousand Island Parkway and collections, extensive collections, of heritage material that derive no revenue whatsoever. This is a responsibility that derives us no revenue. We're not backing away from that responsibility, we're happy to continue with it, but there will have to be support derived from some area in order for us to maintain those items.

1010

Without a doubt the 1990s have been challenging times for us. The commission has experienced more dramatic change in the last few years than in our first 35. We've revitalized facilities and streamlined overhead, built new partnerships and restructured programs and strengthened marketing and increased revenues. We've emphasized customer service, a quality experience and good value for money to the best of our abilities.

We believe that our historical attractions and recreational facilities, targeted marketing, tourism partnerships and visitor services have positioned the Parks of the St Lawrence as a gateway destination and strong contributor to the eastern Ontario tourism economy. I'd stress again: gateway. We as well as Niagara are a gateway to the province of Ontario. The recent move to revenue retention and a more businesslike operation is welcomed by the commission as a source of renewed vigour. As the commission proceeds to set new vision and directions, increased self-sufficiency is our goal. We will build on success and seek out new venues in creating our future.

On behalf of our employees, the residents and the tourism industry of eastern Ontario, we beg you to provide us with the freedom to innovate, to make business deals, to encourage environmentally sustainable economic development, to be an active partner in returning tourism in eastern Ontario to the position of world leadership we enjoyed 100 years ago. Please free us from unduly oppressive policies that force us to hold hundreds of acres of land inactive when they could be employed to create jobs in tourism and other industrial sectors. That, after all, was the mandate extended to us in 1955 when we were created as the Ontario St Lawrence Development Commission. We've built a winning team and have the numbers to prove it. Let us get on with the task.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss some of the commission's initiatives and obvious achievements over the past five years. We'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Clarke. We have 25 minutes per caucus remaining, so I'm going to suggest we do 15-minute rotations, if that suits you, and then 10-minute. Is that agreeable? All right. We'll start with the Liberal Caucus and it's Mr Cleary.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I would like to welcome everyone here to Cornwall to the committee. I guess my goal, and it always has been, is to make the St Lawrence Parks Commission better than it is now and attract more visitors to our area. I think that was the intention when it was set up. I was born right here in the heart of the St Lawrence parks area, and I can remember when I was a kid going to Sheek's Island and we saw a stick up in a tree and that was where the mark was supposed to go when the Seaway went through, and that happened. Anyway, I have a number of things that I'm very, very concerned about, and I'm not going to let them rest till it happens.

I know the St Lawrence Parks Commission is a big area. It takes in lots of area. I've toured it many times. I'm impressed with what I see in some areas. In other areas I'm very disappointed, really disappointed. The St Lawrence Parks Commission said it's not to blame, the union says it's not to blame, the government says it's not to blame, and we're just getting a runaround and these closed parks. Believe me, the ones in my area I think are a disgrace, and what happens there, especially when we have private investors wanting to spend their money to come in and do something with those parks, is they're getting the runaround.

We talk about partnerships, and I totally agree. The only way we're going to get around this mess is partnerships with private investors. But we're not getting to first base in any of it. For the last four or five years, nothing has been happening, and I know we've lost some good private investors. They've got discouraged, they've put their money somewhere else, because they can't seem to crack the wall, whoever's to blame. I know many people approached me about leasing land from the parks commission, for a number of reasons, but in their inquiries they've got nowhere. I'm not sure who to blame, but somebody's to blame.

The bicycle path: I think it's an excellent idea. I was reeve and our council initiated the bicycle path in Cornwall township. We had numerous trips to Toronto to get all the agreements in place, and it was finally kicked off in 1984 with federal government money to clear the path. It's extremely popular in this area. There have been three sections of it opened. The first was probably in 1987 or 1988 and the other two were afterwards.

As you know, in this area there's a lot of discontent of people who live along the waterway that the brush continues to grow and they cannot see the water any more. A perfect example of it is just west of here in Osnabruck township, where five or six people were complaining bitterly at me about the brush growing. They live north of Highway 2, and they finally got an agreement to cut the brush so they could see the water. That cost them $25, to cut the brush on the parks commission land, and what they call that is a vegetation control permit. That was $25 for the group. Now I have in front of me, June 1, 1994, it's going to be that partnership of four or five or six people, and they're each going to have to pay $25 now to cut the brush in front of their place. That's the amount of the invoices here, $23.36 each plus $1.64 GST.

You know, if you had been up there, which I went to see, probably in 1989 or 1988, they improved the parks commission. Now, I think things like that maybe should be given a second look at when you figure the high administration costs, the stamps and all the costs. I know the parks commission has to be protected for insurance purposes, but if people want to improve the area, I think that should be taken into consideration.

Madam Chairman, are my responses back included in my 15 minutes?

The Chair: Yes, I'm afraid so.

1020

Mr Cleary: Oh. Well, I'm going to say a couple of other things then.

The Chair: You've used six minutes.

Mr Cleary: The other thing that some of the municipal people really complained bitterly to me about was when a bunch of the commission's buildings were torched recently and they didn't know anything about it.

Maybe I'm just going to leave it at that, and then I'll come back after I get some responses.

The Chair: Mr Clarke?

Mr Clarke: You've raised quite a number of issues.

Mr Cleary: I'm sorry if I raised so many.

Mr Clarke: No, no. Obviously, there are a number of issues. I think in my presentation I referred to the issue of the two parks in particular. You're raising three fingers. We expect to be in a position shortly to be able to deal with that issue. There are a couple of rather minor details that are being discussed between ourselves and the ministry at the moment. The majority of issues have been resolved, and it's our sincere hope that we'll be able to put out a call for proposals in the very near future.

That does not address the broader issue, and I raised that as well. We have extensive lands that go well beyond any closed parks. The challenge will be how to deal with those. I don't think the answer is to simply on a wholesale basis open up all our lands for proposals. It seems to me that as a responsible land owner, what we have to do is come up with a master plan, and part of what that master plan has to do is to show which lands are developable lands, with very low, next to no environmental risk, and which are the environmentally sensitive lands that have to be preserved and protected.

Obviously, as a responsible land owner and as people with an environmental responsibility, we're not about to advocate filling in and developing marshlands or creating high-rise apartment towers in scenic areas. That's not the kind of thing we're going to advocate. But I think we do have to have a better impression of where development can be sustained, where it can make an economic contribution, where jobs can be created, and simply throwing everything wide open before that plan is in place is probably not responsible. There have been missed opportunities, unquestionably, but let's hope we can put that behind us and move forward in a very progressive way with a dynamic plan for development and job creation and a dynamic plan for protection and preservation of the environment.

You've raised issues related to bicycle paths, and I must say that happens to be a personal priority of mine and one that we're actively working on with the ministry. Cycling in those areas where we've been able to promote it over the course of the last year has increased. For example, on the St Lawrence Parkway, Brockville to Gananoque, we've seen increases of 400%. I think at the eastern end there are vital links in the cycling network that have to be completed. We would foresee in the long term that the bicycle network will extend from the Quebec border west and connect with the Loyalist Parkway, and it's obvious that the Loyalist Parkway sooner or later is going to connect with the waterfront trail, which will take us west to Hamilton and Burlington. So we own some of the key elements of land in completing that network through eastern Ontario, and we will pursue that actively, I can assure you.

We've talked about the issue of vegetation and control. You can imagine, with 150 miles of waterfront, that it's an ongoing issue with us. In a lot of cases, as we reduce and cut back, we have to react on a local basis to local problems where it's pointed out by property owners. We simply don't have the resources, nor, quite frankly, do we think it's environmentally responsible to simply be clearing all vegetation on waterfront land. In fact, there's a lot of scientific thought that suggests that waterfront vegetation shouldn't be touched at all.

Now, obviously, we have to achieve a balance between responsible environmental behaviour and providing viewpoints, because obviously views of the islands and the river are important in certain locations. So it's again a challenge of sustaining the environment and providing for public enjoyment, and I can assure you that every parks organization in the world is constantly weighing those two problems. If there are particular issues related to permits or individuals, that's something I think Frank can address. If the problems are pointed out with management, those issues can be dealt with.

The Chair: Two and a half minutes left. In fairness, I'm just advising Mr Cleary of his time.

Mr Cleary: Okay. I didn't get the answer that I was looking for, but --

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Did you have a question?

Interjection: Dan's back.

Mr Cleary: No, we don't have it. We've been talking to Dan for four years. Everybody seems to be in agreement with opening these parks, and you say that you're getting something ironed out now. When is that going to be? How soon is that going to be? Is that going to be next year, or two years, or when's that going to happen?

Mr Clarke: I think when we have the direction from the government to proceed, we will proceed.

Mr Cleary: I have a paper here with me that there was a directive from cabinet that nothing was going to happen in 1992. Is that still the case? Should we get on with something else? After four or five years, we kind of get sick of rehearsing the same old subject. Everybody is after us. We get calls. We're wasting a lot of time in our office. Union people, everybody is supporting it, so what's going on?

Mr Clarke: The direction is there in principle that we will be able to deal with the situation and it's our belief that we'll be in a position to call for proposals for operation for next summer.

Mr Cleary: For next summer. Would that go out this fall?

Mr Clarke: That's our hope.

Mr Cleary: Okay, then I want to get around to leasing land too. I want to get that pinned down, the direction, who people should go to. This land would be for recreational purposes mostly. The way it is now, land is just growing up in weeds, and if you're lucky it gets knocked off once a year with some kind of flail mower. And the other thing: For recreational purposes, what's it's going to cost a service club or a recreation facility to lease that? It's not being used now.

Mr Clarke: We would have to be provided with the authority to enter into long-term leases before we can discuss seriously with anyone. The commission currently does not have that authority. Someone who is going to undertake significant real estate development is going to have to take out 25-year mortgages, and you're not going to take out a 25-year mortgage and be faced with a five-year lease. It's ridiculous. So what has to be done is that we have to be given a policy mandate by the government, and I suspect it's an issue that'll have to be discussed at the cabinet level, that long-term leases of land are something that an agency like us can deal with.

1030

It is no good for us to simply deal with a developer on the basis that this is authority that we may have. Someone's not going to enter into negotiations with us, spend two years, do environmental assessments, and then find out that it may or may not be possible. They want to know up front, "Have you the authority to deal with us or not?" I think that will require clarification.

Further, I think we as a commission have the responsibility of determining on 150 miles of waterfront what lands are available and what lands aren't, and I think that will require some discussion with government as well. There's no sense entertaining proposals on a piece of property and then finding out that it's a class 1 wetland. That needs to be more clearly established. I hope that answered it.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Gary, I'm curious when you talk about development of this plan. I know you made some major changes in 1989, before you were on the commission, the closure of parks and Brown's Bay campground, for example. Now, here in the fall of 1994, you're talking about the development of this plan. I'm just curious: Why hasn't this occurred at a much earlier date? Has there simply been a lack of encouragement from the government or has it been an internal thing? What's happened?

Mr Clarke: I think the motivation has been the change in the financial status of the agency. Frankly, there wasn't a whole lot of motivation, without revenue retention, to move ahead, because any income that was derived from development simply went back to the provincial coffers. Now it's an issue of making the agency self-sufficient and, as well, playing our role, our development mandate, within eastern Ontario.

I think also maybe there's a greater openness to public-private sector cooperation than there may have been in the fat past. Let's face it, we have a tourism industry that's gone through some very tough times and people recognize now to a much greater extent the merits of cooperation. So I think it's all of those factors working together.

Mr Runciman: You mentioned earlier that you'd had a 9% revenue increase in this season just past. Did I hear that correctly?

Mr Clarke: In 1993-94, yes. You'll find that increase has been sustained even in this operating season as well, and perhaps in some cases well beyond that.

Mr Runciman: When you take a look at that 9%, is there an inordinate amount coming from one or two specific locales, that you have major losers and major winners? How does it look across the board?

Mr Clarke: Last year was a wonderful season. You'd like to say that our marketing efforts have been responsible for all of it, but let's be honest and say the sun shone. So that means that parks that through a rainy season may have had poor attendance suddenly last year may have seen a 25% increase in attendance. That rate of increase wouldn't have been sustained between last year and this year, because weather conditions were about the same. Our increases this year would probably have been more due to increased revenues at both Fort Henry and Upper Canada Village. So it varies from year to year as to which are the major growth areas, depending on weather. We're a very weather-sensitive operation, as most tourism operations are.

Mr Runciman: The figure I have in the research paper is 1992-93, campground day use, 268,360. Do you have the figure for 1993-94, what happened in 1993-94 in campground day use?

Mr Clarke: We had about a 25% increase. I'm sorry, I can't give you the precise figure.

Mr Frank Shaw: Overall in our campgrounds and day use areas for the entire parks system, we had a 25% growth in both attendance and revenue last year averaged out across the entire parks, campsites, beach areas system.

Mr Runciman: I imagine you still can't be happy with that if you take a look at, say, 1988, 454,000 visitors versus four years down almost -- close to a 200,000 drop in visitors.

Mr Clarke: Well, yes, that's true, but recognize that we're achieving those figures with substantially fewer campgrounds as well, so this is in spite of closures. So part of the overall decline is simply the fact that we have fewer operations.

Mr Runciman: I see. I'm just wondering, looking at that -- I know that you've tried some different initiatives this summer. I know at Brown's Bay, for example, you had the reggae concert, and I think you had something down this way as well. How did they work out? My impression of the reggae concert was you must have lost your shirt on that, but how did they work out overall?

Mr Clarke: I would think that most special events take about a three-year period to move from the point where it's just a promotion to the point where they're earning money. That's been the pattern, for example, with the Celtic festival at Fort Henry, which started small and has built over three years to a very successful event. We trust that will be the pattern with the reggae festival, but you have to try. Time will tell. The events at some of the campgrounds and at Upper Canada Village have shown that same pattern of building attendance and eventual financial success.

Mr Runciman: I'm not being critical, but what did you lose on that particular event?

Mr Clarke: I can't tell you.

Mr Shaw: In the first one to two years of event establishment, we do budget for it as an investment; in other words, a cost. So I don't have the exact figures, but it's not unusual to have to invest $1,000 or $2,000, sometimes $3,000 or $4,000, to get it going. But with our successful events, we're usually finding by the third year that we're either breaking even or starting to earn revenue from the events.

The other thing that's very important to remember with special events and themed programs on weekends is that it draws attention to the parks of St Lawrence. It allows us to use that event as a special attraction lure that brings people into the area who might not otherwise come, so it becomes a leader to your business.

Mr Runciman: I think it's a good idea and I encourage you to continue. The only comment I heard, when you're looking at eastern Ontario -- I know you're perhaps drawing people into the area who are not locals, but the price seemed to deter a number of people from attending. I know you've also got the weather, which is out of your control, but certainly price I thought was something you might take a look at in terms of generating additional revenues if the entrance fee was a little bit lower and you operate the beer tents, the hot dog vending, whatever. I guess you're looking for hopefully at least 100% recovery. You're not looking for profit; it's to get people into these facilities but at least cover your costs.

I was curious about Fort Henry and the fact that you've reduced the season. Gary, you talked about looking at partnerships with the private sector in respect to some of the properties that aren't being utilized, but you wouldn't contemplate looking at partnerships in terms of major attractions like Fort Henry? Has that been ruled out in terms of your planning for the future?

Mr Clarke: No, it certainly hasn't been ruled out. I think in one of my more facetious moments I suggested that maybe we ought to lease Fort Henry to Garth Drabinsky, but I think to rule out a possibility like that would be foolish. It may very well be that we have to look at our sites as opportunity areas for entertainment, and whether it's historical entertainment or a rock concert, we have to look at the full gamut of possibilities. Fort Henry is an area, for example, where it is going to be very difficult to achieve financial self-sufficiency unless we get into the entertainment business in a fairly significant way. Banquets in the evenings, frankly, are not going to do it. It has to go into major events and activities.

Mr Runciman: I wouldn't consider the Garth Drabinsky remark facetious unless you're dealing with ideologically rigid individuals or groups.

1040

Mr Clarke: But we do. Understand that. Look at the problems we have had installing sewage facilities, for example, and the issues that have been raised with respect to archaeological concerns. So every time we make a move, we do have to address the extremes. It's a challenge.

Mr Runciman: Yes, I believe it.

A couple of things that I want to mention about the parkway, as I've got some time here. John Cleary mentioned clearing spaces. I guess, as I own a property on the parkway, there's a bit of a conflict here, but I'd gladly pay $25 to clear some of the vistas. I see the fact that you're not keeping these clean. I can understand the environmental concerns, but we're starting to have growth occur. In fact, in front of my property I've seen in the last two summers willow trees starting to grow which eventually are going to restrict the vista from my property. I'm sure a lot of people along there would be more than happy to pay $25 if that's required, and clear out according to guidelines established by the commission that you can remove this tree, you can't touch that etc. So I think perhaps you might want to encourage that so you don't incur any cost and you still achieve what both you and the residents would like to see achieved.

Many years ago when Don Irvine was the chairman of the parks commission, I suggested when you come off the 401 at the eastern entrance to the Thousand Island Parkway, there's property owned I think by the commission -- if not by the commission, by MOT -- which would be a magnificent lookout of the Thousand Islands area compared with the one across the border in New York state, if you've seen that one, just a magnificent lookout. It would be an additional draw on to that parkway, I believe, and it's not something that's going to, I wouldn't believe anyway, incur a significant cost for development. I suggested that to Don and he thought it was a good idea but nothing ever happened. So I just want to place that thought before you.

Another magnificent vista along there, of course, Mr Chairman, and you and I have talked about this, is the one at Brown's Bay, which the Y day camp utilizes now, which is a commendable use but I don't see why they couldn't move down into the park area somewhere on all of the green space. If you're looking at getting the private sector involved in some kind of partnership, it seems to me that's the kind of site that might be very attractive to the private sector.

I'm wondering about the signage on the 401 into the Thousand Island Parkway. Are you happy with the signage? Do you have any concerns about it?

Mr Clarke: Can I change my hat? I'm now past chairman of the Eastern Ontario Travel Association. The Eastern Ontario Travel Association lobbied the former Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation to do a signage test program in eastern Ontario. We were very dissatisfied with the quality of tourism signage generally, be it on the 401 or some of the regional highways. One of the ministry priorities announced in the tourism strategy in the springtime was that this test would move ahead, and we're seeing the results of the local test on Highway 401 now.

One of my responsibilities as a member of the tourism industry is that I sit as the private sector signage representative for eastern Ontario. I sit on the signage committee that's reviewing the results of this test, and we're having regional meetings. There's one in Brockville next week, for example.

Some of the results that are coming in are very positive. The changes are interesting. The changes that have been made don't all work. There are some instances where we're going to have to modify the program, obviously, but overall I think the intent is very good.

Mr Runciman: Can I throw one in here just to get it on the record while we have the opportunity? If you're driving through the United States and you go through some of the major cities like Atlanta, for example, you have a bypass that takes you around the high-traffic areas in Atlanta or major cities. One of the things I've found just in the last summer, with my daughter operating this little business, is so many people stopping and looking for directions to get back on the 401: "Does this link on to the 401?" I think there's space there to have a large sign like they do in Atlanta and these others which shows that if you go on to the parkway, there's an easy linkage back to the 401 at Gananoque, or vice versa, so these people don't get on this and think, "Well, once we're here, how the hell do we get off?" There's a quick decision to make and there's an easy linkage. So we can simply go along the river, see what it offers, and then link up with the 401. So it's something you may want to consider as an addition to the signage that's currently there.

Mr Clarke: I assure you that having grown up in this region and having had experience with the tourism business that effectively went out of business because of the construction of Highway 401 -- Highway 401 made tourists bypass eastern Ontario. Restoring signage has been a long time coming, but none the less, here we are. So priorities to the development of good signage are very high in the tourism industry and they're very high priorities of mine.

Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you very much, Mr Clarke, for this stimulating presentation. It certainly is in keeping with that marvellous trip that we had yesterday along the Thousand Island Parkway and then on to Fort Henry.

When you talk about vistas, I think it's tough, really, to pick out the best ones. I think it's more, as you're suggesting, to focus on the fact that there are so many great vantage points along that route and that they have to be developed in a sensitive way. Certainly I think we're all pleased to hear your emphasis on the environmentally responsible development of the area to make sure these areas are protected.

I'd like to just focus my question on the area in my riding, of course, Fort Henry, although I see Mr Robertson is going to be here soon and we can have a more thorough discussion then. But you said that you look for some major events standing out there, entertainment events, I think you called them.

I would agree with you that there have to be a variety of things done to enhance the viability of the fort, but just thinking along that area that we could use, I'm thinking here of Fairfield House and what you might have in mind for that. At the moment I understand it's partly in partnership with a volunteer group and the township of Ernestown to keep it going. Do you see it as being developed in the future, which would offer another site in that area that could be used in conjunction with, say, Fort Henry, again thinking of the bicycle trails, for instance, that you're trying to develop? That would be an easy bicycling route and very attractive, with a lot of variety between those two points.

Mr Clarke: I think the Loyalist Parkway is a major opportunity area. I don't think all of the answers are there yet. I don't think the Loyalist Parkway people themselves have come to grips yet with perhaps all of the issues and all of the opportunities. We have suggested to them that they tell us what they think the key role for some of our historic properties would be in their long-term plans for the parkway. Is it important that they be tourist information centres? Is it important rather that they be an operation of a tearoom, or might they be a historic inn? What role do they want them to play in the longer term?

We don't want to dictate that position. We're waiting for that kind of feedback. Obviously, it's going to be achieved again by some new form of partnership. The financial resources are going to have to come from others than ourselves. We simply don't have the resources, but we are open to ideas and proposals that may again be backed by longer-term leases, but we're open to those kinds of discussions.

Mr Gary Wilson: And do you think you're in a position to provide the data for other groups to know what they would be committing themselves to?

Mr Clarke: Data in the sense of market opportunities to some extent we can support. The ministry I'm sure can assist in supporting us there with market data and what the market is looking for. Again, I think it's an issue of us being provided with the authority to enter into the long-term kinds of leases that some of these groups will need in order to make the level of investment required to restore the properties fully and put them in full operation.

1050

Mr Gary Wilson: Just on that, are you aware of other jurisdictions where this partnership that you're suggesting, the long-term leases, exists and just what some of the conditions might be or how it's working out, partnerships between public sector groups and the private sector?

Mr Clarke: I think the Ministry of Natural Resources would be a good source of information on longer-term leases. If you think we have problems and challenges, there are a substantial number of provincial parks operated by MNR where they're running through the same considerations. I think we should look to them for some guidance.

I think there are hundreds of private sector examples all over the place where lease with very tight development controls has been a successful method of moving ahead. The thing that I'd point out is that as a private sector operator the most attractive situation is one where the controls are tightest, because you know if you invest your $5 million, someone is not going to put a chip stand beside you. So controls are not a negative factor if they're positive, if they're forward-looking kinds of controls; it's not a negative.

Mr Gary Wilson: Could you just give us an example of what you mean by a control?

Mr Clarke: Yes. I have a lot of experience in destination resort development. I've been a consultant in that field. If you look at the development that has occurred in many major ski areas in the United States -- where development occurs on parkland, by the way, in a lot of cases -- the most exceptional development, Beaver Creek in Colorado, has laid down beforehand the exterior finish, the colour of exterior finish, the slope of roof, the style and positioning of signage, on and on. That whole control package was set down in advance so that it was perfectly clear to anyone who wanted to undertake development what the place was going to look like in the future. As a result of those controls -- the result wasn't negative; the result was extremely positive -- people sought to be in that location as a business rather than in an uncontrolled environment.

Mr Gary Wilson: So you're suggesting there are people who share the vision about the potential of an area.

Mr Clarke: That's right. You have to state what your values are. You can't just say, "Here's a blank piece of land; go to it, friends." You know what the result will be: You'll get the lowest level of quality on the part of the developer.

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): In a way moving on the same lines, at the beginning of your presentation you pointed out that originally it was called the development commission, and then you said it wasn't envisaged being a land trust. In a way, you're a land trust, but for a start, one of my observations is that you really seem to have a whole range of different things you're doing. I wonder whether that could be pursued. I know in some American states -- and I know Vermont slightly better than others -- they do have land trusts there. I wonder whether that wouldn't be something which could be developed, even as a separate entity. If I understand one of the advantages there, they're not necessarily fixed in what they have. Private owners, for various reasons, actually put more land into the trust. Again, as you said, the land trust can presumably set very clear standards about future use, but this could well address the questions that are asked about leasing property.

Mr Clarke: I'm very pleased that you've raised the issue. I have some degree of experience with land trusts. I'm a past chairman of the Rideau Waterway coordinating association. Our association there took measures to form a land trust. It does exist.

The problems in Canada related to land trusts are very different from the problems or opportunities in the United States. We need our federal government to take leadership in creating legislation that facilitates the land trust process. There are major problems, and I won't go into those in detail, but the concept of a land trust is very valid.

There is, in the Thousand Islands area, a group that has formed as a land trust, and they are currently inhibited by legislation at the moment, but none the less they're there and they're working on it. So I think, in the long term, yes, the opportunity is there, and it may be, for example, that issues like what we do with marshlands that should never be touched, perhaps those marshlands should be held by a trust. That may be an ultimate answer, I would agree.

Mr Frankford: In New England, it seems one comes across country inns, B and Bs, small, individual, privately owned operations which I think blend in very nicely, and presumably the questions about land ownership and control are vital in the viability of those. It would seem to me that the area we went through could well benefit from a greater range of such attractive entrepreneurial operations.

Mr Clarke: There's no question, if you are a walker or a cyclist, that your day is governed by your energy. If you happen to be a 75-year-old cyclist, 20 kilometres may be a challenge, so having facilities spaced 100 kilometres apart is a real problem. I think the St Lawrence Parkway is a magnificent facility, but it's a magnificent opportunity. One of the great challenges that we have is that there is no revenue to support that at the present time. As you go through the parkway, you have no real sense of arrival, no significant interpretation to let you know that you're in some place special. I mean, fine, we have some signage that we passed quickly yesterday, a map and so on, but what's special about this region? There are very few opportunities for people to have interpretation of nature, of history, of the culture and heritage of the region; that doesn't exist.

Well, we have to move out of the Dark Ages. We have to look at all the possibilities for that area. You know the sense of arrival that you achieve as you enter a national park, for example, on the highway leading to Banff -- Mr Fletcher mentioned Banff earlier -- where you pass through a gateway. I think the lack of gateways on the parkways, the lack of sense that you're entering something very special, the lack of a pass -- whether it's given to you or you pay $1 for it, I don't know -- that says, "Here are the conditions of your entering this special territory; you have environmental responsibilities," and so on, I think we need to be considering those kinds of issues as we look ahead, that we are the custodians of some very special places. People are willing to pay to enter very special places, a nominal fee.

Mr Frankford: I can't resist drawing to your attention members' statements on July 21, 1993, when Mr Cleary made a statement. In fact, on the same page I made a statement about bicycles and the economy, from a rather Metro Toronto perspective, but I'd be pleased to share this with you. I think it sort of adds to the point we've made about bicycles, but to get the full impact you have to also develop a whole lot of infrastructure in relation to bicycles and not just have a pathway.

1100

The Chair: There's only a minute and half left. Carry on. I'm just advising you.

Mr Frankford: The other comment I would make is that I came up yesterday by train, and it was really very attractive. It would seem to me that that's something which you certainly would want to maintain and develop. I guess we're faced with real threats that it may not be with us.

Mr Clarke: That's right. It is a challenge. We have international cycling groups saying that they arrive in New York City, they want to travel north, get on Via Rail and bring their bicycles with them, and there are real serious obstacles to that happening now. There are a lot of issues related to intermodal transportation that have to be solved.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Mr Clarke, just two short questions: the first one, you mentioned in your presentation that Grenville was a real success. What did they do there that wasn't done in the past? Do you follow me? What I'm saying is that in your report you mentioned that Grenville was a success. What I'd like to know from you is, why was it a success? Why was it successful after the partnership agreement, when it wasn't before? Why was the decision made to close it?

Mr Clarke: Obviously, the decision was made to close it because of the level of success of the operation. We weren't successful with the operation; a private sector operator has been. I guess one of the issues is, what are the kinds of constraints that we face as a commission, an agency of the provincial government, that a private sector operator does not face? There are all kinds of issues there in terms of the kinds of rates one charges, the restrictions on our ability to serve what I'd call seasonal clients as opposed to serving transients, the issues of collective agreements and wage rates that are appropriate to the region as opposed to a private sector operator's ability to act as his own operator and not hire staff.

Let's face it. I've pointed out to a number of people that if I buy a campground, I'll work 18 hours a day to make that campground work. That motivation doesn't exist for a provincial employee. Obviously, no one is going to work those kinds of hours.

Mr Morin: Okay. You've answered my question. It's exactly that: Private enterprise is always more successful than government. I know that if I were to run my business the same way the government sometimes runs, I'd be bankrupt.

You are a private entrepreneur, and that brings me back again to private enterprise. I like some of the recommendations that you make. In other words, you want to have more freedom to operate, to make a buck, so that you can become self-sufficient. There's nothing wrong with that. I think that's great. On the other hand, if you were the owner of the park yourself, it's your business, what else would you do, what else would you add to the presentation that you've made, to make a dollar, to become self-sufficient?

Mr Clarke: Whether we refer to parks or to any other business, I think the tourism industry has the most perishable product in the world. You don't put a bedroom that is unsold tonight on the shelf and sell it three months later when the market improves. What's vital in the tourism industry is to be in a position where you, as the operator, can make all of your vital decisions right now. So being linked to a bureaucratic process that requires legislation, for example, to make changes in some areas is extremely difficult. Being tied to collective agreements that are negotiated in Toronto, remotely from the region, rather than having a local or regional collective agreement can be a concern.

There are all kinds of issues where the ability to deal here and now with a situation is a concern. I'm not suggesting that an agency be simply given carte blanche to move ahead, but I think we have to come up with a broad framework and say: "You are free to operate within that framework that meets this broad range of public concerns. You have to be able to address environmental and social issues, you can't ignore them, but within this framework which we, the government, will endorse, move ahead and create jobs and stimulate the economy." I'm sorry, I'm being a little general in nature, but that's the generality of what I'm suggesting.

Mr Morin: In other words, more freedom to operate.

Mr Clarke: More freedom to operate.

Mr Morin: But at the same time with very stringent controls.

Mr Clarke: Yes, that's right.

Mr Morin: John?

Mr Cleary: How much time do I have?

The Chair: Five minutes.

Mr Cleary: I'd like to get back to these land leases again. I would take it that the first thing you would have to get on a land lease is the support of the local municipality, the municipality that it's in. Is that correct?

Mr Clarke: The local municipalities are a vital part of the equation because, let's face it, we are an important aspect of their own long-term planning. Their zoning support, all of those requirements are still there. So, yes, they are vital partners.

Mr Cleary: The other thing I would like to ask is, for a non-profit organization for recreation purposes, how would you look at that in an area that right now is in desperate need of being mowed and looks terrible; in other words, if a non-profit organization wanted to take it over for recreation purposes?

Mr Clarke: We're happy to have anyone take over costly operations of ours where they basically will meet our basic concerns and guidelines, again, but the concept is --

Interjection.

Mr Clarke: Frank says there are examples where we've done that already.

Mr Cleary: On a year-to-year, or how long a lease would you get on that?

Mr Clarke: I'm sorry, you're talking about a lease of --

Mr Cleary: A lease of existing parkland right now.

Mr Clarke: Well, that's another matter. That's not taking over our operations; that's actually leasing land.

Mr Cleary: Leasing vacant land that looks terrible right now.

Mr Clarke: Leasing any land right now -- it doesn't matter whether it's a non-profit organization, a municipality or anyone else -- is still subject to the basic process of call for proposals. If anyone wants to lease something, we can't enter into negotiations with any group unless there is an open call for proposals.

Mr Cleary: Could a municipality lease that?

Mr Clarke: They're subject to the same restrictions as everybody else.

Mr Cleary: It used to be leased by the municipality for $1 a year.

Mr Shaw: We have some agreements with municipalities, and that's perhaps the one exception to the normal consideration for request for proposals, where we will discuss with municipalities first the extent to which they're interested in managing a property. We have several examples of that. Osnabruck township has two agreements with us: one is to operate Farran Park, and one is to manage vegetation along the waterfront between Ingleside and Long Sault.

We do have other operating agreements on the Loyalist Parkway for our three historic houses, and we have one longer-term agreement that we're now discussing with the government for the operation of Adolphustown Park with the United Empire Loyalists, Quinte branch. That's a non-profit community group, but we still look to achieve the same objectives; in other words, that it's an economically viable venture for both the commission as well as the group and that other tourism objectives and environmental concerns and contributions to tourism in eastern Ontario are met at the same time.

1110

Mr Cleary: Okay. Another question I have: I was pleased to see the paddle boats and some recreation vehicles at the Long Sault Parkway. Are you going to expand on that -- I think they were reasonably attractive -- or what's going to happen there?

Mr Clarke: Part of our whole process of business planning is to bring in people with what I call world-class experience in attractions and get their advice on where the opportunity areas lie for the future. It's fine bringing in a consultant who will blue sky and come with a shopping list of ideas and no order of priority. We have to find ideas that'll work, and that's what we're embarking upon now. And, yes, we'll look forward to much more of that.

Mr Cleary: What percentage would have to be turned back to the parks commission on a venture like that: paddle boats, Sea-Doos?

Mr Shaw: It depends a lot on the scope of the business venture, the term of the agreement and how long the term is, but we have agreements now as high as 20% of gross revenue. That's in fact the arrangement with Grenville park. In some other cases, it may be as low as 2%, because it's a small business venture and the main reason for including it is to provide a service to our visitors in addition to the main attraction.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Frank and Gary, thank you. Going back to Grenville Park, you just mentioned 20% of the gross is their annual fee to operate. Could we have an idea as to the ballpark, what that is, what revenue that brings to the parks commission?

Mr Shaw: That was approximately $22,000 in operating return for the past fiscal year. In addition to that, when there is a private operator operating on our lands, they revert to commercial tax rates and so there's a commercial tax rate paid to the municipality; in this case, the township of Edwardsburg of about $5,000 a year. That would be instead of the $500-a-year grant in lieu of taxes that we would have paid if we were operating it.

So if you look at probably where we'll be in 1994-95, I would estimate approximately $25,000 in return for the current fiscal year plus the additional money to the township. It means, I think, a return of $30,000 per annum at the present time in round numbers to the community and ourselves. When we last operated it in 1989, our operating loss for that year was approximately $40,000.

Mr Villeneuve: So this is a net plus of $60,000 to $65,000 as we go back to the year 1989. It's my understanding that a new deal has been struck and that you have submitted it to cabinet. Possibly the parliamentary assistant may be able to answer this: How soon would cabinet be giving its blessing to this?

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): To this point?

Mr Villeneuve: Please.

Mr Waters: At this point in time I can't give you the date. I can try to give you a date for that. Possibly before the hearings are over, I can make a call and we can find out if there's a date set.

Mr Villeneuve: It's quite obviously a very successfully operated park by the Cooper family -- Larry and Marianne and their daughters -- and I've had a number of concerned seasonal occupants in that park, very concerned that something may happen on the way to or on the way from the cabinet table that would create a problem. Do you foresee none of that?

Mr Clarke: We're not aware of any concerns.

Mr Villeneuve: Back to the two parks that are presently closed, Charlottenburgh and Raisin River parks, what's the main obstacle there to opening them in the same fashion as Grenville's been opened and Osnabruck operates one very successfully? What's the main obstacle?

Mr Clarke: I don't think there's any major obstacle. What we're doing now is clarifying contractual terms so that we can make a public offer. I don't see that there is a major obstacle to it. We have to clarify all kinds of issues.

Mr Villeneuve: What has been the major obstacle then? Quite obviously, there have been obstacles, because for two years some interested people have come to me, particularly on Raisin, and nothing's been able to proceed.

Mr Clarke: I think the minister has expressed the issues in letters to the MPs that there were issues related to successor rights, for example, that needed to be clarified.

Mr Villeneuve: Are we coming to a clarification of successor rights?

Mr Clarke: I can only presume that's the case, yes. We're expecting to have that clarified very shortly and it's our hope that we can issue a proposal call this fall.

Mr Villeneuve: Because some of the locations that we've seen yesterday, which are under your control, are certainly prime locations for long-term leases. I don't believe they're wetlands. I go back to Charlottenburgh park. There's a problem there with the sewage system, I gather. We certainly have some interested people. That's prime waterfront property. It's been a park for many years; it's now been closed for quite a number of years. What would it cost to bring the septic system in line? Any idea?

Mr Clarke: No, I have no idea. I don't know that --

Mr Shaw: I can give you a very general estimate. We anticipated it would be somewhere between $100,000 to $150,000 to complete the tile bed which needs to be installed for the shower facilities. In addition, since the park has been inactive since 1989, I would anticipate anywhere up to $100,000 in retrofit and renovation activities before the park would be in any condition to operate again. We would anticipate, though, given the size of the park, that very innovative proposals may be made and that the opportunity for tourism there in the future may be far more than the typical facility that we offered when we last operated it.

Mr Villeneuve: Could we use, then, possibly Grenville Park as an example that if you were to invest a quarter of a million dollars there, the commission could recoup its money in five years?

Mr Clarke: We're prepared to look at all kinds of innovative proposals; there's no question about that. The issue of us having investment capital is quite an issue these days, because we're sustaining these ongoing cutbacks, but the principle is fine.

Mr Villeneuve: Going back to the advertising as prime tourist locations, which they are, I'm always amazed that the Toronto folks seem to all want to go north and I see the parliamentary assistant there smiling, and of course they head for his area very much. We have the 401 here which, yes, bypasses those areas, but also can bring you here in about four hours from downtown Toronto to the eastern extremity and certainly less than that to the Kingston and Brockville areas. Have you zeroed in on making it known that we do have these prime waterfront properties, campsites, golf courses, what have you, in the summer, and of course the winter activities. Does the Toronto area get its share of publicity?

Mr Clarke: I think the Toronto area gets its share of publicity. The issue is, is the publicity sufficient? That is a question not only for the parks commission, but for eastern Ontario generally. It is a problem; on the level of tourism marketing generally, you would have to ask the question, is it sufficient to sustain the growth of the tourism industry, and I'm not sure that's the case. I guess the chairman of the Eastern Ontario Travel Association will be here this afternoon; that's a question you could address to them and get a more frank opinion on that subject.

1120

Mr Villeneuve: Somehow we have the perception that a tourist has to have out-of-Ontario licence plates. I feel we have many Ontario residents who don't know that we have this gem here in eastern Ontario and that the 401 simply serves to bring them from Toronto to wherever they're going outside the province of Ontario, towards the east, the Maritimes, Quebec or the eastern United States.

I appreciate those signs. I think they will be positive towards telling the folks: "Yeah, we have a great deal to offer here in eastern Ontario. Do stop and spend a day or two or three with us on your way to or on your way from." I think that's important.

Mr Clarke: Yes. I think it's important to reiterate though that in spite of constraint, we've attempted to sustain marketing budgets through the period of constraint. For example, in 1994-95, in spite of that constraint, I think we're going to be looking at revenue increases of about 14% overall. Even places like Fort Henry, where we've had contraction, where we've had the cancelling of the sunset ceremony, I think people are going to be very surprised in Kingston to find out that the level of attendance at Fort Henry has been sustained in spite of those decreases in activity in the evening and that our revenues are up substantially. So in spite of all these ongoing programs, the success rate is there and is continuing on an ongoing basis.

To address your question, "Could tourism in eastern Ontario grow more rapidly with better marketing?" I would say yes.

The Chair: The government still has a round. Mr Waters, you were left over from the first round.

Mr Waters: Left over? I'll say. I don't know whether to feel good about that statement or not, Madam Chair.

There are a couple of things. Right off the top, I'd like to pick up on something Mr Villeneuve was talking about at the end, which is the Toronto people. It's going to be difficult for me to say "Mr Clarke" and all of this, so Gary, one of the things that I feel is happening is that more and more people in Toronto don't have vehicles. You and I have talked for the last four years, or three years I guess, about cycling opportunities in eastern Ontario. It is I think our shared belief that this is probably a gold mine for the cyclists, because of the fact that we have a canal system and two rivers that create a triangle from Kingston to Ottawa, down through Cornwall and back, and we have the parks commission.

What I envision in the future and I'd like to see happen is almost put back a boxcar or some sort of car on a train out of Toronto on a Friday night so that indeed the cyclists from Toronto could have an opportunity to come to eastern Ontario. The difference between where I live in Muskoka and eastern Ontario or Cornwall is two hours, and two hours in bumper-to-bumper traffic is not something people want to do on the weekends. So I think the train is a wonderful opportunity, and we have to start somehow working with our federal counterparts to lobby for that type of thing.

Cycling: Gary, you and I have talked about it for some time. I would like it if you could spend a couple of minutes in depth on cycling and some of the problems we face. You and I have also talked about the opportunity for country inns and this type of thing, because of the lack of accommodation. Could you spend a couple of minutes on that?

Mr Clarke: When I first started to talk about cycling two years ago, as an entrepreneur, people quite frankly thought I was a little bit out of my mind. It's like some sort of religious revival. "Is this a fantasy that this gentleman is espousing?" I'd suggest to you that it's not.

Jurisdictions like Holland and Denmark and the state of Vermont have discovered that cycling is a growth market. Holland is seeing a 25% rate of annual growth in touring by bicycle. Further, they've discovered that touring cyclists spend more dollars per day travelling than do travellers by automobile. It's a more lucrative form of tourism for Holland and Vermont than travelling by automobile. So I think eastern Ontario with its quality of attraction and its geography generally is very well suited to the development of a bicycle touring strategy.

There are a number of concerns and elements, and I would suggest to you that encouraging bicycle touring in the area is contingent upon you having either off-road trails or paved road shoulders. Under provincial policy, the Ministry of Transportation is able to subsidize the paving of road shoulders just as it does the road surface itself. So I think it's opening up in that respect.

Within eastern Ontario, we're developing a strategy. We're developing a strategic plan that shows what are the key cycling routes. We are also going to be the benefactors in eastern Ontario of a trans-Canada trail that's going to pass through our region, probably Cornwall to Ottawa to Kingston, and link with the Loyalist trail and the waterfront trail. So there is lots of opportunity ahead of us as long as we get all government agencies to recognize that this is a serious economic opportunity. It's not something frivolous that we're addressing.

In terms of development, yes, because you change your modes of transportation and rely on something that's a function of people's energy, you need facilities and services spaced at convenient intervals. As you look at Highway 2 through this region for example, it's a long way between convenience stops. There are pure physical constraints there.

Accommodation facilities: We have an array of underutilized accommodation facilities in eastern Ontario; motels that through shoulder season run at occupancies of 30% and 40%. So catering to the cycling market is an opportunity for them.

Seniors, a more mature market, may be looking for heritage inn properties and bed-and-breakfasts. So working in conjunction with property owners, we can encourage those kinds of development. There may be opportunities on our own lands where it's appropriate that we encourage the development of heritage inns or bed-and-breakfasts and other forms of accommodation; dormitories, for example. As part of our planning, we have to be able to accommodate the growth in accommodation facilities.

I was mentioning yesterday on the tour that in 1890, in the Thousand Islands region, between Brockville and Gananoque, between Alexandria Bay and Clayton, New York, there existed 4,000 bedrooms of accommodation in what then was the second-largest tourism region in the world. We have a small fraction of that level of accommodation now, 100 years later. So something has to be done to significantly revitalize facilities and tourism services.

Mr Waters: Madam Chair, could you give me an idea when I'm down to about three minutes?

The Chair: That's exactly where you are.

Mr Waters: Then I'm going to ask this very quickly, and that is, the waterfront at Upper Canada Village. We've done a number of different things to stimulate, shall we say, and my dream is that the St Lawrence Parks Commission will be in the position, hopefully in the next few years if we work together, that the St Clair Parkway Commission is in right now, where it's about 80% self-sufficient in its operating. I'd like to see St Lawrence go in the same direction. I believe a lot of that has to do with revitalizing Upper Canada Village and a few other key attractions. Could you go into depth, maybe give us a microscopic view or something -- I don't know -- of what you plan in the next couple of years.

1130

Mr Clarke: The communities along the St Lawrence River developed as waterfront communities. Upper Canada Village was created because of an incident and a flooding -- we know the history of the situation -- but it was not created, when it fell into place in the 1950s and early 1960s, as a waterfront community. So it's artificial in that respect; in many respects, it turns its very back to the river.

The development plan we showed yesterday -- and we have copies of it available here if anyone's interested in the details -- reverses that situation and rather puts our attention and focuses the village on the waterfront itself and brings into play all the traditional kinds of waterfront activity that would have been there. It makes a more natural and more typical situation for a waterfront community, but also, because of general interest in water and recreational interest in water, it makes the village a much more attractive product. It's, I think, a critical element of making it self-sufficient.

The Chair: Forty seconds.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): He says he's going to give me that 40 seconds.

The Chair: Ms Carter had a question.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I'll just raise something that I don't think has been raised at all. If I had to choose between different areas to vacation, I might go north because I might feel there was less pollution up there. Is pollution of the St Lawrence a problem? Do people swim without any ill effects? Is there anything we could do about that anyway? What is the position there?

Mr Clarke: I grew up on the St Lawrence. My three children have grown up on the St Lawrence and swim daily through the course of the summer. The concerns about pollution have changed over the years and we're now concerned about toxins that no one had heard of 10 years ago, so pollution is still an issue. The MP for the region, Jim Jordan, has announced new federal initiatives to help clean up some of these toxins.

The clarity of the water, by contrast, has improved markedly; of all things, people are attributing the new clarity to the zebra mussel, which is consuming some of the other material. The quality of the experience for scuba divers, for example, has improved dramatically just in the last two to three years. We have in some areas like Prescott new opportunities of underwater parks, and there's talk about sinking wrecks to create attraction underwater for scuba divers. Our opportunities evolve in curious fashion sometimes, because of pollutants and new intruders in the environment.

The Chair: We would like to thank you, Mr Clarke and Mr Shaw. We are now going to move to the next presentation. I'm assuming, Mr Shaw, that as general manager, if there are still questions to you beyond Mr Robertson or Mr Deault, you're going to be a resource as well. In fairness to the different levels of staff, I think it's good for everybody to know that everyone can answer questions if necessary.

Mr Robertson, we'd like to welcome you to the committee this morning as the manager of Fort Henry. There is half an hour assigned to your presentation, and I know you're aware that the committee members want to have ample time to answer questions.

Mr John Robertson: Yes, Madam Chair, thank you. My presentation, the verbal presentation, should be, I would think, about eight minutes long, and then we'll have lots of time for questions.

Good morning, members of the standing committee, and thank you for allowing me to make this presentation on Fort Henry. My verbal presentation this morning will overview the fort and some of the aspects of its programming and services. I've also submitted a written report which provides quite a bit more detail on the operations and specifically on the fort's objectives.

Having spent most of my life in the historic tourism field, I can't ever make a presentation without doing a little bit of historical background on things, so please be patient and stay with me.

Fort Henry is located in Pittsburgh township in the greater Kingston area and is situated on lands owned by the federal government. The fort is currently operated under a long-term lease arrangement with the Department of National Defence.

Opened in 1938, Fort Henry is one of the oldest operating historic restorations of its kind in North America and the first -- I say again the first -- to introduce a large-scale "living history" program in Canada. It was second only to colonial Williamsburg in the United States. The present fort is the second that was built on Point Henry.

Historically, fearing American invasion, Fort Henry was constructed to protect British interests in Canada, particularly the royal naval dockyard at Kingston and the entrance to the Rideau Canal. Fort Henry served as an active garrison until 1891.

In addition to its role as a garrison community for British and Canadian soldiers and their families, Fort Henry also served as an internment camp for political prisoners in the First World War and for German prisoners of war in the Second World War. On other occasions it has functioned as an ammunition and storage facility and as a school for military dependants.

As I stated, Fort Henry was originally constructed to keep American invaders and others out. Today, in a rather ironic twist of role, we strive to bring Americans as well as Canadians and international visitors through our gates to witness a dramatic segment of this nation's military and civilian heritage at the time of Confederation.

Currently, this season -- which has just closed, as many of you know -- Fort Henry opened on Victoria Day weekend and it closed to walk-in visitors on Thanksgiving weekend. The daily program runs from 10 am to 5 pm and is really designed to offer non-stop activity throughout the day. With my written report I've taken the liberty of including a copy of Marching Orders, which is our visitor handout at the gate, and I think you'll have a look at that and see that it is a very, very active day program; when we get visitors on our site we try to keep them there as long as possible.

A major feature from mid-May to the end of August is our daily commandants parade, where at 2 pm the fifes and drums, infantry and artillery units of the Fort Henry Guard perform the music and drill of the British army of 1867. The Fort Henry Guard continues to maintain its reputation as one of the finest performing units of its kind anywhere.

I had a number of questions yesterday on the tour, and I think the normal assumption is that they must be students from the Royal Military College. We're quite emphatic about that: None of them have any military background; there is no connection to the Royal Military College. These ladies and gentlemen are young people of Ontario from colleges and universities, and many of them had never seen any military training until they started with us. We even have opportunities where we have the Canadian military come over to see how we do it, because they have not yet figured out how we can take people in a month and a half and put them on that parade square and do it twice as good as they do. That's one of those secrets.

Throughout the summer, Fort Henry stages several large-scale special events, including celebrations around Canada Day and Dominion Day, what we call Warriors Weekend, which is a re-enactment festival, and in September our very successful -- we just completed our fourth annual Celtic Festival. Those of you who know the greater Kingston area know it's really a heart of Celtic culture and music.

Fort Henry also serves as a venue for outdoor concerts and has featured such artists as Blue Rodeo, the Tragically Hip, Tom Cochrane, and Dwight Yoakam.

Every second year in late August, the fort hosts two joint performances between our own Fort Henry Guard and the Battle Color Detachment of the United States Marine Corps from Washington, DC.

In 1994 our major marketing and program thrust was towards bringing families back to Fort Henry. Under the banner of "Major Fun," we saw our family passes exceed the projected target of 1,000 to over 4,000, and many of our daily children's military muster parades ballooned to over 200 participants at a time. Visitor feedback has been very supportive of our new family-oriented day programming.

1140

During the shoulder season, Fort Henry offers tours by reservation to bus companies as well as experiential learning programs for schools and other group traffic. Our overnight program sees students dressed in uniform living the life of a soldier in 1867.

Fort Henry also provides facilities for small conventions, business meetings, workshops and seminars. Throughout the year, the fort offers a wide range of foodservice options, ranging from re-enactments of period officers' mess dinners to business-related receptions and banquets.

Since the last time this committee visited our facilities, Fort Henry, like all other government agencies, has had to deal with the impacts of constraint as well as other fallout related to the recession. For example, since 1988 staffing levels at the fort have shrunk by over 38%. In the same period, however, our revenues have shown modest growth and our self-sufficiency has improved from below 28% to over 43% this year.

Shrinking budgets, new trends in tourism and changing visitor expectations have required a complete revamping of our products and services. In the face of tremendous organizational and business change and significant financial pressures, the staff at Fort Henry has consistently rallied to overcome every obstacle and still deliver a quality experience to our visitors.

Hard and sometimes unpopular decisions, such as cancellation of the sunset ceremonies or the introduction of women into the Fort Henry Guard, have had to be made to cope with either fiscal or social change. As one of the leading tourism properties in eastern Ontario, we have made every effort to be sensitive to our partners in responding to that change and to the reductions in our operating capacity.

We recognize that the decision to cancel sunset ceremonies because of funding pressures and declining attendance resulted in some losses for some of our smaller campground and motel operators. We are confident that over time, and with our new enhanced day program designed to keep visitors in the area longer, these losses will be regained.

Even though the impact of constraint on the staff and on the organization as a whole over the past few years has been significant, the positive response from our visitors, combined with our progress towards self-sufficiency, makes us even more committed to Fort Henry and its potential for the future.

Members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity. I'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Robertson. We're starting with the Progressive Conservative caucus this rotation.

Mr Runciman: I apologize for missing much of the presentation. I would like to ask you, though, in respect to your season that just finished, I gather -- you've closed the fort.

Mr Robertson: Yes.

Mr Runciman: Have you had an opportunity to reach any conclusions in respect to how your financial situation looks for this season?

Mr Robertson: Our revenue is up. We did an analysis recently just looking at the impacts of the change, because we did go through significant change last year with the cancellation of the sunset ceremonies, and our unaudited numbers at this point are, comparing this year's program to last year's program, including sunset ceremonies, that our paid attendance is down by just under 1%.

Mr Runciman: Your paid attendance is down?

Mr Robertson: By just slightly less than 1%, but our revenue's up by 14%.

Mr Runciman: What do you attribute that to?

Mr Robertson: Within my presentation, you heard that we're pretty diverse, everything from rock concerts to banquets and the regular program. Our sense right now is that part of that is that we've been very successful with our experiential learning programs, which have a higher rate of fee. We've done very well with our festivals. We've just finished our September Celtic Festival, which is probably the best return this year it's ever had; in fact we probably made lots of money on it this time. I think that contributes to the revenue, plus some slight fee increases that we introduced last year. We are quite sensitive about raising our fees significantly, particularly with the perceived reduction in the program with the cancellation of the ceremonies.

Mr Runciman: The chairman earlier was talking about Fort Henry and mentioned, partially being facetious, about having someone like Garth Drabinksy come in and operate the fort. I guess I don't see that as out of the realm of possibility: a major entertainment company working in some kind of partnership agreement. What kind of limitations do you find in respect to your ability to generate increased revenues and to attract increased numbers in terms of paid attendance?

Mr Robertson: I think there are several opportunities and some barriers or restrictions there. But I should point out that because of where we're situated, partnership for us has been pretty aggressive over the last few years. I mentioned concerts on the scale of Dwight Yoakam and some of the large-scale ones. We have no bankroll for that. With artists at that scale, you're probably looking at $50,000 to $75,000 on the table in order to do that. We do not have that money; we deal with a promoter or a partner who actually fronts the money on that, and for us it becomes what we refer to as a venue rental. We get a per-head cost off the top of each person coming through, we get exclusive right to the foodservices and receptions, we get parts of the retail and so on; otherwise we couldn't run those.

Other opportunities for us: We have a number of concessionaires onsite; in fact, we added three more this summer. We had helicopter rides off Point Henry, aerial tours of the greater Kingston area; the operator worked around a theme of historic fortifications, that he would take people in the air and do this aerial tour. It was very successful. He himself ran into some red tape, I think, with the federal government, but we're hoping he's going to be back on track next year.

Part of the problem we find in dealing with operators, say, like those who would put together large-scale country and western concerts or rock concerts really has been that we don't move fast enough. That's part of the problem. I just don't think we can move fast enough with those.

Mr Shaw: I just wanted to supplement John's remarks by saying that it's part of our business planning process, recognizing that we do have additional financial mechanism available to us now in revenue retention and that if the business opportunity is there it can be a self-financing proposition, as long as you can turn it around in the cycle of a business year. We aren't ruling out any possibilities at this stage of what our future business might be. With a very unique structure like Fort Henry, although it does have limitations because of its historical and heritage architectural character, it does have a lot of opportunities and we have a lot of evening space time and off-season space time that we can look at new opportunities with.

Just to follow up on the attendance for this year, given the major change we've experienced and recognizing the variability of tourism from year to year, to be only off minus 1% on paid attendance this year we think is an outstanding achievement, considering the fact that when we talked about not having sunset ceremonies, some parts of the marketplace that we weren't always able to reach through our advertising thought maybe we were closed, that the sunset ceremony not being around meant Fort Henry closed. It takes a year or two to grow through that and make those achievements.

I think with the success of satellite and off-season business, such as with our new foodservices operator, which is very active this winter, we may find by March 31, the end of our fiscal year, that we may be very close to our paid attendance for last year; we may be even and not down.

Mr Villeneuve: I thought it was intriguing yesterday in the refurbished area where you do some hospitality, some catering, I gather. You have been catering to corporate entities that may be set up in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa because of the central location of Kingston. How big a portion do you see that particular segment?

Secondly, there's always that fine line that you don't want to compete with the private sector; you can be complementary. I think this is an area where you can be quite complementary in bringing a group of people to Kingston that would not normally have gone to Kingston, because of the location and the facility, and they would be doing the overnighting in some of the motels/hotels in the area. How big do you see this becoming?

Mr Robertson: I don't have the exact numbers, but I can tell you from the last couple of years that probably the most rapid growth in our business has been in that kind of service. We've had very good luck. We're very integrated in the greater Kingston area with most of the businesses. We work on different committees, tourism groups, things like that. We try to capitalize on the uniqueness of our venue, which is the only one of its kind. I think we've created some good partnerships, in that it's not senseless competition. Its sense is that we have a unique environment.

1150

Downtown Kingston is historic buildings and an attraction unto itself. Because of the fact that we are an institution town, we tend to have a lot of corporations and businesses that host conventions and meetings and seminars. We do not compete with the major hotels because we just do not have the enclosed facilities to deal with large conventions. It's worked out very well for us. Like I say, probably the most rapid part of growth that we've experienced is in the theme food services.

Mr Villeneuve: And caterers are the ones who look after food?

The Chair: Thank you. We move to Mr Malkowski.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): Thank you for the presentation. Just for the record, I really want to say I enjoyed the tour. I've gone with my family around the area about two years ago and I enjoyed seeing all the parks again yesterday.

But that's quite an economic impact, living through the financial straits that you've done in the last couple of years and being successful. That's quite an accomplishment. Over the last three years, do you have statistics for the number of visitors to Fort Henry? Has that gone up or has that dropped? What has that been like in general?

Mr Robertson: I think throughout the time of the recession and the major cutbacks -- at one time we ran sunset ceremonies every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday evening in July and August. Overall, there may be a decline in actual visitation, but we've diversified into other areas which have brought those numbers back up. Without having the exact numbers in front of me, I'd say we've been pretty consistent in sustaining our numbers.

Mr Malkowski: My second point would be, how can the increasing revenue be explained, given that? Also, I was wondering, that 14% increase over the year, is that the largest increase you've noticed over a year in your time with the fort, or how does that compare with previous years in increases?

Mr Robertson: Every year we've increased revenue, but not as significantly as this year. I think the explanation for that really is that we are drawing on different people; we're finding that visitors coming through have different interests and different needs, so we may be bringing people through for different kinds of programming that have higher admission fees.

I mentioned earlier about our educational programming. Two years ago a bus tour from a school would come through and probably pay the average student rate. We have built enhancements into those tours now that give them a much broader and more participatory experience and hence we can charge a little more for that. So the revenue from that has gone up, and last year we did make some modest increases in some of the rates.

Ms Carter: I also appreciated the tour very much. It was very enjoyable. I also commend you very much on this immersion type of program for children that you've just referred to. I'm sure that's very effective and beneficial to everybody concerned.

But what I did want to raise specifically, you said yesterday that you have no water access. I'm just wondering what could be done to change that situation and what possibilities that might open up. It seems to me you might have ships out there that were part of the picture and all kinds of interactions that were going on, tour boats, mock battles, I don't know. What needs to be done to give you that link-up with the water?

Mr Robertson: Perhaps I can answer your question and expand on Mr Runciman's too. We talked about the property and what needs to be done. Because you came around the fort, you can see we're sort of limited in our scale. One of the problems we get into in large-scale concerts is we have big-name artists who outdraw our facility. We have about a 5,000-person capacity, but as you noticed yesterday, there's only one entrance in and out so it's sometimes a safety issue.

For us to try to grow outside of that gets us out on to the property of which we have no real control. We cannot secure that property in any such way, which would kind of restrict our ability to generate revenue.

Your question about the waterfront: One of the things we have talked about, but it's purely in concept, is looking at potential for waterfront development. We can bring people in. As I mentioned, we had helicopters this summer. We can bring them in by air now and by bus and by road. We cannot access the property by water because there are absolutely no docking facilities.

So there is some thought around looking at some waterfront development to maybe tap into these large cruise ship lines that are on the Great Lakes and certainly on the St Lawrence. There are a number of tour boat operators, a couple right out of Kingston. We're all aware, I'm sure, of Boldt Castle and the different boat lines that go back and forth to Boldt Castle. We always feel at the fort that we're as good or better than Boldt Castle; we just can't get you off the boat on to my property and get you up to the fort, so that would be one of the things we would look towards.

I think there are two issues: One is trying to gain more security for the property so we can use the property outside for larger venue events, and looking at how we can access the property through the waterfront.

Mr Gary Wilson: Actually, by having Jenny go first, it really highlighted what I wanted to say, that Mr Clarke had sounded facetious about the possibility of wanting Garth Drabinsky because he's got John Robertson there, and I think just that answer shows the creativity and ingenuity that John has showed.

I want to say too that John has handed out a complete set of things regarding the fort, including his card. I'm surprised not to see his cell phone number there or even to see the cell phone next to him, because every other time I've met John he's always had that very close at hand. He's so accessible on this that I just want to highlight the work he's done, and the accessibility.

I have to say too, after the tour, that it's throughout the parks of the St Lawrence Commission that the dedication of the staff is so obvious and such a reassuring thing for the future. I just want to say, John, we're pleased to see you here with such a good presentation.

Mr Robertson: I didn't have my cell phone because I thought it would be rather tacky if it went off in the middle of the presentation. So I shut it off and put it away, but I do have it with me.

Mr Curling: I had the opportunity for the first time to visit the St Lawrence complex there and, yes, I kind of enjoyed it, but I had quite a few questions too.

You made a comment earlier on that fascinated me a bit. You say you're not in a competitive business. You're in the tourism business, to begin with, and sometimes I understand you're in the historic business. I think if the St Lawrence concept is not in the tourism business and in the competitive business, what we should be doing is getting out of it, because you've got to make some money somehow, and you have the other tourism complex outside, the private sector, which is competing. So the government must decide itself whether it's in the tourism business or not, or give the environment enough support so that it can make money, it can employ people, it can generate the economy to that extent.

What I'm hearing from my colleagues here is what a wonderful job everybody's doing, but somehow we hear you only have a 1% increase in the Fort Henry complex. Why is it that from 1990 then there has been a decrease in attendance, in 1991, 1992, 1993? What caused that decrease? You seemed to be on the upswing in 1990. What caused that decrease in attendance?

Mr Robertson: Mr Curling, let me clarify the first point. When I said we weren't competitive, I meant we weren't competing necessarily with the local restaurants and hotels. I guess my inference there was that we were working together complementarily so that we were trying to build each other's business. We do a lot of work in partnership and we exchange business back and forth. So I didn't mean it in the sense that we don't compete. In reality we are competing with them, but we're competing based on a unique product that they don't have.

I guess on the second question, one answer is the recession. It hit most historic sites, and I think we did relatively well, considering the way tourism was impacted throughout that particular period.

1200

We had significant constraints applied to the fort and to the commission, and we were going out of programming. In 1990 we were actually running Fort Henry 12 months of the year. We had a full winter program going and a number of off-season events, and to deal with constraints and cutbacks we had to eliminate those right back. We started cutting back on the sunset ceremonies and so on and so forth. We were cutting back on programming to meet constraints and at the same time rejigging our day programming in order to bring ourselves back up again.

Mr Curling: Mr Robertson, you touched on something too that I thought was rather interesting about transportation. Coming to that area, it has maybe the best transportation system. You've got water and you've got great highways. In tourism, it's a key aspect of it, how we get there and how we get there efficiently.

I think it's almost even cheaper to buy a ticket to Jamaica return and maybe get seven days of hotel than coming from Toronto to Kingston. What is the government doing in the sense of working together with the federal government? Say, taking Via Rail, which is expensive -- let's forget the air, but here we have beautiful Via Rail, and of course waterways, but you said you can't land easily -- but utilizing those resources in a very economic way in utilizing the kind of opportunities we see there, is the government doing anything about that? Are you and the chairman himself making any presentations in the sense of getting some of that effect, that kind of thing moving?

Mr Shaw: If I could answer, since we're kind of getting beyond Fort Henry or we're getting beyond eastern Ontario --

Mr Curling: No, we're trying to get to Fort Henry.

Mr Shaw: I think the chairman in his response earlier did talk in general terms about working with our eastern Ontario partners, the provincial and the federal governments, with respect to making sure that rail transportation opportunities are enhanced and become more user-friendly with respect to tourists who might come into the area, in particular certain types of niche-market tourism such as bicycle tourism. Via Rail may present a great opportunity for them to get to the area and then they use their bicycles in the local area.

We've worked very hard with our major travel association partner in eastern Ontario -- that's the Eastern Ontario Travel Association -- to look at opportunities wherever possible to join forces with operators, look at packaging and promotion opportunities where we can combine travel, accommodation and visitation to an attraction and develop packages for our tour operators and make ourselves more accessible, including the transportation question.

There is a lot more work to be done, and I think we will continue our efforts regionally, within the parks of the St Lawrence, certainly at Kingston, John with the tourism partners in the greater Kingston area, and at the board of commissioners' level I know that from time to time we do make recommendations to the province through our ministry in terms of opportunities that we think should be pursued at the provincial and federal levels as well.

Mr Curling: I understand then that you're making an approach to the private sector as a package to say: "We could attract more tourists in our area if we could get better transportation. We have excellent transportation, but the cost is just extremely high." So you're working together.

My understanding is that you're working together with the private sector in order to approach the government if they are thinking that just dropping some money there is good enough. But I think that to coordinate some of those activities -- is that being done? I know you said on a broader basis that it may be done, but is Fort Henry doing this too, to say, "Listen, we could increase our possibilities here"? We're not getting any response from the government. We only get a whole lot of stroking. We pump some money here and we're not quite sure if we're getting the people there.

Mr Clarke: I'm sorry to intervene, but I think the issue you're addressing is an issue that's of national concern. There is indication at the federal level of a major change in the orientation of the federal government to tourism. I'll relate a very short story.

The Prime Minister apparently invited Menachem Begin for lunch one day a few months back and Mr Begin, during lunch, said: "Mr Prime Minister, what a beautiful country you have. What a shame you're not doing anything about tourism."

As a result, the Prime Minister appointed Judd Buchanan, his former cabinet colleague, as his special adviser on tourism nationally. There has been a report filed by this adviser to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is addressing the national conference on tourism in Vancouver later this month. It is our information that probably the Prime Minister will announce the formation of a Canadian tourism authority with a substantial new federal commitment to tourism marketing dollars that Mr Buchanan has asked for, at least a threefold and possibly a fourfold increase in commitment to tourism marketing.

I would suggest to you that the province is going to have to make the same kind of commitment. It's not acceptable that we all -- no finger-pointing, all parties -- have let tourism decline to the bottom level of spending priority. When we're forced to accept that our major market in eastern Ontario is Quebec, yet we only have $30,000 available to market to our major customer, we all know that's not acceptable. So let's all agree that tourism, which employs more people than any other industry in this province, in this country and in the world, has to have a new level of commitment from government to make it work.

The Chair: I'm sorry, we're two minutes over time, but I didn't want to interrupt Mr Clarke on Mr Menachem Begin's visit to the Prime Minister.

We will now move to our next deputation, the manager of Upper Canada Village, Mr Paul Deault. I wish, Mr Deault, you had brought your cape with you this morning. Some of us might like to have worn it this morning. Welcome to the committee and please proceed.

Mr Paul Deault: Bonjour, mesdames et messieurs. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for inviting me to speak to you this morning. As you have noticed, I'm in different garb today. I speak today as a modern man, to speak of modern things.

While we enjoyed our tour of Upper Canada Village yesterday -- you had an opportunity to see some of the activities, some of the buildings, some of the things going on behind the scenes at this time of year -- unfortunately you were a day too late because Upper Canada Village closed on Monday. What you missed at Upper Canada Village was a total experience of the site.

What visitors experience is a combination of sights, sounds and smells of everyday life more than 130 years ago in a small, waterfront community along the St Lawrence. That's what we try to provide visitors: an experience and a fantasy, an experience that we try to recreate in an authentic, animated and entertaining manner. We believe at Upper Canada Village that people learn best when they enjoy themselves -- it's a fairly simple thing -- and we believe that Upper Canada Village is a historical way to have fun.

Upper Canada Village is for families as well. Children have all kinds of opportunities to milk cows, feed the fish, sign up in the volunteer firemen's brigade and play with historic 1860s toys and games in our children's activity centre. A few years ago we developed a volunteer young interpreter program where kids from nine to 15 come to Upper Canada Village in the summertime and for a few days a week they dress up in costume and play and work as kids would have done more than 130 years ago. This has been very successful, and this year we introduced an addition to that, an enhancement called Time Travellers, which is a five-day summer camp program. Kids pay to come to this program. It has also been very popular for us.

1210

The basic regular operating season of Upper Canada Village is from Victoria Day weekend in mid-May to Thanksgiving weekend in October. As you gathered yesterday, we also offer guided tours during our shoulder season.

We have a variety of school programs, structured programs, and a school overnight live-in program that has also been very successful. Those programs are all geared, basically, to meet the school curricula.

As Fort Henry does, so do we offer a variety of special events at Upper Canada Village to enhance the visitor's experience. Throughout the summer, visitors can enjoy a ride on the carry-all, as you did yesterday, or along the canal on the bateau, all part of the admission to Upper Canada Village.

What we've developed in recent years is a focus on what I call interpretative entertainment, which is a focus on providing visitors period music, street dramas, re-enactments and a variety of what we call first-person characters. These are people who play a role, play a character from the past. We've found from our experience in the last few years that visitors are delighted and find this very, very enchanting as part of their learning experience.

Madam Chairperson, you've asked me to speak on the policy effects of the commission on Upper Canada Village. Clearly, like Fort Henry, Upper Canada Village has had to cope with very severe budget restraints in the last few years. These have necessitated reduction in every area: in support areas such as cleaning and housekeeping, in maintenance and office services, in program research and development, and yes, in management personnel as well. These reductions have also been made to our visitor program, where we've closed some buildings and some activities completely, and some we've closed on a rotating basis.

Notwithstanding those severe operating budget reductions, we've also been able to take advantage of corporate capital funding to improve and restore our historic areas, our historic buildings, to provide disabled access services, to improve occupational health and safety conditions. Capital funding has certainly been a ready source of revitalizing Upper Canada Village. We've also been able to access capital funding to improve -- the Chairman made reference this morning to the Village Café, the village store renovations at our front entrance. All these opportunities to use capital funding have enabled us to improve our visitor services and as well improve our revenues.

This year the commission approved two long-term capital projects for collections management and security to ensure the preservation and management of our extensive pre-Confederation Canadiana collection.

What is the future for Upper Canada Village? Clearly for us we will continue to provide quality presentations that have made Upper Canada Village one of the top historical attractions in the world. Family fun will continue to be emphasized and we will continue to be mindful of our custodial responsibilities for an important part of eastern Ontario heritage.

Upper Canada Village is more than a historical attraction; it is also a manufacturing plant, with operating mills, a cheese factory, a bakery and a number of artisan shops, all of which produce unique products that we can retail at our village store. We will seek increased opportunities to diversify the sales of our products. This year, for example, we joined forces with other major Canadian museums to market some of our unique village products in a new sales catalogue initiated through the Canadian Museums Association.

Increasingly, Upper Canada Village must look at new opportunities to improve our self-sufficiency. Under revenue retention, we have to do this in many ways. Recently, we formed at Upper Canada Village a business improvement group. I'm partial to acronyms, so we call it BIG. It includes the local union representation and management and staff, and together we are looking, now and in the future, at opportunities to increase our business, increase our revenues and increase employment at Upper Canada Village.

Last year, the commission approved a major waterfront development plan for Upper Canada Village. We spoke about it earlier. You had an opportunity to get an overview from us yesterday on the exciting opportunities. I believe that it will offer an exciting, powerful tourism generator not only for Upper Canada Village but in the context of Crysler Park's overall development as well.

This year, our attendance and revenues at Upper Canada Village have been very encouraging. Our attendance went up 7% as of Monday and our admissions and retail revenues have gone up 17% this year. It's very encouraging for us. We've had our ups and downs in attendance and revenues. We are hopeful for the future, certainly under revenue retention; it offers us opportunities that we haven't so far had to improve and be masters of our own destiny.

Mr Waters: Let's look at revenue retention and the future of Upper Canada Village. As a person who's worked fairly closely with you for the last few years, I know there's been a lot of concern by the employees about job security and longevity. With the two of them, is that going to provide any sort of job security or longevity of jobs or an increased number of jobs, do you feel, if we move down with the new programs or the waterfront as well as with the revenue retention?

Mr Deault: When we met with all the staff in the spring to talk about revenue retention, I said to them that for us revenue retention offered us opportunities that we haven't had so far. All we've seen is budget constraints and now we have an opportunity to change that and do things that, where there's a dollar to be made, we can improve the revenues. To me, the win-win situation is also to improve employment for staff. I see various opportunities during the shoulder season. We're basically open six months of the year, yet we have all these manufacturing plants and opportunities. We have very skilled artisans, very skilled staff. I see opportunities for us to use their talents, use their skills, to manufacture and improve products and perhaps market them internationally. That I see as a key feature of revenue retention for Upper Canada Village.

Mr Shaw: Revenue retention is a very significant mechanism for us. Even though the chairman spoke earlier of looking forward to more flexible policy opportunities, where we can perhaps manage our business more ably within a framework of understanding, even this year we have made great advances with respect to managing with this new tool as part of our operating framework. We dealt with as much budgetary constraint this year, in 1994-95, as we did in 1993-94, about a million dollars, when we make allowances for social contract, multi-year expenditure constraints etc.

The commission challenged itself and the staff challenged ourselves this year to make up the difference through increased business growth; in other words, revenue. We were able to absorb far more of that through that entrepreneurial approach to our business than traditional cost-cutting at the bottom end of the scale. As a result, we're having a successful year, our business is up revenue-wise 14%, we're sustaining last year's growth. In fact through good business development, even as much as we've done so far, and there's lots more opportunity, I think we have created opportunity for more job security. In fact, this year we dealt with much less of that adjustment, in 1994-95, than we did in previous years. We were able to plan for it and work towards it and not have to deal with it on short notice.

1220

I can't emphasize enough -- perhaps we haven't said enough already earlier today -- the importance of good labour relations in our business and our relationship with staff, particularly in tough economic times. The staff overall -- managers through to front-line people, bargaining unit staff, other staff -- have dealt with some very difficult times, and they have affected and created anxiety about job security. We worked very closely with our employee relations committees, wherever we could, to look at ways of dealing with those challenges that provided the most opportunity for our business and the least impact on staff.

I'm very proud of these people. In all cases, they've risen to that challenge, even though it was difficult for them. We've set new records this year: $5 million. September 30, this fall, was a first time ever reaching $5 million, and the year isn't over yet. We didn't think we were going to be able to do that this year, but we said, "We're going to reach for that goal and we're going to try and make it," and that we think is the way to job security and good business in the future rather than just looking at the expenditure level and treating it as a cost as opposed to an investment in business.

I can say on behalf of the commission, every manager and I think many of the communities that we serve, that we're all very proud of these people and how they've risen to that challenge, and I can assure you that they're all very proud of their craft and how they work hard to make sure that our customers enjoy themselves, are entertained and go away happy and go home and tell many people to visit us as well. I think revenue retention has created challenges for us but it's also created significant opportunity, and we're only scratching the tip of the iceberg.

Mr Waters: One more quick question, if I have time.

The Chair: You have one and a half minutes.

Mr Waters: Then I'll turn it over to Mr Wilson.

Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks. Again, a fascinating explanation of what you are up to there, Paul. It was my first trip to Upper Canada, and I'm looking forward to many more trips. Since I've only got a short time, I'd like to say, though, that it seems to me that there is so much potential for development there and, I would think, from all levels of participation by the staff. It seems that they have such good product to sell and that there's again potential for them to develop their areas for it and maybe even go to the other seasons of the year, because it seems to me you're trying to portray what life was like in a 19th-century eastern Ontario village, and certainly life didn't stop at the closing period, you know, when you close. How do you see that as a future possibility; in other words, going through the winter?

Mr Deault: We certainly see opportunities for increased shoulder season activities. We're looking at historical workshops that we've tried to do, and we've done some successfully in the past. Some have worked; some have not. We certainly see the opportunity of revitalizing parts of our winter recreation program. Basically, for us, history works, history is a good business to be in, and we use the talent, the skills, in that product. The key, I think, is to develop and be clear on our markets, what our future markets are.

Mr Morin: I just want to thank all of you -- I didn't do that before -- for the excellent tour we had yesterday. I came back here last night and I felt very proud to be a proprietor of this. I'm a taxpayer like anybody else. I feel envious of the people who live in this area, because what a beautiful opportunity to go and visit something which is really nice.

For some reason, Canadians are so humble. We don't boast enough, we don't tell people -- perhaps we have too much and we take it for granted. All you have to do is to go outside, go and take a look elsewhere and look at what we have. Of course, we're going through some economic times that are tough. But what do we do? We cut off the publicity. How can we make money without telling people what we really have?

Yesterday, Mr Deault, you said yes, the five senses were affected; I could see, I could hear, I could smell, I could touch. I was really alive to go through your place. We're all kids in a way, but I felt really proud to see what I saw. You've created an ideal village; villages that didn't exist in those day because the mill was 30 miles away, the flour mill or the sawmill was somewhere else, but you created it. We saw everything there.

Another thing I'd like to say: I believe that all MPPs should come and see what we have, come and spend a visit, meet with you so that they can boast and travel around the province and, whenever they go outside of the country, say, "We have something nice to offer," and that is that we should be politically involved. All of us should be involved.

I'm told that you have a lot of artefacts that have been given by historical societies, that are donations by different people and you're facing a problem, to keep a record of that and also an area where you can maintain them with the proper temperature and everything.

We've got to do that soon, and if I can talk to the government and influence any of your ministers, Mr Waters, that is an important thing to do, to be able to keep those artefacts and to preserve them as much as we can. What are you doing now, Mr Deault, now to accomplish that?

Mr Deault: I'd like to first say that you've exemplified our most powerful marketing tool and that's word of mouth. It's satisfied, enthusiastic visitors who leave Upper Canada Village and go and talk, as you just did this morning. We can talk about all the money we can spend on marketing, but satisfied customers are our best marketing tool, and you've just demonstrated that from a one-hour, carry-all tour. Thank you very much.

We have 60,000, give or take, artefacts that have been donated from various sources, principally from local residents, local communities. Just a few months ago, the commission approved a major capital project which is being initiated now to properly document all those artefacts and to properly store them and to properly secure them in areas that will not damage them any further. Certainly, it's something that we see being achieved in the next two years, maximum three.

Mr Shaw: I don't want to leave you with the impression that we're not looking after our artefacts. We are looking after our artefacts. We have done so since 1958 to 1961, when we acquired most of them. But we want to make sure that we're meeting current museum standards for inventory, restoration, storage and security, and that's the reason for our new initiative and our new collections policy.

Mr Morin: I just want to underline the importance that it should be done.

Mr Deault: Could I just mention as well that approximately 75% of our artefacts are actually in the houses and are part of the demonstrations, the presentations. They're not all just stored in backrooms. I just wanted to clarify that.

Mr Cleary: As parts of the village are shut down on a rotating basis, if I was a tourist coming into the area, how many days would I have to go before I would see the whole operation?

Mr Deault: We try to rotate them. So if you came the next day, you would see the buildings that you missed.

Mr Cleary: So in two days, I could see that.

Mr Deault: The ones that are open on a rotating basis, yes.

Mr Cleary: The other thing: Was the miniature rail a big loss to the village when it was shut down?

Mr Deault: The miniature train that's operated at the front entrance of the parking lot is operated by the commission under licensed agreement. Are you talking about the rolling stock that's part of the --

Mr Cleary: Yes.

Mr Deault: That never created any revenues, to my recollection. I wasn't there then, but it was always operated on free admission. Attendance fluctuated. It's been closed for many years. It did not generate any revenues at all. That's not to say that it could not, but first we're looking at a $500,000 problem of restoring it and storing it before we can open it up.

Mr Cleary: The other thing there that -- I think I've only got a minute or so left.

The Chair: You have a minute.

1230

Mr Cleary: We all talked here about how we would like to see the area developed. You as a manager, what would be your wish outside the village, what kind of development would you like to see that would complement the village?

Mr Deault: Certainly Crysler Park development I think is a key ingredient in the long-term success of Upper Canada Village, if we can develop Crysler Park to generate more attraction-based activities, more visitor services, accommodation, food. One of our plans as part of the development of Upper Canada Village is to look at developing what we call a merchants' square at the front entrance of the village as part of Crysler Park to offer our tourists and our visitors opportunities to buy things and to do this through the private sector. So, for me, the future of Upper Canada Village is not only tied in with waterfront development, it's also tied in with Crysler Park development.

Mr Villeneuve: It was most enjoyable, as always, visiting Upper Canada Village yesterday. I think the artefact and historical items was a very serious concern of mine, as have been expressed to me by a number of people. I think you've satisfied my query on that.

Do you have any contractors within the village regarding supplying food or any other type of contractor?

Mr Deault: The foodservices during the operating season at Upper Canada Village are all contracted out.

Mr Villeneuve: Willard's Hotel?

Mr Deault: Through one contractor, Capital Food Services.

Mr Villeneuve: So they supply both the golf course --

Mr Deault: They used to. Now the contractor for Upper Canada Village strictly supplies Willard's Hotel, the Village Café and the Harvest Barn restaurant. The food facility across the road is operated under a different contract, reporting to the manager of parks and recreation.

Mr Villeneuve: Because that created some concern. As you know, you're certainly the major employer in the area, and that created some concern. Are you satisfied that people who were possibly redundant as employees have been looked after by the contractor as well as was possible within your particular area of jurisdiction?

Mr Deault: The food facilities at Upper Canada Village have been, as far back as I can think of, always operated by a private contractor. The staff who are employed by our current contractor are basically the same staff who were employed by the previous contractor. So there's been continuity. But it's always been -- well, not always, but certainly in the last many, many years -- operated through a private contractor.

Mr Villeneuve: That, in your opinion, is working well? Are you looking at contracting other services within the village? Are you satisfied with what's happening now? Could you have possibly some savings there if it were to be contracted?

Mr Deault: We're very satisfied with the foodservices. It's a very good, symbiotic relationship that provides good revenues for us as well.

Mr Villeneuve: But contracting other services?

Mr Deault: I think there might be opportunities that we've looked at under waterfront development as we look at private partnerships for operating different parts of the waterfront.

Mr Villeneuve: It intrigued me very much to find out that you operate the two parkways at your own expense, and I realize this is more commission than village here. Is there any way you could shed that responsibility? Frank, I guess this would go to you. It seems a little bit not along the line of what should be your responsibility.

Mr Shaw: We actually deal with three or four parkways if you count Upper Canada Road a parkway as well. The Long Sault Parkway is really one large park with a gated entrance. The Thousand Island Parkway is really part of the provincial tourism infrastructure as far as a road goes in the Thousand Islands area. Upper Canada Road is an access to our destination area, and the Loyalist Parkway adviser group was involved with us as a partner in promoting that particular scenic route from Kingston to Trenton.

Each one has come about in a different way, and they all make sense as part of, I think, tourism infrastructure and part of the province's contribution to tourism in eastern Ontario. I guess our business planning has to take a serious look at that as we move in the future as to what will be the right mechanisms and the right partnerships to manage those in the future, because the economic situation and the changing marketplace suggest that the same traditional ways of doing it may not be appropriate in the future and we need to look at more effective mechanisms.

The Chair: Mr Runciman, there are three minutes.

Mr Runciman: No.

Mr Shaw: Could I just add a supplementary remark that I forgot earlier? With respect to revenue retention, I don't want to leave the impression that, although I am excited and buoyant and it's given us renewed vigour I think throughout the commission at both the staff and the board level, it in itself is the answer to everything.

The chairman spoke earlier today of other policy considerations that will, I think, contribute to an enabling framework working our letter of agreement into a new formal memorandum of understanding that deals with some of those things, and one of the significant features, as I mentioned earlier, human resources, is a fundamental part of our business. Without human resources, we wouldn't be able to achieve the things we do. Although we have financial independence in the sense of our new arrangement of revenue retention now, we don't have full management authority with respect to the management of our human resources, much like, say, the example of the Niagara Parks Commission, which has for many years had its own collective agreement.

I think one of the things that the chairman was perhaps alluding to earlier was, as part of business planning and as part of our discussions with OPSEU and the government, should we look towards developing a collective agreement with OPSEU in our area that is beneficial both to our business and more beneficial to our staff and would be more reflective of the needs of our people and the needs of our business and could become part of the package for our successful future?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Shaw. In completing this morning's presentations, I would like to join with the comments of the members about how much we have learned, those of us who were not familiar with the parks and the village and Fort Henry. It has been a very comprehensive educational experience, speaking for myself, and I agree totally with Mr Morin that every one of the 130 members of the Legislature should visit the St Lawrence Parks Commission facilities and each of us become ambassador for this wonderful resource that exists down here.

Thank you again, Mr Clarke, for your presentation this morning, and Mr Shaw, Mr Robertson and Mr Deault for your presentation before the committee.

Mr Shaw: Thank you for the opportunity.

The Chair: We are recessed now until 2 o'clock and we will start on time right at 2 o'clock because we have a busy schedule this afternoon.

The committee recessed from 1238 to 1401.

KINGSTON AREA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

The Chair: I'd like to call this afternoon's meeting to order. We are starting this afternoon with a representative of the Kingston Area Economic Development Commission, and it's Ms Marielle Laplante-Wheeler. Welcome to the committee, Ms Laplante-Wheeler. You're acting senior tourism development officer, I understand. Have a seat there, perhaps the middle seat, and then you're not looking through the water. I know you've been advised that the committee likes to have time to ask you questions, so if you could leave part of your time, as much as possible, for the committee, they would appreciate it.

Ms Marielle Laplante-Wheeler: On behalf of the staff of the Kingston Area Economic Development Commission, KAEDC for short, I appreciate the opportunity to present our comments with respect to the current operation of the St Lawrence Parks Commission. During the course of the next few minutes, I will touch on specific areas of the St Lawrence Parks Commission's operation, with particular emphasis on Fort Henry, which have a direct impact on greater Kingston's tourism industry. These areas will include the economic impact to greater Kingston, programming, marketing initiatives, revenue retention, staffing, facilities management and investment.

I'd like to start by giving you a quick overview of the importance of the tourism industry in greater Kingston. According to the Greater Kingston Economic Status Report, which was done in 1991, approximately one million tourists visit greater Kingston each year, staying on average 2.6 days and spending on average $77 per day per adult. So tourism is directly and indirectly responsible for over 8,534 local jobs, which is approximately 13% of the regional employed workforce. The direct annual economic impact of tourism revenue is projected at $170.688 million. Taking into account indirect results of this tourism expenditure, Statistics Canada multipliers indicate a total direct and indirect economic impact of over $273 million to the greater Kingston area.

This year, from January to September, the tourist information office, which is operated by KAEDC, is reporting a 23% increase in the number of visitor inquiries over this same period last year.

From a tourism perspective, Fort Henry's economic contribution to greater Kingston is both widespread and substantial. According to a summer survey which was conducted by the KAEDC tourist information office last year, Fort Henry was listed as the number two reason for attracting respondents to greater Kingston, number one being the Thousand Islands area as a whole. Fort Henry's location in greater Kingston therefore impacts on all different sectors of the tourism and service industry, which would include accommodations, restaurants, other attractions, gas stations etc.

Recognizing its economic value to the area's tourism industry, Fort Henry's daily programming and operating season are major considerations for the Kingston Area Economic Development Commission. For instance, with the cancellation of the sunset ceremony this year, several smaller accommodation establishments reported a decrease in business and revenue this year.

I would also like to touch briefly on KAEDC's tourism marketing strategy, as it relates strongly to this point. It can be summed up in a single phrase: positioning greater Kingston as a destination. Our goal is to have travellers consider greater Kingston as the central point of their trip. Therefore, rather than moving on after a day here, we want them to extend their stay. Attractions such as the sunset ceremony at Fort Henry are vital in positioning greater Kingston as a destination. Although substantial enhancements have been made to the day programming at the fort, we still need evening activities that result in overnight stays.

Certainly the St Lawrence Parks Commission has implemented some new marketing initiatives in the last few years which have counteracted this reduction in the scale of operation at Fort Henry. Outdoor concerts and festivals, such as the Celtic Festival in October, are creative ways to use this venue to attract a greater number of visitors. The availability of this type of venue makes it easier for us to attract touring programs and to serve as the host site for major events. The St Lawrence Parks Commission is also innovative in packaging its attractions with the hospitality sector in an effort to make more sales and increase attendance.

We also feel that it is good news that the St Lawrence Parks Commission is now allowed to retain its revenue. However, we also understand that centralized decisions made at a government level affect their operational costs and flexibility. For instance, negotiated salary increases and the social contract impact greatly on their staffing costs. As the Kingston Area Economic Development Commission is mandated to attract new business to greater Kingston, in so doing creating jobs, we are very concerned about the significant decrease in staffing at Fort Henry since 1988.

In addition, the four municipalities represented by the Kingston Area Economic Development Commission are also expressing their frustration at seeing selected historical attractions being closed and abandoned, for example, Fairfield House. Since the municipalities are not in a financial position to take over such attractions, they feel that the St Lawrence Parks Commission should be looking at new creative ways to keep them open.

With respect to Fort Henry facilities, we would like to see a new long-term lease from the federal government to allow for investment in new areas. For instance, a dock for cruise boats and visiting ships -- for example, the tall ships rendezvous, which took place this past summer in greater Kingston -- built at the fort would allow us to expand our inventory of attractions and events, thereby contributing to greater Kingston's economic base.

In closing, I hope that this short presentation has given you a good overview of our comments with respect to the St Lawrence Parks Commission, and thank you for allowing a representative of the KAEDC office to join you here today.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have eight minutes per caucus, and we're going to start with M. Morin.

Mr Morin: I want to thank you for your representation. I arrived a little late, but I had a chance to glance at it. When I look at the ripple effect that it has on the city of Kingston, we are facing economic tough times, all of us, and I'm just asking a question, a very naïve question, if I can put it this way: Would the city of Kingston be willing to contribute some form of finance to help, let's say, Old Fort Henry, not only to survive but to make it even more attractive? For instance, you say the sunset rendezvous was cancelled and it had an effect on the businesses. Do you think the city would be interested in getting involved?

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: The Kingston Area Economic Development Commission represents not only the city of Kingston but the three other municipalities in the area, which include the townships of Kingston, Ernestown and Pittsburgh. With respect to your question, this year, with the cancellation of the sunset ceremony, the tourism advisory committee, which is part of the Kingston Area Economic Development Commission -- it's a subcommittee -- formed a small committee to assist Fort Henry or offer comments with respect to the sunset ceremony and any type of assistance that they would require, but no financial assistance was discussed.

Mr Morin: Do you think it would be an idea that would be accepted, because we all have to participate, when times are tough especially. You're taking advantage of it, and it would certainly be a form of showing even more your deep interest in maintaining it, because everybody benefits from it.

1410

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: From what I heard yesterday,we had our board of directors' meeting, and the four heads of councils sit on the board of directors. As I mentioned in the presentation, they were going the opposite way. They expressed their frustration because some of the attractions operated by the St Lawrence Parks Commission were closing and just being abandoned; if the municipalities wanted them to open, it was at their own cost. As you can appreciate, they don't have large budgets, so it's to the detriment of other of their services, such as fire prevention and other activities.

Mr Morin: What about working in cooperation with the parks commission?

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: Through the tourism advisory committee, and I'm speaking strictly on a staff level with the KAEDC office, we would certainly, as I said, be able to work with Fort Henry in assisting them.

Mr Cleary: Welcome to the committee. I might only have a question or two there, and I guess it would be, in your position, what do you think the St Lawrence Parks Commission can do to attract more people to the area and keep them here longer?

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: Again, as I touched on in the presentation, I think we want to try to establish greater Kingston as an overnight destination and not a stopover, a one-day stopover en route from Toronto to Montreal and Ottawa. We want people to make this the central point of their stay. So we need evening attractions, events, that will keep people overnight. That not only helps the accommodation sector but also the other attractions in greater Kingston, because if they stay an extra night, they may want to go and visit the other attractions in the area. I really think events are the way to go, events such as the sunset ceremony or other events, concerts. The Celtic Festival has proven to be very successful as well. Major events I think are a great way to attract visitors.

Mr Cleary: Do you think the new municipal services that are being put in right now in the Kingston area where the sunset ceremony took place will be an added attraction and will be good to be able to sponsor more events like that?

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: I'm sorry, the municipal services?

Mr Cleary: Yes, like the new sewer that's going in to the --

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: Again, I'm not quite familiar with that. That's more in the individual councils. As a KAEDC representative, I can only speak as far as tourism as a whole. I can certainly tell you that events definitely would be a great way to attract more visitors to the greater Kingston area.

Mr Cleary: Yes. That was a major expenditure that we heard yesterday, almost three quarters of a million dollars I think to put the sanitary sewer in.

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: Is that right?

Mr Cleary: Those were my questions, Madam Chairman.

Mr Villeneuve: Thank you for your presentation. We had a very interesting tour of the Fort Henry facilities. It's my understanding there are about four rooms that have been completely refurbished on the one side of the section of Fort Henry, which now can accommodate conferences and serve meals. Because of its location, it appears now that once the sewage facilities are installed, this would be actively promoted as a destination point for a one-, two- and three-day convention, with I'm quite sure the ripple effect of people being accommodated within the greater Kingston area.

Do you feel, as a representative of the tourist region around Kingston, that your tourist operators would be nervous about this? In other words, the private sector tends to look with some sort of scepticism when the government, in this case the St Lawrence Parks Commission through Fort Henry, gets involved in that type of industry. Do you feel some nervousness from the people within the industry that you represent?

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: Not in my own experience, no, and actually, conventions and attracting conventions is a major consideration for KAEDC and is something we're working to expand in the next few years, mostly on the request of the local operators, because convention delegates bring so much dollars in revenue to the area, and everybody benefits. The fact that they would use Fort Henry as a site to hold their convention means that they would be in greater Kingston and that they would visit other attractions, perhaps other restaurants, and of course stay at accommodations.

Mr Villeneuve: So the feeling in general of the industry is that this would be complementary to the tourist sector as opposed to possibly be in competition with the private sector?

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: That's my feeling about it, yes.

Mr Villeneuve: As a point of destination, where would you, as the development officer, be targeting? Are you targeting out of province or the Toronto area, out of country? Where are your target areas to bring tourists to your region?

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: We target mostly the eastern Ontario area, Toronto, western Quebec and the northeastern US. Those are our major target markets, so basically within a two- to three-hour drive from the greater Kingston area. That's for basically the visitors who come by car. We get quite a few group tours as well, and they tend to be European and Asian in origin. I can just speak to that. In September of this year we had over 190 buses stopping in just at the tourist information office, and most of them seemed to be from France.

Mr Villeneuve: Where do you feel your advertisement is most successful?

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: Again, it varies every year. This year we felt that with the US dollar, we've certainly increased the number of visitors from the American side. Also, we found the Canadian side, especially the Quebec market, has increased this year because of the US dollar and they're staying at home, preferring to spend their money at home. We do a lot of co-op advertising with the Eastern Ontario Travel Association and our local partners as well in those markets.

Mr Villeneuve: In early August I had the opportunity, with my wife, to visit the Niagara Falls area. They were complaining that their numbers were down, primarily because of the casino in Windsor. As a tourist person, a tourist development officer, do you feel that the tourism industry of the Kingston area would welcome a casino in your area?

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: Definitely. It has been discussed many times at our tourism advisory committee. I should perhaps just elaborate a little bit. The tourism advisory committee has members from each sector of the tourism industry, so it's represented by the accommodations, events, restaurant, shopping sectors etc, and they have recommended that we should pursue a casino in the greater Kingston area.

Mr Villeneuve: My colleague from Brockville would have one or two questions here.

Mr Runciman: You've mentioned in your submission you've had a 23% increase in the number of visitor inquiries over the same period last year.

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: That's correct.

Mr Runciman: What does that translate to in terms of business levels in Kingston and area? Do you have feedback on that from --

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: Well, we used the study that was done in 1991 by the chamber of commerce and the Queen's school of business as a guidepost. They found that most adults spent on average $77 per day. So this 23% increase in travel, which represents about 100,000 people, just through the tourist information alone, would give you an idea of the amount of dollars that are --

Mr Runciman: What I was getting at is, I guess you haven't had feedback from your businesses in the tourism and hospitality areas indicating they've had that kind of an increase in business this year. They haven't really?

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: The KAEDC office does a survey midsummer and at the end of the summer with the operators. We're still conducting the end-of-summer survey, but in the midsummer one we asked 48 different tourism operators and they all reported increases, except for a few.

Mr Runciman: Earlier today Mr Shaw, the manager of Fort Henry, mentioned that they'd had a 1% drop, I think it was, in terms of people going to Fort Henry, given the increase that most operators have seen this year because of the dollar and other factors. He considered that a significant success story, given the fact that they dropped the sunset ceremony, and I forget what the other element was in terms of attractions.

1420

I remember the news stories at the time when they were taking the sunset ceremony out. There was quite a bit of concern in the Kingston area in respect to how that would impact on the greater Kingston area. Was there ever any discussion of anyone else funding that through the private sector, through the chamber, through other organizations, who said: "Look, if this is going to impact on us in a negative way, perhaps we can foot the bill to ensure that this continues"? Was there ever any discussion of that nature, and if not, why not?

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: I'm not sure. When we became aware that the sunset ceremony would be cancelled, it was already the beginning of this year. As I said, the tourism advisory committee was the one that discussed it at length, and at this point they haven't discussed maybe footing the bill for financial assistance, but I guess it would have to be discussed with the municipalities.

Mr Runciman: I hope you do. I think that's the sort of thing you should be looking at.

Mr Gary Wilson: Welcome to Cornwall, Marielle.

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: Hi. How are you?

Mr Gary Wilson: It's nice to see you here. It's nice to leave Kingston but still talk about it in this kind of concentrated way.

I think you missed this morning's presentation, but we had the admission -- well, maybe "admission" is putting it in the wrong light -- the wish, perhaps, that more MPPs were aware of the marvels or the gems we have to offer in this area. I was thinking, when I read some of the background to the work that KAEDC has done through brochures and other kinds of material to attract tourists, that we should have had some ready to hand here that we could show around. I think it's something you and I should get together on, to make sure that MPPs get a package of the material. Some of it has won awards, and they can use it in their own areas as well as read it to find reasons to come to our area.

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: Definitely.

Mr Gary Wilson: I wanted to begin by making that pledge, and also to commend KAEDC for its work in producing those very effective tourism materials.

I would like to go into the issue of the sewage system upgrade that's under way now, to point out that by the time it will be completely upgraded it will be about $900,000 of provincial money that is being spent on what is a crucial development there. It is a very old system; after all, the fort was built in the 19th century and hadn't had, I think, a major overhaul of its sewage treatment system. This is, as I say, a crucial project and one that shows the provincial commitment to Fort Henry. Giving that kind of money in this fiscal environmental shows a strong commitment to the fort.

As to some of the other decisions that have been made regarding the sunset ceremony, of course nobody likes to see programs cut back, but at the same time, I think they have to be done with a regard to the data you accumulate. As you know, it was actually phased down, shall we say; it went through a few steps where people in our area could have stepped in if they felt it was in danger of being stopped, if that kind of partnership had a possibility of being formed, as opposed to, say, looking at possibilities in other areas, both with the fort and in other kinds of activities like the summer festival, for instance, to try to put into place the tourist attractions that will mean Kingston becomes a destination.

I'd like you to comment on that: the possibilities, as you see it, of using the tourism advisory committee, for instance, bringing together all the people involved in it to come up with ideas around the fort. For instance, the dock is a very good example, and some of the things we've discussed this morning would be activities centred on bicycling, for instance.

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: Definitely. One of the points that came out again strongly from discussions at a staff level and also at the tourism advisory committee was the fact that Fort Henry was still federal government property and that it kind of stopped some of the investment possibilities at the fort. They were quite concerned about that, so I think we should mention that. The dock is a prime example.

Mr Gary Wilson: You've raised a good point. Partnership doesn't always just mean money, that you have to contribute money, but you could come up with ideas and support for things like the kinds of arrangements that, say, Fort Henry has with the National Defence department. It's an interest that everyone in the area has, and therefore the more support you can build up for changes that will work to the benefit of the area, that's a good forum for that kind of discussion.

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: I agree.

Mr Gary Wilson: I was wondering about, I guess locally, how the fort can be used. You mentioned the Celtic Festival, which has been such a success. Is this something the tourism advisory committee does consider, the various attractions in the area and how they can be developed? Do you feel you have a good mechanism for discussing these projects with something like either the manager of Fort Henry, John Robertson, or going beyond, to the parks commission of the St Lawrence?

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: We have other committees as well. We have the Events Kingston committee, for example, which is more of a support group for events that go on in greater Kingston. There's a representative on the tourism advisory committee, actually, from the Events Kingston committee who would basically make recommendations about what type of events would be successful in greater Kingston. Certainly, as far as KAEDC is concerned, we're looking at anything that can attract more visitors to greater Kingston; whether it is an attraction as such or an event, certainly we're interested in seeing more of that.

Mr Gary Wilson: Do you think there's a clear idea of what the priorities are as far as tourism spending goes? For instance, should it be in attractions? Is there enough money for marketing, for instance, or do you think we're reaching the markets we should be and perhaps that's where more money should be spent?

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: As far as KAEDC is concerned, or St Lawrence parks?

Mr Gary Wilson: As far as KAEDC goes with our area, and whether that would lead to discussions with the St Lawrence Parks Commission, for example, either to have a formal partnership in marketing perhaps, or in setting the priorities, for instance, if there are projects you see the need for that could be developed at Fort Henry, where you'd be able to come forward with the suggestions as well as maybe some money.

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: We participate in a lot of cooperative projects with Fort Henry and the St Lawrence Parks Commission in terms of advertising. They support our partners program; they advertise in all our publications, which is wonderful. In that case, our marketing is really in sync with each other; we have the same markets in mind when we do advertise.

Mr Gary Wilson: As far as Fort Henry goes, how do you classify that as an attraction? It's obviously rooted in the military background, but how do you see it?

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: I think it would be a historical attraction, but a major one, since we find it's the number one attraction that is visited in greater Kingston, after the Thousand Islands as a whole. The Thousand Islands being an area, we don't consider that an attraction as such. Fort Henry definitely would be a number one attraction for the visitors when they come to greater Kingston.

Mr Gary Wilson: How do you see the development going forward there as far as its being a sustainable attraction? With the analysis you've done of the tourism market now, what do you see in the future there and what kind of development should be taking place at the fort?

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: Certainly, Fort Henry has tried a few events which have been very, very successful. Having the Tragically Hip over was quite successful, and the expansion of some of their events, having visiting bands coming as well, was quite successful; also, the expansion of their facilities as well.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate you appearing before the committee this afternoon, Ms Laplante-Wheeler.

Ms Laplante-Wheeler: You're welcome, and thank you very much.

1430

EASTERN ONTARIO TRAVEL ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Our next deputation this afternoon is Mr Ronald Huck, the president of the Eastern Ontario Travel Association. Welcome to the committee, Mr Huck. I'll explain to committee members that we are a little short on copies of Mr Huck's brief; those of you who do not receive a copy will receive copies when we return to the Legislature, because we do not have copying facilities here. And Mr Huck, please leave time for the committee members to ask you questions.

Mr Ronald Huck: That's right. It's a pleasure to be here today. It think it would be more pleasurable being outside in this beautiful eastern Ontario sunshine and weather today. However, we do have some important things to put before you, so I'll forgo that beautiful day for the sake of this committee.

Again, thank you for the opportunity of permitting the Eastern Ontario Travel Association to present our views to you here today concerning the St Lawrence Parks Commission. The parks of the St Lawrence are totally located within our area of jurisdiction as EOTA and are important economic player within our region.

As I look around the committee, I know some of you are familiar with what EOTA stands for, but just to enlighten you perhaps I should explain it. The Eastern Ontario Travel Association, better known as EOTA, was created by the provincial Legislature. There are 10 of them across the province representing tourism in their various areas or regions.

We have a jurisdictional area from Napanee in the west, to the Quebec border in the east, the St Lawrence River in the south, including the nation's capital in the northeast along the Ottawa River, and Algonquin Park; 26,000 square miles in total. It's a big area we are responsible for, marketing tourism for all the people in that area. We also, a couple of years ago, picked up the responsibility for central Ontario, which basically is from Yonge Street east, and joining Napanee, our western boundary. We have a major responsibility, and are second only to Toronto in terms of numbers and dollars generated by tourism in our area -- quite a significant factor for eastern Ontario.

More jobs are created by tourism, as you probably realize, than agriculture, mining, utilities and forestry combined. Tourism receipts in the province of Ontario alone in 1993 were estimated at $17 billion and generated over $8.8 billion in taxes, or, as a percentage of receipts, approximately 52% of the gross receipts generated in taxes.

What did the province of Ontario, in turn, reinvest back in the tourism industry? It was a niggardly $8.1 million. This, in the same year of 1993, represents a gross reinvestment, as a percentage, of 0.48%.

In my business as a tourism operator, and if you speak to other business people who are in the tourism industry, the average reinvestment is approximately 3% to 5% of their gross receipts. So you can see where we sit as far as the tourism industry in this province is concerned, when the reinvestment of one of our largest partners is not there.

There's also a lack of commitment by the province of Ontario to marketing, not only in Ontario but also into Quebec and the state of New York, a major market for eastern Ontario. The budget for Quebec alone by this province -- and I want you to listen carefully, because I'm not making a mistake when I say it -- is $30,000 to market Ontario in Quebec. So where is the partnership here? It's not a partner I'd want in my operation, I'll tell you that.

Needless to say, the federal government on that scene is, as ever, discouraging. We were ranked 10th in 1991, down from sixth place in 1986, in Canada's share of world tourism. Ladies and gentlemen, we are declining in our popularity. Canada spends less on marketing than Bermuda does, and about the same that American Express spends on marketing that with their American Express card you get ahead of the line, that you can go to the theatre and get ahead of the line. They spend $10.5 million marketing in Ontario alone that one concept. You can see it's very discouraging from a tourism point of view.

Thus, with this obvious lack of support from the province and the federal government, tourist attractions therefore play a major role in traffic generation not simply as attractions but, more importantly, as marketing partners.

The St Lawrence Parks Commission, which encompasses Old Fort Henry, Upper Canada Village, the parkways, the parks of the St Lawrence, is the largest attraction in eastern Ontario, bar none, and is a valued partner in the Eastern Ontario Travel Association. It is a major participant and contributor to our Eastern Ontario Travel Association cooperative programs, cooperative programs like the video we produced in cooperation with CJOH. If any of you are interested, I'd be more than pleased to leave a copy of that video for you to see how cooperation in tourism between the operators and the attractions works very well.

We made a major map project this year to get eastern Ontario as a base map. The St Lawrence Parks Commission was a major partner in that project. In terms of our Discovery Guides that we send out to people around the world and to our other marketing areas in Quebec and New York and the rest of the United States, the St Lawrence Parks Commission again is a major player there with full-page ads. So they are a very valued partner and contributor to tourism in eastern Ontario.

The budget cutbacks that are continuing I believe impede the ability of the St Lawrence Parks Commission to be a full and effective player and partner and will damage tourism in this region. I believe that government must distinguish between cutbacks that reduce waste or, in more simple terms, reduce the fat, if you want to call it that, and cutbacks that ultimately reduce revenue dollars, or in other words really cut into the meat of the operation. Remember that government taxes 52% of every dollar generated by the tourism industry; government then is the major loser if revenues decline.

When government is not playing and paying its fair share as a partner, then attractions such as the St Lawrence Parks Commission are doubly important to tourism in eastern Ontario and to our organization. Changes in the St Lawrence Parks Commission over the past five years have not yet had a large effect overall in the eastern Ontario situation as far as tourism is concerned, although there have been some local effects. However, further cuts that affect core programs, length of the operating season, quality of the marketing staff, are of major concern to myself and to my organization, the Eastern Ontario Travel Association.

Increasingly, tourism is shifting to the shoulder seasons. As an operator, I can attest to this growing market. April and October can be very, very strong tourism months. If any of you wish to come to my operation this morning or this afternoon, you will see what I mean. We probably had about 15 or 20 buses in this morning. I can't send them to the St Lawrence Parks Commission, Upper Canada Village or Old Fort Henry. Unfortunately, they're closed. Group travel buses pass straight through our region via Highway 401 in the shoulder season because attractions are closed and there is nothing to entice them to stop and spend money in our area. European clientele is big business, and Quebec is marketing and servicing this growing market.

1440

Just as an aside, when they talk about moving the Tourism ministry to Niagara Falls, it's probably a great concept. But I'll tell you, Quebec is waiting in the wings. If they already don't have an office open, they'll be scooping the tourism right from under our noses.

The next area I'd like to look at is the capital investment by the St Lawrence Parks Commission. In major, new tourism attractions have not kept pace with competing attractions in New York state, nor in Quebec. Look at the massive development at Mont Tremblant. It overshadows tourism attractions in eastern Ontario.

The St Lawrence Parks Commission product is not dramatically different from what it was 25 years ago. I can remember taking student groups to Upper Canada Village. I was there last spring -- not much change. What is the lure to go there? What is the lure for the locals to go there? What is the lure for the people of the province to go there? What is the lure for the people from around the world, the international world that we're looking at now and are facing in eastern Ontario? What makes them want to go there? What is new? If a tour operator asks me that when I attend a show, what do I tell them? "Sorry, nothing."

We're missing the point. We're missing the boat. Take a look at the Walt Disney concept in Florida, in California, in Europe, the concept of development and showmanship. We don't have to reinvent the wheel up here. Let's take some of those ideas and those concepts and develop them in eastern Ontario. We've got a commission that can do it. They've got the expertise. Let's give them some funding and keep their season open in the shoulder seasons, but add to the attractions, something every year.

Most of you have gone to Disney World in Florida. If you haven't -- I think you're in a fantasy world when you're in Toronto, so you might as well go to the fantasy world down there. But at least you'll see, every year when you go there, something new, one added little feature. If you went there this year and you go back next year, there's something new to attract you. That's what we have to have in eastern Ontario.

EOTA supports the closing of unprofitable operations, but why are they unprofitable? There have got to be reasons. Let's look at them. Did we do something wrong? Are they too closely controlled? Are they not given enough leeway? Let's correct it. Are we replacing those closed parks with profitable new attractions? Why the delay in leasing closed parks to the private sector? My God, if the government can't do it, at least give the private sector an opportunity. If you give an opportunity to the private sector, we usually succeed.

Why has the St Lawrence Parks Commission failed to negotiate a private sector group for the development of a golf course resort that was promised at Brown's Bay? There was a big hoop-la about five or six years ago on that. It died on the vine. We never heard any more. You can't get information because in the past the St Lawrence Parks Commission meetings were closed. You couldn't even get the minutes of the meetings. That's since been opened up a little bit, but I'd like to know the answer to that. Perhaps this committee could find out. This is at Brown's Bay. That was three years ago. Let's see what action we could do on that. Private developers are out there. It's a choice piece of property closed down, not being used.

Why is the St Lawrence Parks Commission apparently only concerned with leasing closed parks? Let's put the private sector in and revitalize some of the parks we already have and make them attractive for tourism so that we can encourage more people to come here. Must EOTA and the people of the province accept that all this land be kept in a state where it makes no contribution to tourism? That's what it's doing now. I don't think the taxpayer will be happy with that.

What is the mandate of the St Lawrence Parks Commission, and has it operated within its mandate and the responsibility to its fullest for the benefit of this region?

When the Premier of the province goes on international trade missions, why is the St Lawrence Parks Commission representative not along, even to carry the baggage perhaps? But at least we could show major investors the opportunities we have in eastern Ontario, especially along the corridor of Highway 401 between Quebec and Napanee. Why does the St Lawrence Parks Commission not have the authority to act in this fashion?

Why is the marketing department so understaffed in the St Lawrence Parks Commission? I have to deal with them. This is firsthand experience, ladies and gentlemen, that operators are not able to find anyone to make packaging deals for an eastern Ontario experience. What do I mean by that? Every hotel, motel and resort attraction should be able to negotiate on admission tickets at reduced rates to sell in their packages for their rooms.

If the Royal Brock Hotel in Brockville or the Lord Elgin in Ottawa or the Ambassador in Kingston wants to put a package together to encourage someone from outside our region or within our region to spend a getaway weekend here, we can package all of these things together at a reasonable rate, a competitive rate, and by doing so encourage people to come. At the moment that is a very, very difficult proposition to achieve.

If Old Fort Henry cannot be run profitably as a fort, then why not lease it to an entrepreneur? Perhaps we can get Garth Drabinsky down here and run it as a theatre. I see some smiles on your faces. Perhaps that might be the answer.

Mr Runciman: We heard that line this morning.

Mr Huck: You did, this morning? I'm sorry, I was in Perth this morning, so I can't be told that I was contributing it to someone else, okay? But it's out there. There are entrepreneurs out there who would love to get in on some of this land, this prime, choice land and develop it, because we create jobs through tourism.

Are there any steps afoot to take over the fort? I know the St Lawrence Parks Commission or the province doesn't own it; it's owned by the feds -- a choice location. Are there any steps forward to look at that perhaps, to take over that area?

Cycling: We have one of the most beautiful bicycle paths in this province, between Gananoque and Brockville, very greatly used but it needs to be developed. There need to be cycling competitions. Who's taking the lead on that? That's something I would like to see, that the St Lawrence Parks Commission in its mandate develop that so we have trails from Kingston through Cornwall and back up to Ottawa. Those are things that we should be looking at in the mandate for the St Lawrence Parks Commission in the future.

Why are there no developments of hotels and inns and condominiums that you've got down here by the private sector at the Crysler Park marina, a choice piece of land? Being a marina operator, if I had that kind of land next to me, I'd be in there pretty quick with a developer. The market's there. If you don't believe it, I'd like to speak to some of you after and give you examples of it, but I won't take your time now.

Why is the St Lawrence Parks Commission not working with Parks Canada, our other major player in eastern Ontario that holds a great deal of land along the waterways of eastern Ontario? They could make the St Lawrence Parkway, the Thousand Island Parkway that we have here, a world-class ecotourism experience.

That's what the people from around the world want now, people from Japan, because we're experiencing that. They don't want to come into Toronto any more. They're coming from Paris. They don't want to see another Paris again; they don't want to go to Montreal; they don't want to go to Toronto. They want to get out and experience the life, the ruralness of Ontario. Where can they do that? They want to look at growing flowers. They want to see cattle in the fields. Agricultural tours are becoming very, very major in our area now, so ecotourism along the Thousand Island Parkway, in cooperation with Parks Canada, would be an excellent avenue for the St Lawrence Parks Commission to be looking at.

We have no interpretative services. Beautiful park, beautiful area for that type of thing, but there are no interpretative services there presently. There are no information centres. You have to go and find it. I think we're afraid that if we give out the information, someone might come. There are no activity areas because the parks are all closed. There are no canoe rentals. There are no food or beverage services. Those things can be developed very, very easily. We only have restrictions and no economic benefits.

1450

I suspect, as I've said all of these things, and I can see it in your eyes: "Well, he's talking out of his hat. Where the hell is he getting the money?" That's major on all our minds right now. Well, we're giving you a lot of it. I told you, we give 52 cents out of every dollar currently and it leaves a little bit in our pocket to develop our attractions and our tourism in eastern Ontario.

But you would probably say that the St Lawrence Parks Commission then has neither the right policy framework nor the adequate funding to make these things happen that I've pointed out. This is not new. We've heard this for 40 years, since the St Lawrence Parks Commission has existed. Every type of government, every colour and stripe of government has told us exactly the same. Well, the harsh reality is that eastern Ontario has been out of sight and out of mind by all governments when it comes to the real needs of the tourism industry.

I was in Perth this morning, speaking to the eastern Ontario chambers of commerce. They're organizing because they want to be heard in Toronto. They don't want to be the poor second cousins in eastern Ontario who get none of the pie.

The largest attraction in eastern Ontario's largest industry does not have the funds it needs to serve us well, and that is the St Lawrence Parks Commission. It needs:

(1) Full authority to deal with its lands and assets as an owner, subject to the usual planning and development constraints. I'm not proposing to you, as president of the Eastern Ontario Travel Association, that we develop wetlands or we sell off heritage resources. But if we've got all of these assets and we're not using them, let's sell some of them off to the private developer, take some of those funds and put them into the development of tourism and develop our attractions even better.

(2) The full authority to deal with the workforce under its own collective agreement rather than something based in Toronto. Leave it to eastern Ontario to look after it.

(3) Access to adequate financial resources to provide continuing economic growth and job creation, rather than perpetually shrinking resources from governments that treat the St Lawrence Parks Commission as a regular department of government. We're tired of that in eastern Ontario.

(4) We should have, under the St Lawrence Parks Commission, the ability to freely set its rates, so if I want to go and make a deal with it for room rates, tied in with that attraction, whether it be Old Fort Henry, a park of the St Lawrence or Upper Canada Village, they can negotiate freely with me and not a set rate that I can't be competitive in the marketplace in France, Japan, China, Spain, South America or wherever it might be. We have to get on with doing business. We can't have bureaucratic delays. God only knows, I sat at the government level, the federal, and when you get into that bureaucratic nightmare, they can take so damned long to make a decision, the tourist would be here and gone home again. We cannot afford that infinite, as I said, bureaucratic delay.

(5) We need a commitment from the government to support those aspects of the St Lawrence Parks Commission's attractions that can never, ever show a profit or a return to the tourism industry, and those are the Crysler battlefields, our parkways, our historic properties and our heritage collections. Those can never show a profit, so those have got to be taken out and there's got to be a commitment by government that that's a separate funding operation.

In conclusion, the St Lawrence Parks Commission is an important, even essential, aspect of Ontario east tourism. Like Niagara Falls, the St Lawrence River and the Thousand Islands can be a world-class gateway to the province of Ontario. Give us the policies and support and we'll build and sustain our economic future. Tourism is the largest industry in the world, tourism is the key to jobs in eastern Ontario and, ladies and gentlemen, tourism is eastern Ontario. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Huck. We have about one minute per caucus, so I guess it's time for one question. We'll start with the Progressive Conservatives.

Mr Villeneuve: Thank you, Mr Huck, for your presentation. We drove by your place yesterday and there was a cruise boat, I believe, almost full of possibly Japanese folks heading out. You emphasize shoulder time. Are you telling us that the attractions, ie, Upper Canada Village and Old Fort Henry, should be open till November 15?

Mr Huck: At least the beginning of November, perhaps November 15. The traffic is there. Why not use it?

Mr Villeneuve: I certainly appreciate the fact that you came and spoke to us as members of the provincial Legislature in the spring. Your message was loud and clear and it remains very much unadulterated, loud and clear. I hope we're all taking it home with us. Thank you.

Mr Waters: I'd just like to say that you talked about basically things that we talked about this morning: revenue retention -- we've just given it to the parks commission; the ability to set their own rates -- they don't have to go to government. They have to go, yes, to their board, but not to government any more. We gave them that at the same time. We have been proactive.

When I came into the Ministry of Tourism in 1990, we were looking at 1950s-type marketing. I could never understand why Kenora and Kingston were on the same pages of the marketing book. You've seen a definite move by this government in the last few years to regional marketing. Kingston doesn't compete with Cornwall, or shouldn't be. They're part of the same market. They should be enhancing each other's product and that's what we have to get through and that's what we have been doing. It's a hard sell. I know, coming from Muskoka, how hard it is to sell to neighbouring communities that they are no longer going to compete, that they would have to work together.

I guess one of the things I keep hearing is dollars. At the St Clair Parkway Commission, all of the municipalities that are part of that commission pay into it. They pay a levy every year. Yet we hear from the people in Kingston, "Well, we want the sunset ceremony but we don't want to pay into it," because there were discussions about copaying for that, and no, they didn't want any part of it. They wanted the province to pay it.

I think you're indicating that we'd have to go through this as partners, and I agree. But all of the partners had better start trusting each other and working together, and I agree with that. The feds under the Tory government wouldn't even allow their field staff to talk business with the province. Now, with the Liberals, at least they're allowing them to talk business, but the frustration must have been incredible.

Mr Cleary: Welcome to the committee. I guess I would have to refer to what you say in the third page of your brief, "Why the delay in leasing closed parks to the private sector?" We got assurances here this morning that they're moving in the right direction on that and there should be proposals out this fall. But we've heard that before.

Anyway, I'd just like to know this other one that I'm not quite familiar with. Is there interest, still, in that Brown's Bay park and campground? Is there still interest there for what you said, a golf course?

Mr Huck: Could be. God only knows. We didn't hear any more about it. It was a big flash in the newspaper and then went underground.

Mr Cleary: Why I'm asking that, if they're going to call for proposals, I would like to have that included in there.

Mr Huck: I would certainly like to see it in there. It would be a great boon to the area.

Mr Cleary: Is my time up?

Interjection:

The Chair: Mr Curling, I'm sorry, we're out of time.

Mr Curling: I was just wondering, the social contract, the impact it had on --

The Chair: Mr Curling, you could ask your question at the next round.

Thank you very much, Mr Huck, for your appearance before the committee this afternoon.

CORNWALL REGIONAL VISITOR AND CONVENTION BUREAU

The Chair: Our next deputation this afternoon is Ms Janet Parisien. Welcome, Ms Parisien, to the committee. You are the executive manager of the Cornwall Regional Visitor and Convention Bureau, and you have someone with you whom we don't have on our agenda. Maybe you could introduce yourself, please.

Mr Dick Aubry: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Alderman Dick Aubry, of the city of Cornwall, but more importantly, I'm here today as president of the Cornwall Regional Visitor and Convention Bureau.

The Chair: And who is making the presentation?

Mr Aubry: I'll make the presentation and I'll call upon the expert if I get into hot water with your questions.

1500

The Chair: All right. You have half an hour, and the committee would like to have time to ask you questions at the end.

Mr Aubry: We have half an hour? We'll take considerably less than that.

The Cornwall Regional Visitor and Convention Bureau would like to take the opportunity of thanking the standing committee on government agencies for this opportunity to present under your review of the St Lawrence Parks Commission. The visitor and convention bureau is an incorporated, non-profit organization that has but one priority: to promote and develop tourism in Cornwall and the Seaway Valley, which includes of course the counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

The bureau was established in February 1993; I think there's an error on our submission. We have initiated and participated in many promotional opportunities and advertising campaigns that encourage the development of partnerships among tourism operators in our region. We believe the future growth of tourism depends on these types of cooperative, cost-sharing ventures.

The St Lawrence Parks Commission presently operates many attractions within the geographical area known as the Seaway Valley. I think I'll be repetitious, but I'll name them anyway: Upper Canada Village; the Upper Canada golf course; Queen Elizabeth Gardens; the Upper Canada migratory bird sanctuary; Crysler Park marina; the Long Sault Parkway; Riverside-Cedar campsite; McLaren campsite; Mille Roches beach, picnic area and campsite; Glengarry picnic area and campsite; Crysler beach and picnic area; and the Woodlands beach, picnic area and campsite.

The St Lawrence Parks Commission's 1994-95 marketing plan indicated some new directions and initiatives. As of April 1, 1994, apparently the commission will move in a new direction. It will allow the attractions to build on business opportunities that have been lost in the past due to its financial structure. It will be entitled to retain the revenue generated by admission fees. This new direction will play a large role in the development of programming and associated marketing strategies.

We believe the future growth and development of the St Lawrence Parks Commission's attractions depend on its ability to look closely at each of its attractions independent of each other. We also believe the commission must be given the opportunity and must take the initiative to enhance services and facilities when it's indicated that there is future potential profitability. It also must join forces and develop promotional campaigns that enhance our collective marketing muscle in the marketplace, thereby generating positive economic impact that will benefit the commission's attractions as well as other tourism operations in the region.

In 1994 the visitor and convention bureau did see a more collaborative and cooperative attitude on the part of the commission. Unfortunately, this did not translate into new 1994 cooperative promotions because these opportunities were already planned and executed earlier in the year. Until 1994 only a few co-op opportunities existed where other tourism operators, attractions and events in Cornwall and the Seaway Valley could participate or were encouraged to be a part of the joint initiatives with the commission's attractions. This we believe was a result of the corporate marketing strategy being used at that time, which promoted all of the commission's attractions in one package regardless of geographic location.

Many of the commission's own documents highlight the new and developing trends in tourism that reflect the results of studies and analyses done by provincial, national and international organizations:

-- Mass marketing is being replaced with target marketing.

-- Mass production is being replaced with mass customization.

-- Consumers are more price-conscious and are looking for better deals and discounts.

-- Mature adults demand quality in products and services. They want to learn and participate in educational and cultural opportunities and they are concerned about the environment.

-- Visitors/consumers are looking for greater customer service, and their enjoyment and safety are the keys to positive word-of-mouth advertising.

-- One- to three-night getaways are the most popular. People want to escape without spending a lot of money. They plan their getaways in a much shorter time frame.

Without going further into the various reports on new tourism trends, the visitor and convention bureau would like to make the following point: All attractions must be evaluated as they relate to these trends. It is likely that in many cases, after proper evaluation, the commission's attraction will have to be enhanced or improved in order to provide the kind of experience the travelling public is now looking for. This of course cannot be achieved easily, quickly or inexpensively.

In the short term as well as the long, there is an easy, quick and affordable way to potentially increase revenues at the various commission attractions: the development of packages and cross-promotional campaigns with other tourism operators in the attraction's immediate vicinity. Packaging and cross-promoting other services and experiences such as accommodation and other attractions and events in the region will, to the visitor, create a more attractive and appealing getaway package. These types of packages and promotions will only serve to complement the commission's attractions.

We want to congratulate the St Lawrence Parks Commission, the commissioners, management and marketing team for developing the following objectives as outlined in their marketing plan. There are four:

(1) To develop consumer-driven strategies based on sound marketing research and consultation with public and private sector tourism partners.

(2) To focus on collaborative efforts and strong partnerships with key tourism players and the ministry.

(3) To develop and strengthen present and potential tourism partners during both the regular and shoulder seasons.

(4) To continue to build on promotional opportunities as a venue for presenting the facilities of the parks of the St Lawrence as part of an overall tourism destination; that is, build on value incentive packages in conjunction with partnerships.

We hope that these are not just words and that the commission will indeed continue to develop and cultivate new and stronger relationships with tourism partners in each attraction's immediate vicinity to everyone's mutual benefit.

On behalf of my board of directors and the members of the Cornwall Regional Visitor and Convention Bureau, we would like to say thank you for giving us this opportunity to present to you today.

The Chair: Thank you, Alderman Aubry. There are seven minutes left per caucus, and we start with the government members in this rotation.

Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks a lot for your presentation, Mr Aubry. I'd like to actually go to just near the end where you have, as you see it, the four objectives from the St Lawrence Parks Commission. The second is, "Focus on collaborative efforts and strong partnerships with key tourism players and the ministry." I was wondering whether you see the municipality as one of the key players here and just what kind of role the municipality would play in this approach.

Mr Aubry: First let me say that the municipality I happen to represent funds about 95% of the budget of this particular organization, so I don't think you can ask for much more commitment in terms of a partner than that.

Mr Gary Wilson: By "this organization" you mean the Cornwall Regional Visitor and Convention Bureau?

Mr Aubry: Right. Some of our funds come from our membership fees, and of course we expect in the future -- we're only barely a year and a half old -- that that portion of our funding will grow rapidly, we're hoping.

I wanted to ask Janet: The four objectives here of course come straight from their documentation?

Ms Janet Parisien: They do. They come directly from the 1994-95 marketing plan that's put out by the St Lawrence Parks Commission.

Mr Gary Wilson: Sure. It was just that, as I say, I wanted to clarify or to make sure that you saw the municipality, through your convention bureau, as being a player as well. I missed your budget there. Did you list your budget?

Mr Aubry: I don't think we did, but it's on the order of $205,000 a year.

1510

Mr Gary Wilson: That's a considerable budget for something that you have just started.

Mr Aubry: Basically, what my municipality did some year and a half ago was privatize this bureau. It used to be a department within city hall. We felt, after a steering committee did an extensive study, that it would be better if somehow this could be modified so that it was industry driven, even though the municipality continued to be a major funder of the organization.

Mr Gary Wilson: You say "a," but it's actually the major funder.

Mr Aubry: The major funder, yes.

Mr Gary Wilson: Could you give us some idea of how that has worked out, then? First of all, did the budget change over that period when you went from a department --

Mr Aubry: The budget actually stayed the same. Indeed, we took a hit, as did everybody, when there were some reductions in budgets a year or so ago.

Mr Curling: Social contract.

Mr Aubry: Social contract and the like. But so far we're very, very pleased. We're very, very pleased because the board of directors, an eight-person board thus far, is made up of six industry people who represent accommodations, the retail industry, one from an attraction and one from restaurants.

Mr Gary Wilson: And each of them pays a membership fee? Is that how that works?

Mr Aubry: Indeed, yes.

Ms Parisien: We have a member of the St Lawrence Parks Commission on our board as well, somebody from their marketing staff.

Mr Gary Wilson: As you might have heard earlier, the question was raised of just how deeply municipalities should get involved in contributing resources of either time or money to various projects within their borders. Have you any thoughts on that?

Mr Aubry: I personally do. Municipalities have for many, many years spent considerable dollars on economic development, the industrial smokestack type industries. Why would one treat this industry any differently? From a municipal government point of view, I think we must be committed to this kind of business, because it's the business of the future.

It was in our judgement something that could best be driven if it had people from local business, particularly business associated with tourism, sitting on the board and making the decisions. It just so happens that I'm this year's president. I expect to be the outgoing president at our annual meeting in a month's time. That was perhaps more of a transitional kind of thing, going from city hall to this more independent organization.

Mr Gary Wilson: What should be the guidelines, say, for the cooperation between elected bodies and private sector bodies? For instance, it was suggested earlier that as long as the standards were quite clear at the beginning, say as far as permitted development goes of an area, or I would say probably as to the characteristics of an attraction, what would be allowed as far as the kinds of attractions that would be permitted, you could attract private sector support -- again, as long as it was clear what was allowed. That wasn't the issue.

Mr Aubry: No.

Mr Gary Wilson: In other words, I guess the issue is not the types of controls. It's the fact that they're up front, that people understand what is permitted at the beginning.

Mr Aubry: Yes. This bureau is the kind of daily operating arm. The municipality has retained its authority or the ability to get involved in capital projects. The budget that's allocated to this group is purely expense: marketing, salaries and so on. When it comes time to develop some project where capital moneys would be required, then city hall would get involved, because we don't have a budget for that kind of thing.

Mr Gary Wilson: Have you anything to point to recently where the municipality has contributed capital money?

Mr Aubry: In terms of tourism?

Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, tourism projects.

Mr Aubry: I guess the biggest one in this municipality is the ongoing work we're doing with our waterfront, which takes the form of improvement of the parks but also is taking the form of urban renewal. A big part of our waterfront, as my two friends over there know, is part of an old cotton mill establishment that of course doesn't have much economic activity today. So the plan is to do some interesting kinds of things down there: housing, a mix perhaps of other kinds of commercial ventures. There is one office-administrative type building in one building that used to be part of the cotton mill. So, yes, we're going in that direction.

Mr Gary Wilson: There is private sector involvement? Just to be clear, there is private sector development before the project was developed?

Mr Aubry: Indeed there is, yes.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr Curling.

Mr Curling: In the little time I have, I'd like to ask a few questions and leave some time for my colleague here who is quite the expert in Cornwall.

Two paragraphs, paragraph two and paragraph three of your presentation, grab my attention very much. I know what all of you are trying to do and I'm sure you've accomplished some, with the challenge you have with government policies and things like that which keep you restrained, in order to promote tourism. I would say that it seems to me you're moving in the right direction.

There are two questions I want to ask. I know that we can set up all kinds of attractions here and we can do many things. I just wondered, though, have you ever visited Toronto with a promotional team to attract people, to say, "Come to Kingston and come to the St Lawrence Parkway"?

Ms Parisien: You're referring to marketing efforts directed to the Toronto market?

Mr Curling: Yes.

Ms Parisien: We've done a number of things. We not only deal with the travel trade, which is the general visitors; we also deal with the convention-and-meeting potential visitors. We've done trade shows in Toronto, the Toronto travel and leisure show. We've done a convention oriented show. We've done sales calls in the past directly to associations and groups. We look at all different markets. We feel this region's biggest potential right now for immediate return in increased visitors is Ontario, Quebec and the United States. So those three areas are the target markets that this organization presently goes after.

Mr Curling: The reason I ask is because I just wondered, maybe I'm reading the wrong paper and all that. I think the more people knowing about this -- and that's the whole idea -- the more will come. The traditional sales may be okay, but the untraditional ones may also be very helpful.

The other question I want to ask, and I have asked it before, is the matter of the transportation costs. This horrendous cost of transportation -- air and land and water and everything -- in this country is just beyond me. Have you ever used any package deal to attract people or approached the government to buy into any kind of package deal in Via Rail to attract people to these directions?

Ms Parisien: No, we haven't. The only times I think we've approached either airlines or Via Rail have had to do with conventions. For instance, when we hosted the Ontario Winter Games in 1993, we did approach both airlines and Via Rail to look at moving large groups of people through with a discounted rate in special -- actually, we called them the "games train." There was not the ability to negotiate the kinds of rates that made it worthwhile, especially with Via Rail. We thought we had a deal, and it didn't work out.

Mr Curling: I just hope that somehow we can work out some type of package deal where people can come and it doesn't cost you $150 or so just to visit this area.

Mr Cleary: Welcome to the committee and thank you for your brief. I know that in a short time, the regional tourist bureau has had a lot of success stories. I congratulate you for that.

I would ask a question to either of you. When you talked about partnerships, I know that you and some of your committee have been very supportive in trying to get our closed parks reopened. I guess my question would be, what do you think this committee or the St Lawrence Parks Commission could do that would make your job much easier?

Ms Parisien: That's a big question. Do you want to tackle it?

Mr Curling: Get rid of the social contract.

Ms Parisien: If I could maybe begin, I think, for instance, that the exercise the St Lawrence Parks Commission is presently going through, which is a number of focus groups and a search conference, is a very good process. I was involved in the first focus group. It's involving a lot of key players. Hopefully, though, the information at the end of all of this will not be another report that gets filed. I think that with the kind of information that's being given and the company that is sort of pulling this all together, we'll end up with a report that will go to the government that will be very clear, will have specific suggestions, and hopefully the government will act on it.

1520

Mr Cleary: When do you expect that report is going to be out?

Ms Parisien: I don't know. From my understanding as one of the participants, the focus group that I attended last week, there's a search conference, which includes the focus group participants and others who are supposed to sit down the beginning of November. Then the company that's been hired, basically that's pulling this all together, I've been told anticipates that this will be happening some time in November; so fairly quickly.

Mr Cleary: The one thing that I wanted to ask too is, and I should have asked one of the members of your board before, do you intend to expand your board? Like Dick said, he's the chairman this year. You have seven others besides the chairman, is it, Dick?

Mr Aubry: Yes.

Mr Cleary: Is that as large as your board is going to get?

Mr Aubry: One of the things that we would like to have in the future, like to see in the future, is that the united counties would join with us in this venture. Those of us in this business for any length of time see the folly of having more than one organization attempting to do the same job. We would get, I think, a combined, synergistic effect if we had those people with us. Should that day come, and I'm hopeful it will, then I think we would have to expand our board by several seats at least to effect representation from a broader geographic area.

Mr Cleary: So that's your goal. You don't plan on going beyond the counties?

Mr Aubry: No, that's our goal. We're steaming full speed ahead, even though that partner isn't with us today. But it's our sincere wish that one day they will be, and so we're just going about doing our business in the best possible way we can. Hopefully, we'll impress them that we know what we're doing, and they will want to be part of a joint effort.

Mr Cleary: The Chairman's cutting us off again.

Mr Villeneuve: Thank you very much, Ms Parisien and Mr Aubry, for your presentation. It's interesting that one of your suggestions is to develop a consumer-driven strategy based on sound market research and consultation. Do we not have that now?

Ms Parisien: I think that is actually not one of our suggestions; it's actually in the 1994-95 St Lawrence Parks Commission marketing plan. I would have to say that all tourism organizations and tourism operators individually have got to improve that type of research dramatically. I think organizations like ours are in a position where we try to be leaders and facilitators to create these cooperative opportunities, to pool resources, to create greater impact. But what we see is that the front-line operators have got to better identify and research their own clients and potential clients.

Mr Villeneuve: I personally feel that government has a role to play to prepare the groundwork, but the private sector I think must be the one to make it happen, based on sound prognostications.

I recall well when I was first elected to the Legislature. There was a convention-type hotel suggested for the Morrisburg area in the immediate area of Upper Canada Village, and it actually threw terror into the owners of small motels in that area at the time. Now, I guess it had not been researched or sold or had participation in the discussion, because we had people crying foul, "The government's going to compete." While the government should not be competing, there's got to be a way to work together here. This convention centre may well have been a reality had there been a little more consultation and input from the private sector. A group of people might have come in and invested there as opposed to being very negative on it right at the outset because they were, and rightly so, justified that competition directly from a government is not what we need.

I think this is the type of situation that you're trying to present here, that government should be at the grass-roots level getting the information prepared and then the prospectus goes out to the private sector. I believe that's what I read into what you're saying. Do you have any ideas recently, being close to the private sector, what direction eastern Ontario should be going in to attract more people?

Ms Parisien: I think there are a couple of very key issues; one is that we can talk about government and operators. I guess this organization is somewhere in the middle. What we're trying to do is: How can tourism operators in any given region, whether it's Cornwall, whether it's the Seaway Valley, whether it's eastern Ontario, have a united voice, present a case, be part of a process of development in tourism in a positive way unless they further develop a more united voice? I think as organizations we're all going through major overhauls to try and facilitate that, that we bring them together. Then there is already a communication link.

That's the first step, because government can establish all sorts of new things, but if the industry itself -- as you just pointed out in Morrisburg, you have independent operators then reacting to how it affects their business, which of course they will. That's their business; they have to look after the bottom line. So, for instance, what we're attempting to do, what the Eastern Ontario Travel Association is attempting to do -- now our organization is a member of EOTA; many of the things that Ron Huck has spoken to you today about we very much agree with -- it's our role to help that process both with government and with the operators and somehow play a role to try and help bring that process together.

Mr Villeneuve: The really obvious ones are the closed parks, ie, Charlottenburgh and Raisin. Those are natural spots. People are there begging to open them up under the private sector banner, and we've had some major problems in trying to get everyone's act together. Those are the real obvious ones, but getting the people here -- and let's say we do get them here. Give me an example. The Long Sault Parkway to Ingleside, where there are some of the finest waterways, I think, anywhere, you go from Long Sault to Ingleside via the long route after you've seen it. What sort of long-term leases should the St Lawrence Parks Commission be looking at to possibly set up in that area?

Ms Parisien: If I can suggest, through the first focus group, there was a lot of discussion about potential growth, changes, everything from whether some of the lands get sold off versus just a lease; if you open the doors, what are the various options? I think there are a lot of people in communities and in regions who are willing to help that process, but they aren't presently being consulted. I think municipal and regional economic development departments are being very aggressive in that way. They're the people who can help, I think, if they're consulted and there's some formal consultation, as the parks commission presently is doing, with business, with tourism, with various people. If it's done properly, I think you'd get a lot of your answers right there.

Mr Villeneuve: My colleague from Brockville.

The Chair: Yes. There's a minute left.

Mr Runciman: The question was raised earlier about municipalities playing a role in assisting the commission. I know we talked about the sunset review at old Fort Henry, the fact that the commission felt that wasn't affordable, and it had quite an impact in terms of the number of people attracted to old Fort Henry. But no one, apparently, in the Kingston area, whether it was the chamber of commerce or the economic development commission of the city or whomever, was prepared to try and raise the funds to maintain that attraction.

I'm just wondering what kind of a role you would see the municipalities playing in terms of supporting these kinds of things and offering assistance to the commission, where they're hard-pressed to find the dollars to maintain some of these attractions. Do you see a role there, and how would you see it functioning?

Mr Aubry: Yes, I personally do. What is it, four or five years ago now that Ontario Hydro closed the visitor reception centre? At that time, the local municipality, when given the decision of Ontario Hydro to close that -- and that was a good little tourist attraction for this area. People used to be able to tour the whole dam site, be able to go up into the viewing area, watch a movie on the creation of the dam and the hydro development and view the region from --

Mr Villeneuve: The eel ladder?

Mr Aubry: Yes, the eel ladder. All of this was a good attraction for this area, and they decided to close it. As a municipality, we pleaded with them to give us the opportunity to underwrite and run it. Unfortunately, they said no.

The Chair: Thank you for your appearance before the committee this afternoon, Alderman Aubry and Ms Janet Parisien.

1530

GANANOQUE AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

The Chair: Our next deputation this afternoon is Ms Sylvia Fletcher. Ms Fletcher is the tourism marketing coordinator with the economic development committee for the town of Gananoque. Welcome to the committee, Ms Fletcher.

Ms Sylvia Fletcher: Thank you for having me.

The Chair: I know that you were asked to leave some time, if possible, in your presentation for our committee members to ask questions. Please proceed.

Ms Fletcher: I guess everybody has this, and maybe they'd like to look it over first for a minute just to see, rather than me read along. If everyone would like to look that over just to --

The Chair: If you would like to go through it, that's probably the best way.

Ms Fletcher: Okay, I'd like to address a few things that aren't in there. This was, I'm afraid, done rather quickly because of time restraints. So on the way down I actually had my mother read it over so I could get some other ideas, and I did leave out some things that I'd like to bring up first maybe, the first one being the travel trends changing. The seasons are extending themselves as far as travellers go, and it's a real disappointment and problem in the area when everything's closed as of Thanksgiving Day.

When you're trying to broaden the tourism base, people are discouraged when they arrive, first, when everything is closed at 5 o'clock and, second, when it's closed Thanksgiving. Buses are now coming in at the beginning of April and want to come in March, but there isn't anything for them to do. I'm not sure how to solve the problem. It's the same with closing at 5 o'clock, whether it be Fort Henry or Upper Canada Village. I know this year in our office the inquiries were up about 40%, and a lot of times when they come in and I try to send them through to make sure that they take in Upper Canada Village and Old Fort Henry and are aware of all the attractions, they are disappointed that it's closed at 5 o'clock. They may take a boat tour and it's closed, and I know I have the same problem with the shops in Gananoque and area.

We're not really addressing tourism the way it should be. There isn't entertainment in the evening. Whether some of the attractions open later, and I don't just say the St Lawrence parks attractions -- in Mexico they have a siesta time -- if there's a practical way to close down and open back up, because at 5 o'clock it's just like everything is closed. If you go to the US side, everything is open, there are people milling around. I just feel that really should be addressed somehow. I don't have all the answers; it's great to come with problems, but food for thought.

Also, too, beaches are one of the biggest inquiries I have in our area. I do feel that the west end of the parkway is neglected or has been this past year somewhat, because I've had many complaints from tourists who you send to a beach -- unfortunately, we don't have a beach in our town itself. But this Thousand Islands travel guide, they put out 225,000 copies from the bridge authority. I have hundreds of people bring in this guide, and they want to know where this beach is.

So I think we have to look at even the smaller beach outside of Gananoque to keep travellers here longer, if there was a place to swim. Instead, they've removed the garbage bin and washrooms from the parkette across from Landons Bay. It wouldn't take a lot of money to enhance the first, Gray's beach, at the west end of the parkway. I think they are things that wouldn't cost a lot of money and could create a longer stay and more interest in the area.

I don't know whether anybody here -- probably everybody here -- has thought of the infrastructure money. The maintenance of the Thousand Island Parkway bike path, I don't know whether that is in that jurisdiction. I have to say I'm not well versed on that, but I understood that the infrastructure money was to maintain; everybody's using it to develop, which is great too, but we need to maintain the things we already have. I don't know whether moneys could be applied to make sure that is maintained, and also the development and advertising of the bike path, because trends are changing to nature and there is a lot along the parkway that the parks commission has. I do think that has to be addressed as well.

I know one of the girls from the park who works for the parks commission said that attendance was down at Fort Henry but profits were up. I'm happy that they're up, but attendance in a banner year like this year should not be down. So I think something has to be looked at again when even the sale of fishing licences out of our office for the US was up 40%. The inquiries, the people coming in, were up 40%. Why should Fort Henry be down in attendance? I think they're things that need to be looked at. They do a good job. I'm not condemning anybody here, but there are things.

I think because people do look for things in the evening, whether it be boat tours or whatever, the morning is not the busy time. It is not the busy time. I don't know what the stats are like at Fort Henry or Upper Canada Village, but I know most people come in in the afternoon or come off the boat and want something to do then.

Another thing, and I'm sure that you've thought of it, that seems to be opening up is that they've formed an association for scuba diving. In my submission here it says from Gananoque to Cardinal, but it's from Kingston to Cardinal. I think that can certainly create a lot of tourism and should be a top priority for the parks commission to look at, because it certainly takes in your whole area in there. I think that will be a good growing thing.

What else is here? As I told you, I wasn't well prepared for this. I do appreciate Upper Canada Village and Old Fort Henry, and it is a very important part of our tourism. We need it. We have to have it. It is a big industry. I do think we have to look for new ways to work together cooperatively in co-op advertising efforts and whatever to get the message out for everything.

I also wondered, and these are questions I guess, does the parks commission take out memberships with chambers of commerce or whatever? I know we're tourism. We have the pictures up on the wall. We have their brochures. Have they ever thought about commission sales tickets, getting the outlets to sell the tickets? I know one girl was in from Fort Henry and I told her I was interested, had to leave, and was never back. But sometimes you can get a lot more exposure with things like that.

I hope maybe you are considering doing something with the bike path as well. I guess basically I've covered just about everything that's in here.

The Chair: All right. Thank you, Ms Fletcher. That leaves seven minutes per caucus, and we're starting with the Liberals and Mr Morin.

Mr Morin: Before I ask a question, I'd just like to make a statement. I don't know if you feel the same way I do, but with all the witnesses that we had -- we have important ministries like the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and Training, and while we spend money hand over fist, we seem to neglect the ministry which, to me, is becoming louder and louder all the time: the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. I don't think we give enough importance to it. These are the people who are needed to bring in the dollars so we can afford good health care, so we can afford good education. We spend left and right, but we don't bring in any money.

1540

As far as I'm concerned, the ministry of tourism and the ministry of trade are the two main ministries the Premier should have beside him. All of us have failed -- not only you; the Liberals have failed, the Conservatives have failed -- to recognize the importance of that ministry. We have the most beautiful resource, yet we leave them aside. We don't know how to take the opportunity, how to take advantage of our assets. No wonder people go elsewhere. I hope that we, in our report, can stress the importance of tourism, that it is a business, that is a way of life, and we should take all kinds of measures necessary to promote it.

Madam, one suggestion I could make to your chamber of commerce. Who's your member? Is it Kingston and The Islands, Gananoque?

Mr Villeneuve: This fellow right here.

Mr Morin: That's right. Put pressure on Bob. Put pressure on Noble. Put pressure on me. Let members know how important it is that we should promote our tourism industry.

You're coming here, you're making a presentation in front of us. We'll make a report. There are piles and piles and piles of reports at Queen's Park that are read five minutes and then put aside and everybody ignores them after that. The only way to do it is that when the election campaign comes in, ask your member, ask the candidates: "What do you plan to do as far as tourism is concerned? How important is it for us in eastern Ontario?"

I think it was Mr Clarke yesterday who mentioned, and also Mr Huck, that Toronto seems to ignore eastern Ontario, and I believe that, I strongly believe that. The only way for us to do it is to bring it constantly to the attention of our colleagues at Queen's Park.

I feel sad when I hear this, when we know the problem and we know the answer to the problem, yet we fail to spend money to promote our business. I found the person who gave a presentation before you, Mr Huck, extremely stimulating. I found the others, the commission, stimulating. They recognize the problem, and yet we let the bureaucracy dictate to us what we should do.

There is a way that we can work cooperatively, can work together and achieve one goal, and that's for the benefit of all Ontarians. That is our job.

I've said a lot. It's not a political speech; I'm sincere when I say that. Let's make sure that in our report we stress the importance of tourism. Madam Chair, that's it.

Mr Cleary: There's not much left to be said. I'd like to thank you for your presentation. We share your concerns. We've had a lot of presenters earlier who have mentioned what you mentioned. The only question I would have, and I maybe asked some of the others, is what do you think would be the most important thing the St Lawrence Parks Commission could do? I guess your goal is to keep visitors over another day or two, or a week. What do you think would be the best way they could help you do that?

Ms Fletcher: I certainly think they do an excellent job with the resources they have now. It is a key part of tourism in the area. That's where I did suggest not a costly upgrade of beach: replacing garbage bins and garbage pails. The parkway is a beautiful area, and I did get many complaints this year because of the garbage under Landons Bay bridge where many out-of-town people fish, and the lack of picnic tables along there to enjoy it. They are some of the things that could be done, but I know there are money restraints. I certainly do respect the St Lawrence Parks Commission and everything it does do, and that they are interested in listening to what needs to be done.

I knew after Mr Clarke and Mr Huck spoke that I really didn't have to say a lot of the things that they did, because they do it very well and with a true commitment. I back them up 100%. It is true that tourism has always had to take a second seat, and it is a very important industry, especially for eastern Ontario. I think working together and co-op advertising efforts are the best way to do things, and input, maybe more meetings with operators or people in the area to see what their ideas might be.

Mr Cleary: Once again, thank you for your presentation.

Mr Runciman: I want to indicate that I do get my share of pressure from the chamber of commerce, not necessarily from Sylvia but from members of the chamber. I think the Gananoque chamber is one of the most progressive and successful chambers in all of Ontario, if not all of Canada, and certainly that's indicated by what happened this summer, the Festival of the Islands and all the great things that happened in Gananoque. We even attracted the NDP caucus to Gananoque, and I'm sure they had a great time.

Mr Gary Wilson: You don't do much for us, Bob.

Mr Runciman: The people in Gananoque may say something different, Gary. I hope so, anyway.

You talked about the shoulder season, Sylvia, and I wanted to mention that that doesn't apply just to the parks commission. I remember -- this may have changed -- in the fall a year or two ago, in the shoulder season, coming back from Queen's Park. I was almost out of gas and I wanted to buy gas in my riding, so I took a chance and got to Gananoque. It was just about two minutes past 10 and I couldn't find a gas station open in Gananoque. Luckily, I was able to make it back to Joyceville, but I had my fingers and toes crossed. But that's also the sort of service that I would assume the travelling public are looking for, a gas station that might be open at least until midnight; those kinds of services have to be provided as well. I know you can't do much about it when it's the private sector.

Some of the things you raised I'm glad you did, about the garbage bins along the parkway. I agree with you that this is the first summer I have noticed significant amounts of litter along the parkway. The only complaints I had about the garbage bins, ironically enough, were from summer residents whom I suspect were utilizing those garbage bins to get rid of their own garbage. That may be part of the problem the parks commission has to deal with: cottage summer residents who, rather than paying for garbage pickup, are stuffing these garbage bins with their own litter, and that turns out to be a costly exercise for the parks commission. How we can police that, I don't know, but I think there has to be some way of getting those bins back in place and policing them.

We talked about the municipalities that benefit from the commission's activities and land holdings and attractions, that there may be a role for them to play. Perhaps this is the sort of thing that municipalities could assist in, garbage pickup and looking after picnic tables and those kinds of things. There could be that kind of division of responsibilities, where we're all involved and we're all sharing and we're all benefiting. Perhaps with the tough times, we have to look at these kinds of innovative partnership arrangements as well.

I'm curious about your views on the signage. I mentioned this earlier to Gary Clarke, the chairman, that my view with regard to the signage at Gananoque and also at the eastern entrance to the parkway is that we don't have enough signage there to encourage people to get off.

One thing I thought is like the American major cities: They have a little map which shows there's easy linkage. If you get on at Gananoque, you can link up 22 miles down the road and there's no problem; vice versa, if you go on at the east end, you can get off at Gananoque. It's an easy read, a big sign. I find, this summer especially, with feedback from my daughter, who is running a business in the parkway, an awful lot of inquiries about that sort of thing. I'm wondering how you feel about the signage.

Ms Fletcher: There are things that still need to be included in the signage. It is true. I use the St Lawrence parks map that shows the parkway. I know the Thousand Island Bridge Authority just put out a map, which I proofed, and they hadn't even put the Thousand Island Parkway on it, so I made sure it was on there. It doesn't show up.

I always ask people whether they come from the east or wherever. I feel that the parkway is an attraction in itself and try to encourage anybody to take it, but it's true, most people coming from the east don't go on the parkway. They didn't realize it was there, didn't understand what it was, and it's beautiful, a beautiful drive. It does need to be addressed. Signage on the whole needs to be addressed, but it does on the parkway because people miss it all the time. They come back to tell me they really appreciated it, that they drove down the parkway. I do feel isn't advertised well enough, along with the bike path and everything. There aren't any signs there. It's a well-kept secret, and it really should be taken care of. That's where, just as you come out of Gananoque, there used to be a nice beach to swim in, but now people don't even consider it a beach, which is a shame.

Mr Runciman: Is that because of maintenance?

Ms Fletcher: Yes.

1550

Mr Villeneuve: I recall that several years ago there was a million-dollar fish out in the lake somewhere off Gananoque, off Kingston. Did that stimulate a lot of activity in tourism, to your knowledge?

Ms Fletcher: I can't honestly answer that, I don't know whether it did or not. But I do know that fishing is on the upswing, and it's something that isn't paid close attention to by anyone. It's dollars, and people come for days, not just a day. It's neglected even in our own chamber. It's not treated the way it should be because it does put a lot of money into the area.

Mr Villeneuve: Do you have charters go out from Gananoque or the immediate area?

Ms Fletcher: Yes.

Mr Villeneuve: Have they been busy, to your knowledge?

Ms Fletcher: They were busier this year than last year, when it dropped right off, but they're not as happy with it as -- they feel they could be busier.

Mr Villeneuve: I believe there was a 40- or 42-pound salmon caught off Brockville or in the Thousand Islands.

Ms Fletcher: A muskie. There was a 44-pound muskie caught last August just around Gananoque.

Mr Villeneuve: My colleague Bob tells me there was a salmon at Jones Creek, which was the largest salmon caught anywhere: Lake Ontario or in the St Lawrence. These people generally come with a lot of money, and they seem to think they've got to go into northern Ontario or some God-forsaken place, and yet we have it here. Sorry, Dan.

The Chair: The mayor of Mississauga caught a 47-pound salmon off Mississauga South riding.

Mr Villeneuve: No comment.

The Chair: You know what Hazel's like. She's likely to come out here and get you.

Mr Waters: You talked about infrastructure dollars and the bike path. Just to make it clear, infrastructure dollars are municipally driven. Indeed, at the provincial level, unless they're contrary to some law or something, we very much leave it up to the municipality, and I believe the feds do too. The agreement is that the municipalities drive those dollars, so if indeed you want to put dollars into bike paths or anything like that out of it, it would be the municipalities you would talk to.

At the same time, when you talk about expanding and putting money into tourism infrastructure, within our ministry, with JOCA, Jobs Ontario Community Action, I look at what's happened in my riding and in a number of ridings in central Ontario that I've worked with, principally around Georgian Bay. We created the 1994 Marine Heritage Festival out of that type of funding, which was a marketing venture. We used existing festivals primarily, with one other function or one other specific weekend being taken up, and the rest of it was just coordinating the marketing for around our district. The St Lawrence is an ideal place to do that type of thing, and there is funding available to do it. What you have to do is sit down with the field staff, either with your chamber or your tourism marketing group -- the preference is regionally -- and bring those things together.

As to the tourism signage you mentioned, Mr Clarke, who was here this morning, actually is on the committee. I agree that the signage isn't there, but we're doing a pilot project. My pet thing is that we have a yellow stripe across the top; maybe what it should have is "Eastern Ontario Tourism Area" or something to define the area within the province, so that if a person's looking at a regional tourist map, "Here we are," and they know where they are. There are things that have to be done. This is a pilot; it's the first year of it. In all my life, and I represent Muskoka-Georgian Bay, we've never had tourism signage by any provincial government.

The move is there. Really, we have to become better partners at it. That's what I think you're asking for also, is a better partnership and knowing where they are. I agree, fishermen are a wonderful source of revenue, especially with all the backwater you have here; because of the flooding you have a lot of shallows, so it's a wonderful area for fishing, and it isn't marketed well.

Cycling is probably going to be one of the biggest booms in tourism in eastern Ontario in the future, and we all have to come together and do that. I would say that the park commission at this point is probably one of the principal players in it and is showing leadership in that.

I guess it's more making a statement than asking a question. I agree with a lot of what you said. I don't mind sitting down after the meeting, if you have some questions about JOCA or any of these things, and working them out with you.

The Chair: Then would you like to let Mr Fletcher ask a question?

Mr Waters: Yes.

The Chair: Mr Fletcher, you have four and a half minutes.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): I don't usually go that long.

I had an interesting summer. I went around the province -- not the whole province. I did a week in Killarney park where I did some canoeing, and I took another week -- I'm from Guelph -- where I started off in Niagara Falls for a couple of days, went to Bracebridge and that area for a couple of days, then went around to Ottawa and stayed there for a couple of days and then drove back through Guelph.

Maybe I'm a different kind of tourist, but before I left I did a lot of background reading on where I was going. For instance, the Group of Seven was big in Killarney; some of the lakes had suffered from acid rain; the voyageurs who went through, the sense of history and everything else. Niagara Falls, the same thing: Father Hennepin, when he first saw the falls, and the development of the falls. Same thing for the Bracebridge area. And going towards Ottawa, the logging that went on that started the country, really, as far as expansion was concerned, that and the fur trade; then going to places such as Wilno, the first Polish settlement in Canada, and Eganville, places like Barry's Bay.

These things were interesting to me and had a sense of history, as part of what makes Ontario and how Ontario developed as a province and how Canada developed as a country. The information I was getting, I was getting from tourist areas, from tourist boards. There was one in Guelph I got information from, also writing away, and also going to my local library. I had an itinerary, before I went anywhere, of where I wanted to go. Are most tourists who are coming like that? Do they have an itinerary? Do they know what they're getting into? Or is that information available?

Ms Fletcher: Do you mean do we have an itinerary?

Mr Fletcher: No. When tourists come here, is the information available of what they can see?

Ms Fletcher: Oh, yes. We in our office try to promote the whole area and have information on everything in Ontario as well as Quebec. We really try to do that. That's where cooperation works: "Don't miss Upper Canada Village. Don't miss Ottawa." We do have it, and we have the EOTA Discovery Guide as well, and really try to promote everything. That's where cutbacks -- we stay open, put in a lot of voluntary hours until 7 and 8 o'clock, even now, and people are so thankful to get a tourist information place open. That is sad, because instead of, when tourism's growing again, everybody's cutting back, and that isn't a good way to make things work.

1600

Mr Fletcher: You touched on an interesting point. One of the things I found frustrating when I was going through all these other little towns in Ontario was that at 5 o'clock the sidewalks were rolled up, or there wasn't a venue for entertainment, and yet that's what I wanted. When I went to these places, I wanted that entertainment. The most you can get in some places is maybe a dinner theatre if you're lucky. I don't know if that's the business climate that places are closing down, or is it that people aren't realizing that tourism is picking up? I don't know.

Ms Fletcher: I think it's both, actually, and I think it's hard to change and look at things differently, but it's like our office slows down about 4 o'clock, and then about 6:30 you're going crazy. You can't keep up with the people coming in, because they've already done the boat tour or they've just arrived or whatever and they want you to supply them with information. They want to be told what to do. You know, they want day trips of the area and everything else. They're really appreciative of it, and they're happy we're open so late in the evening.

Mr Fletcher: One more second?

The Chair: No, I'm sorry, only because everybody's asking me, to be fair, Mr Fletcher.

Mr Fletcher: You're always fair.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms Fletcher, I'd like to thank you very much for your appearance before the committee this afternoon.

Ms Fletcher: Well, thank you for having me. Sorry I wasn't a little better prepared.

The Chair: No, you were well prepared. You had a lot to contribute. Thank you.

TOWNSHIP OF FRONT OF YONGE

The Chair: Our last deputation this afternoon is representing the council for the township of Front of Yonge, if this gentleman would like to come forward, please. Just have a seat anywhere that you're comfortable. Could you tell the committee your name, please?

Mr Edward Wight: My name is Edward Wight. I am a councillor in Front of Yonge township. I should begin, Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, it's a pleasure, indeed an honour for me to represent the corporation of the township of Front of Yonge this afternoon.

Front of Yonge is one of the smaller of the 18 ridings in Leeds and Grenville, and we're very fortunate. We're in the Thousand Islands. We're blessed with the Thousand Island Parkway, maintained by the St Lawrence Parks Commission. We're also blessed by the parks commission owning some very prime, some very enjoyable land to visit in our township. However, it's from this ownership of land that we do have two problems. I've tried to outline them as concisely as I could on the papers that you've received.

If you turn to the map, all the land that is highlighted in orange is land that is owned by the parks commission. It's a very sizeable block. It is between 1,800 and 2,000 acres in size. You can see that a great portion of our waterfront is also owned by the commission, and it's with this very prime land that's being tied up with a government agency that we have a problem.

We receive $4,109 as a grant in lieu of taxes, and that is a rate that was established in 1984 and has been unchanged since then. The impact of this is, when you have so much prime, valuable land tied up with a very small grant, it means the remainder of the ratepayers in Front of Yonge township have to bear the burden. Indeed, we have property owners in the Jones Creek area who are on less than one-acre lots who pay in taxes significantly more than the parks commission pays for the close to 2,000 acres of land as a grant. We have one land owner in the township who pays approximately nine times the parks commission grant in the way of taxes. Back in the 5th Concession -- it's not on this map, but as you head inland north, almost halfway towards Athens -- we have private farmers who are paying more in annual taxes than this grant, and they're farming about 20% to 25% of the amount of land involved.

As a council, we really feel that this is an out-of-date fee. It needs to be looked at. We met with Mr Frank Shaw and two commissioners, Paul Fournier and Dr John Johnson, back in the late spring and addressed this question. The suggestion was made that we pass a resolution, circulate it to the other 37 municipalities that also have parks commission land in them, to the provincial government, the Ministry of Tourism, and a copy to the parks commission, which we did. I believe it's the final page you received.

The Chair: This is the resolution moved by Mr Pergunas?

Mr Wight: Yes, and seconded by Clark Root.

My personal feeling is that any divestment of land should be looked at extremely carefully. It is beautiful land. It's beautiful for everybody, not only in the Front of Yonge but the province, to visit. It's tremendous hiking land. I would really hate to see it disappear from this land base. However, if, as we were told by Mr Shaw, that is the only solution, or long-term leases, to try and attract low-impact alternatives, golf courses etc, maybe they need to be looked at. Something has to change in order to allow the grant to increase from $4,109.

It's compounded a little bit by the fact that Front of Yonge township I don't believe receives any economic advantage. We have very, very limited business. We do have Bridge Island Motel, we do have a very small marina, but by and large the traffic on the parkway is through, and residents in the township pay the same rate to go to Brown's Bay. The township has no reciprocal agreements with the parks commission. For instance, with St Lawrence Islands National Park, we use their firefighting equipment. We also have 24-hours-a-day water transportation to any island fires for our fire department, and with the reduced activities in the park, we've lost the possibility of summer jobs for students. So the advantages for us personally are kind of hard to find. If the province as a whole wants to maintain it, then I think the province as a whole should be paying for the maintenance of it.

I've cited a couple of other examples. For St Lawrence Islands National Park, Parks Canada gives us about $12,000 as a grant in lieu of taxes, and it has about 100 acres of mainland and a very small island acreage in Front of Yonge township. So the two are very, very out of line. Even Bell Canada, for two switching stations, gives us a grant greater than the parks commission. Front of Yonge township pays 50% more to the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority for questionable benefits than we receive from the parks commission.

I really hope, as my conclusion indicates, that you will give this serious consideration and take the word back to Toronto that perhaps the grant formulas need to be restructured to permit a more equitable payment made to townships where commission land is held.

A second problem has come up, actually indirectly, concerning our neighbour to the west, Escott township, and we became aware of this change in policy only because our building inspector is also serving as a building inspector for Escott township.

1610

If you would refer to the two-page letter on Parks of the St Lawrence letterhead, on the first page, the third-last paragraph, the request made by Mr Cottrill that entranceway permits and building permits be issued by the parks commission first before the township, as a council, we're in unanimous agreement that this isn't the way things work. We're governed by our official plan, which was adopted after widespread advertisement, public hearings and is signed by the minister. We have that authority.

Now, I believe Mr Cottrill knows that too, because he's used the word "desire," "indicated a desire to issue permits prior...." I think that word "desire" tell us that he knows he has no legal authority to do this, let's just get it out of the way and not even discuss it.

It is not the case. It's contrary to the official plan. It's inconsistent with Bill 163, revising both the Planning Act and the Municipal Act and delegating more previously provincial control to the municipalities, that the parks commission would want to have more control.

This attitude, as I've indicated in my paper, also has an economic impact on the township where you have an agency that is not only controlling development on their land but attempting to control development on privately owned land.

This problem has gone back the full six years I have been a councillor in Front of Yonge township, and I can give you one example where the township built a road 200 metres long, called Clow Court, simply to appease the parkway management and allow two houses to be built on the north side of the parkway -- not the south side, the north side. At that time, the person we were dealing with as the parkway right of way manager would not hear of a direct laneway, access way, going on to the parkway, so the township built the road, which really was, I think, a waste of money. The houses are there. They're beautiful homes. They add to the tax base. No one is going to build on that parkway, the price of land being what it is, without putting up a beautiful house.

Now, I'm not advocating widespread development. Believe me, as I am seeking re-election again in November, I really love our township the way it is. It's small. We have about 1,300 homes, 300 of which are seasonal residences, 2,600 ratepayers, and I think being small is one of its biggest attractions. As you're politicians, I think you'll have to acknowledge that the smaller you are, perhaps the more effective you become. Anybody in the township can visit me or my four members of council at any time, reach us at any time, and as you get bigger, it becomes tougher. So I'm not pushing for bigger being better.

When I came down this aft, I was sure I'd be short, brief, concise and allow you to stay on schedule. I know you've had a very long day, and I would just ask again that you consider our request. I guess the key thing is the grant. We would prefer to see that updated, rather than the divesting of land. Any development would have to be development that genuinely would add to the township and not in any way detract from the way of life. I think I'd better stop there. Thank you very much for your time.

The Chair: Thank you, Councillor Wight. We're now in rotation, starting with the Progressive Conservatives, and we have six minutes per caucus.

Mr Runciman: Ed, you've done the calculations on this. If you compared the grant structure in respect to the federally owned properties versus the St Lawrence Parks Commission's holdings, I think you said $12,000 you receive from the federal government?

Mr Wight: We receive approximately three times as much from the federal government.

Mr Runciman: For a much smaller piece of property.

Mr Wight: For a much, much smaller piece of land.

Mr Runciman: If you use that same formula, what kind of revenues would you be deriving, or expect to derive, from the parks commission?

Mr Wight: In this particular case -- I'm speaking personally; I'm not speaking on behalf of council at all -- I would think if it was brought in line with the federal grant, $12,000 to $15,000 range, the township would be very happy. It's very difficult to equate the two. As I mentioned, we receive a lot of benefits from Parks Canada as well with the sharing of equipment, and they work very closely with the fire department. They're more involved with the waste site management in that the park manager, Mr Dave Warner, is involved in this committee as an adviser. It would be very difficult to compare, but I think we would be looking at probably that $12,000 to $15,000 as fair compensation.

Now, in our meeting with Mr Shaw, he outlined to us that the grant was determined by the ministry and was the same as was applied by parks. I haven't investigated this any further. You may have to restructure the provincial formula for making a grant. It may not just be a parks commission decision. I don't know.

Mr Runciman: And of course it has implications much broader than simply the Front of Yonge township. The same sort of policy would have to apply, I would assume, to all the municipalities where a parks commission has property holdings.

Mr Wight: Yes, that would only be fair.

Mr Runciman: So there would be some implications there, obviously. I guess I can understand your perspective in the sense that you say -- I think I'm quoting you -- that there's no economic advantage for the township of Front of Yonge. I guess you're basing that on the fact that you don't have a big commercial base. I think you mentioned the motel, and you've got Mallorytown and really not a lot of businesses that I gather benefit from the parkway. That's really why you're drawing that conclusion.

Aside from economic advantage, I suppose it has an economic aspect to it, the fact that because of the commission's holdings in that area, it certainly enhanced the area as a whole as a place in which to live. I think you'd probably agree with me on that.

Mr Wight: I would agree that that would be a social benefit, there's no question, and that's why I said personally I'd be very leery about the divestiture of land, and development would have to be on a leased basis, monitored very carefully. I like the land. But getting back to an economic benefit, a dollar and cents benefit, I think you'll find that the tour buses may stop at Brown's Bay park, but they don't come up to Mallorytown and use our bank, our post office or do any shopping in the store or go the Mallorytown restaurant. I don't think the bikers going down the pathway, although they're nice to see, stop in at the one motel. They may stop at the marina for a pop, but that's about it. It's very, very small.

Mr Runciman: I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think there is an economic benefit in terms of, you mentioned the properties along the parkway tend to be good-quality properties, and as a result the assessments are higher and as a result your tax revenues are higher.

Mr Wight: There's no doubt that their assessments are higher.

Mr Runciman: I think another element that the township should be pursuing, certainly, and I feel strongly about this, is the development of attractions or resources within the township on properties owned by the parks commission. If you have some commercial developments there now, for example, that are existing, those can grow in terms of providing economic opportunities and job development prospects as well. If you have more traffic on the parkway, more attractions, and make those greater traffic volumes through the parkway, you're going to see the commercial side grow as well, plus developments that can occur on properties owned, perhaps through long-term lease agreements that are also going to generate jobs and revenues to the township.

1620

Perhaps that's a role you would wish to play in terms of making sure your voice is heard in terms of the kinds of developments that are acceptable to you as a township, the kinds of development you'd like to see occur in terms of the benefits not only from an economic aspect but also of course from the social and environmental impacts and those kinds of questions as well.

I agree with what you're saying in respect to the fact that you're being shortchanged, but on the other side of the equation there are also some pretty significant benefits that accrue to the township because of the commission's holdings in your township.

Mr Waters: I guess on your issue re grants in lieu, we can take that under consideration and advisement, and indeed we'll probably look at it as a committee when we're making our recommendations. But on any idea of selling off the property, I'm afraid I would have some grave concern because I see it as probably the jewel of eastern Ontario tourism and that any break in that link could be devastating to that jewel. If you were to sell off, when I look at your map, the amount of properties or even a considerable amount of that property, if not all of it, if you were to put it into the private sector's hands, I would think you would create irreparable damage and I would have concern with that. So, if you want to, take a minute or two and convince me otherwise.

Mr Wight: No. As I said, I personally agree with you 100%. However, you mentioned the jewel of eastern Ontario. If you want to extend that further and just say a jewel of Ontario, then let's have Ontario pay a fair grant for that property. I think that's the crux of it right there.

Mr Waters: With the jewel, and we've heard a lot of people talking about the cutbacks and that of the parks commission and those types of things, I'm going to go back to something that I know Mr Runciman has talked about and we've all talked about, and that is local commitment financially. If indeed we want programming to continue at a level, or a specific program, do you not think it's viable and feasible that we have local dollars and local commitment as well? In other words, should it solely be funded by the province?

For instance, we've heard from the people of Kingston that they wanted the sunset ceremony. It was also in the Gananoque presentation. Do you feel that should be solely funded by the province or, as it is in other areas, as a joint venture, if it's going to be a loss-leader?

Mr Wight: Front of Yonge has not joined, but I suspect within the next two and a half weeks we will have joined, the south Leeds economic planning committee. Hopefully in that committee we would be working with the parks commission. It looks very certain that Parks Canada is going to be involved in it and as a large group look towards improving the economic climate without damaging the residential aspects that we value so greatly in Front of Yonge. Our dollar commitment is very minor, but our dollar resources are also very minor.

Mr Waters: Just so that you're aware of it, behind you at that particular moment when you said you were joining and all of these things, Mr Shaw was nodding his head that indeed all of these things are what is going to happen. So I see a commitment also by the parks commission to work with the communities that very much impact on the commission. I think that they have in the last while, actually, if not for ever. I only know the parks commission intimately over the last three or four years.

Mr Wight: As a resident in Front of Yonge, I enjoy the parks commission land. I have walked a great deal of it. It's beautiful. I have enjoyed their beach; I have enjoyed driving the parkway. I live in a beautiful part of Ontario. I wouldn't move for anything.

As a councillor, I really don't have any complaints other than the fact that we would like to receive a fairer grant, because it is making the balance of the township pay. If you don't get money from the orange land, you've got to get it from the white land.

Secondly, we're a little bit concerned about the increase or the desire of increase of control over the development of privately owned land that I don't think is right. It doesn't conform to official plan, and the parks commission, anybody, should be following the same rules. They're advisory, the same as we would ask for advice from the health unit, from the Ministry of Natural Resources, CRCA. We would ask for advice from any agency. We've listened to it, but I believe by law that is a municipal decision, and I think the province agrees with that.

Mr Waters: Okay. Because I'm the parliamentary assistant to the ministry, obviously I'm probably going to have to deal with it at the ministry. I guess I have one question on it. You said it's been unchanged since 1984.

Mr Wight: That's correct.

Mr Waters: How long have you been pursuing the increase? Has it been the entire 10 years or has it just been the last couple of years?

Mr Wight: No, I would have to say that I brought this to council's attention back in the wintertime, and it was late May --

Mr Waters: Of this year?

Mr Wight: -- of this year, 1994, when we first met with Mr Shaw and the two commissioners. It is not an issue that has been going on for a long period of time. However, our costs and our lack of revenues are changing at an incredible pace.

Mr Waters: I have no other questions, Madam Chair, and I'll definitely take it back and try to work it through.

Mr Wight: Thanks.

Mr Curling: Is the minister going to fix it, though?

Mr Waters: At least I'm willing to take it back.

The Chair: We now move to the Liberal caucus.

Mr Cleary: Welcome to the committee and thank you for your presentation. I had been on the municipal council for many years and I found a remark that you had made -- I'm going to say what I think you said. You were not pushing to grow in your municipality. You have 2,600 residents at the moment. But you also said -- I think you said -- that you would support some kind of a long-term lease to the private sector, and if you did that, jobs should go with that. So I would think maybe if that happened, you would grow. Did I misunderstand you?

Mr Wight: No. That would create a great deal of thought. There would be hours and hours of mental debate going on in my head silently when that situation arose. I love it the way it is. However, I realize that I'm not always in agreement with the people I represent. I've completely evaded your question, right?

Mr Villeneuve: It's a political answer.

Mr Cleary: But I do know that what you're talking, grant in lieu, the municipality I came from had a grant in lieu of taxes too, and I agree it was somewhat less than the ordinary ratepayer was paying and it got very controversial at times. What I mentioned to you about lease/private partnership, generally if you get that kind of development in your municipality, that's permanent jobs, and most times the residents who acquire the jobs, whoever it might be, like to live close to where they're working.

Mr Wight: I guess I really see our township as being a residential township, allowing the alternative for the people who work in Brockville or in Elizabethtown, which is much more developed and developing at a very great rate, I think -- our township being a residential area for those people to live in. Basically, almost all of our population commutes to Brockville, Gananoque, Smiths Falls, Kingston, where they work. We are a residential area and I would personally like to see it stay that way. That's why I would agree. I have very real reservations about selling land or the long-term lease arrangements detracting from that feeling. I think people on the parkway would be concerned too if there was a commercial operation in place that impacted their way of life in any way. They're paying dearly for the privilege to live there and I believe they like it now.

Mr Cleary: Anyway, I'd like to thank you for your presentation, and good luck in your elections.

Mr Wight: Thank you very much. Thank you all.

The Chair: Thank you for your appearance before the committee this afternoon, Councillor Wight.

That is the end of our deputations for today. I would like to thank the committee members for their attendance and particularly for their cooperation in terms of keeping us on time and the schedule. It's only possible to achieve that with your cooperation.

We are adjourned until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning, when we will start promptly again. Thank you.

The committee adjourned at 1632.