HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2003
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
8:00 A.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. William Estabrooks
VICE-CHAIRMAN
Mr. James DeWolfe
MR. JAMES DEWOLFE (Chairman): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to order on this chilly March 19th morning. With us today, from the Nova Scotia Sport and Recreation Commission, we have Mr. Michael Arthur, who is now the Acting Executive Director, and Mr. David Molloy, who is the Coordinator of Recreation Facilities Development. I would like to start off, gentlemen, by introducing the members of the committee, starting with the chairman at the far end.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to welcome, with us this morning, Roy Salmon from the Auditor General's Office, and he is indeed the Auditor General. Welcome, Roy. Without further ado, gentlemen, I am going to let you start off with your presentation. As usual, we will have, perhaps, a 15-, 20-minute presentation, and then we will turn it over to the floor for questions. Mr. Arthur, I believe you're going to start off.
MR. MICHAEL ARTHUR: Yes, thank you. I have just a few introductory comments. Does everyone have a copy of the handout that we circulated? We thought we might have an overhead projector, but I guess the lighting doesn't allow for it. So we will have to work off this copy, if you don't mind. I'm going to make a few introductory comments about the commission and how the capital grants program, what we call the RFD, fits into it, and then I'm going to turn it over to Dave Molloy, who works with us. Dave has been in the recreation facility business for over 20 years and has a background in training as an architect, bringing an invaluable perspective to this program.
1
Page 2 of the presentation talks just a little bit about the commission, that we largely work with a volunteer-based sport and recreation delivery system. By that I mean that most sport and recreational opportunities are delivered by volunteer organizations, whether it be minor sports groups, whether it be community associations, whether it be Legions, whether it be trail groups, et cetera. Now there are a small number of professionals in municipalities and other organizations to support those organizations, but the system is largely volunteer driven.
When the Department of Recreation was first formed in 1973, the regional offices of the commission were the first element of the structure that was put in place around the province based on the belief that we needed to support communities in the communities. Those regional offices have been there ever since and meet with a variety of community groups on a variety of recreation issues. I know that in many instances those are related to groups that want to have an idea or a dream around building a facility to help out their community organizations.
In addition to the regional offices, it is supported by some staff in the main office who bring technical expertise. In the case of Dave, he would bring the expertise of facility construction and architecture. We also have other staff in outdoor recreation who assist with things like trail development, who have expertise in those kinds of areas. Where necessary, we can bring in other specialized people to help people with construction problems.
Our total budget there is listed as $6.4 million, and that's 2002-03, the current budget year that we're in. Most of that money is, I would suggest, seed money or it is leveraged several times over by what community organizations bring to the table.
The second piece, Page 3, just describes our core business areas. There are three of them that are identified there. Development and support of the organizations and public agencies in the community, and the facility grant program is part of that development and support. We provide support to provincial sport and recreation organizations. There are over 80 provincial organizations in just about any activity that you can think of, traditional ones around hockey, soccer, basketball, but including ringette, cross-country skiing, trails, scuba diving, fitness leaders, et cetera. There's a whole myriad of those organizations at the provincial level that provide part of the infrastructure that supports the communities around the province.
We also, secondly, focus on active and healthy lifestyles. For the last year or so, I've been particularly working on our strategy called Active Kids, Healthy Kids, because of the pretty startling findings that we discovered last year around the inactivity levels of children and youth in the province. We have a strategy in place that looks at a variety of things in schools, in communities, including access to facilities by children and youth to try to get them more active.
Last but not least, the quality, safe and equitable experiences. We believe that recreation should be a safe experience. So, for example, we have the Nova Scotia Lifeguard Service, which we contract through the Lifesaving Society, which ensures a reasonable level of safe swimming opportunities at a number of beaches around the province through lifeguards who are placed there. Providing training in outdoor leadership is another area where we make sure that Scout leaders or outdoor leaders have the qualifications to be leading children, youth and adults in the outdoors. Those are the core areas: the support of the system, promotion of active, healthy lifestyles, and quality, safe experiences.
The third and last page that I will deal with is on the key program areas of the commission. You may be familiar with some or all of these. The Facility Development Program does not operate in isolation. It is one part of the system that we put out there to ensure great access to opportunities. We have the Facility Grant Program, but that is delivered through the regional offices. The regional offices have a greater mandate than delivering the Facility Grant Program. They're out there supporting community organizations and helping them resolve a wide range of issues and problems.
We do a range of things in sport development, some of which rely upon the facilities that are built through the Capital Grants Program because most sports require some sort of built, indoor or outdoor, facility. As well, we provide training for coaches, support for the provincial sport organizations, the Canada Games team, that kind of thing. Physical activity I mentioned earlier; the primary focus is on children and youth, for us.
The outdoor recreation area, I think one of the big areas there, again, related to the facilities area, has been the focus on trails in the last five years. When I first came to the commission about 15 years ago, I think we would hardly ever talk about trails, but I would say that in the last five years the growth and demand for trails, urban trails, near-urban trails, wilderness trails has grown incredibly in the number of volunteer groups that have grown up around trail groups. It has exploded in the last number of years, not the least of which is the Trans Canada Trail, which I think was formally opened last year. I think the province has in place rights to about 1,100 kilometres of the Trans Canada Trail. Not all of that has been developed for use yet, but over time it will become a valuable asset. In many places, it is being used already.
In the whole area of public safety, again, that's true in the area of facilities, wanting to make sure our arenas and pools are safe. Dave will talk a little more later about a structural assessment program that we have there. Public safety also means lifeguarded beaches, public safety means sport organizations that make sure that kids who are participating in their sport are doing it on a safe basis.
The facilities piece kind of runs through all of those, but yet, on the other hand, it does stand alone as a program within the commission. Having said that, the details of the program, which have been developed over 25 years, are administered by Dave through the regional
offices. I will turn it over to him to give you a few minutes of details on how that program works.
MR. DAVID MOLLOY: Thank you, Mike. Just to start, thank you for the opportunity to talk to you about this program. We believe this is a program that has touched many communities across Nova Scotia for many years. I would say at the outset that many of the recreation facilities that you know today, that we all know, were touched by RFD or RFD was used as a development tool for them. So, it's a program that's had great impact and great effect on our communities.
Referring to Page 5, the very core of what RFD is about, it assists groups of citizens in taking actions that they've chosen to make their communities better. I'm talking about community development here. We see this as a community development tool to encourage civic action that changes communities to make them better. Our communities need a lot of help these days, and it's a process that has worked. It's a process that's community-driven, that enhances leadership within the community, and in the end it effects change to the better, improving quality of life.
It is designed to assist these groups, mostly incorporated non-profit groups, in planning construction, renovation and conservation of sport and recreation facilities. I would also point out that our funding assistance is up to one-third of the total cost of the project. What this does is it encourages the communities or the applicants to seek other sources of funding. Essentially, we lever our investment by drawing in other investors - I guess you could use that term - and that includes, occasionally, the federal government, often the municipal governments and also local businesses and various fundraising efforts and so on. With our small grant program, we've actually managed to lever - this past year, it's probably close to $10 million worth of construction as a result of our $1.6 million of investment.
Going to Page 6, just to talk a bit about what we try to focus on in this program, ultimately all of our programs are directed towards our goal of increasing physical activity and increasing active lifestyles, thus indirectly improving the health of our citizens. Sport and recreation facilities are a venue for activity to take place. The bulk of our support goes to traditional and community projects identified by non-profit community organizations. I'm talking about the arena, the pools, the ballfields and the playgrounds, that's essentially where our funding goes. There's actually a couple of slides at the end of that presentation that touch on that.
We have a stock of aging facilities that need attention. Many of them were built in the 60s and the 70s, when you and I were all young people, and now they're 30 or 35 years old. They need to be conserved or they face closure. In some cases maybe it is right to close them, most often it's not right to close them. Our population is changing, and it's moving around. It's becoming more urbanized, and we recognize a demand for new facilities in our suburban growth areas. It's certainly another area of focus.
Community use of schools. We see it as an effective approach to increase recreation opportunities for both the students and the community. By being together, they actually enhance their relationships with each other. I'm talking about using schools in the non-school hours and on the weekends. With this initiative, we help to avoid duplication as well. If there is a need for a recreation centre, activities, well the local school with this gymnasium can be used, therefore we don't need to build that recreation centre and don't need to operate it. We see this as a very good use of our limited dollars.
Just finally touching on trails, our population is aging and that population is drifting away from high-impact sports, and with our interest in the natural environment, protecting it and so on, we've seen a tremendous growth in trail development and trail use. I know this year, looking at the applications received under RFD, we have a lot of applications from trail development, and it is very much an area where you don't require a lot of equipment, it's low impact and you get to breathe some fresh air and enjoy the natural environment. So we're seeing a real increase in those kinds of projects.
[8:15 a.m.]
Going to Page 7, I just want to talk a bit about the guidelines for the program. I will just go through this briefly. This program is open for non-profit and municipal organizations, but it's not open to commercial or private projects, they're not eligible. The applicant must either own the property or have a long-term lease for the property. We give out grants for a specific facility once every four years, we can't have them sort of coming back year in and year out. The program is designed to not fund an amount exceeding one-third of the total cost of the project, so the remaining two-thirds has to be found by the applicant and it needs to be in place when they're applying. We can't make a commitment and then find out, well, the rest of the money isn't in place.
There is a firm deadline of February 1st, and we stick quite closely to that. Projects need to be completed in the year that they're committed, although occasionally we do make multi-year commitments but they're planned for at the outset. They are projects that are sort of phased, those kinds of things. Invariably, these are one-year projects. We encourage our applicants or our recipients to volunteer their labour and materials. We think it's a great source of additional funds. They're allowed to include that in the information they supply at the end of the granting process, but we require a log that they need to fill out, documenting it. The bottom line here is that these are public facilities for public recreation purposes, accessible to all at reasonable times and at reasonable rates.
The granting process. I guess the key to our process is the regional staff that Mike alluded to earlier on. They work in their regions, they work with their clients to prepare the applications, they grow to understand the group and what the group's goals are, what their planning processes were and the details about their projects. They know these projects inside and out. In the Spring of the year an allocation is given to each region, each regional
representative. I just wanted to explain to you how that is calculated. It's basically the ratio of the region's requests to the total requests. I will use the example of Cape Breton region. If they have $100,000 worth of requests this year and we have $1 million in total requests, then they would receive one-tenth of the total budget, essentially, that we have. That's how it's calculated.
Each representative uses a set of published review factors - I think it's included in your binders - to rank only their applications. The review is based on a written statement that the applicant submits with their application, indicating how they respond to the specific review factors. It is really the knowledge and the experience of the regional representatives that determines the rank. It ensures that the best projects are funded, and essentially the ranking is based on a comparison with other applicants within their specific region. There is no sort of cross-regional comparisons here.
The minister accepts the list of recommended grants, the commitment letters are prepared in the Spring following the budget, and then the work is carried out throughout the summer, Fall and hopefully completed by March 31st. In order to be paid their grant, we require a financial statement from the recipient at the end of the project with the various paid invoices and so on, and we ask the regional representative to inspect the facility, to make sure it's there and that the work is done as indicated.
Page 9 is really just an outline of the review factors and I can go through those if you want to, perhaps later on, just for time's sake.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would appreciate that.
MR. MOLLOY: I'm getting close, am I?
MR. CHAIRMAN: You are getting close.
MR. MOLLOY: Basically, these are the review factors that are available on our Web site. We have a set of guidelines that outlines them, and essentially those are the factors that are used by the representatives.
Just an overview of the program this year, essentially we had $1.6 million in our budget; there was $300,000 in multi-year commitments from the previous year that we had to deal with; we received $4.2 million in requests; in the end, 71 grants were committed, averaging around $18,000 but some of them were as small as only several thousand dollars and maybe as high as $50,000 or $100,000, depending on the specific project; and we levered $10.8 million worth of capital construction. It really was a great way to see facility development take place in the province.
With that I am going to pass it back over to Michael. He is just going to touch on some of the opportunities we face and the challenges that we face.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Michael, perhaps you could be extremely brief on it, it's now 20 minutes after the hour and the members are starting to get anxious to move forward.
MR. ARTHUR: We couldn't possibly imagine that we had this much to say on the program, so I apologize for the length. Anyway, there are certainly some opportunities and challenges that are identified there with the program. One of the big ones is we have more requests than we have resources to deal with on an annual basis. But certainly there is a tremendous amount of new school construction that is going on in the province and we see that in some ways as an opportunity: how can we ensure that facilities are designed, managed and accessible to the public for recreational purposes; the aging facilities we talked about, the Trans Canada Trail, how can we ensure facilities are built in order to respond to the physical activity need for children and youth; how can we ensure that facilities are built to enhance sport development, for example, if you want to host some national championship here in any particular sport, you need a facility that meets some sort of national or international standards, so there are a variety of factors that have to go into considering any facility that we build. I'll leave it there and go back to you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your presentation. We will go directly to the NDP caucus and as in the past, we'll start with 20-minute rounds. It is now 8:22 a.m.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Welcome to you, Mr. Arthur and Mr. Molloy. I know from the comments you have had and the importance of your commission, perhaps I should say in the past, and in its future, I can tell you as someone who has been involved in athletic events and promoting young people for years, I have concerns. I would like to address the concerns by asking either of you to explain to me and to the members of the committee, the relationship between the ministry that has been recently created of Health Promotion - and I can become snide and make comments about smoke and mirrors and wonderful overheads and announcements that are made in schools and recreation areas - but the relationship between the new Ministry of Health Promotion and the Sport and Recreation Commission.
From my perspective I would say - perhaps you might disagree with me, either of you - that the SRC is no longer a major player, that we or you, the volunteer people involved, your regional offices, are no longer a player, in fact, I don't think you are on the bench or the sidelines when it comes to some of the types of decisions that are going to be made, major budgetary decisions in the future, with using the allocated dollars that we have for healthy lifestyles and sport and recreation. I want to also make it very clear to both of you that the initiative of Active Kids, Healthy Kids, is a worthwhile one. The concern I always have is that it actually ends up in the hands of the people on the floor, maybe on the ice, but definitely in the school gymnasiums.
Perhaps you could relieve some of my concerns about the relationship that I see evolving between the Minister of Health Promotion and the minister who was at one time, claim to fame, responsible for the Sport and Recreation Commission?
MR. ARTHUR: Dave said he would let me take that one. Yes, in December, as part of a little bit of a government reorganization, the Office of Health Promotion was created and it was identified that the Sport and Recreation Commission would be one of the key pieces of that Office of Health Promotion. I think the recognition that what the commission does, its programs and services, contributes extensively to the health and well-being of the population, I think, is a good recognition for what the commission and its partners at the community and provincial level have done over the years.
Now it's being put into the same operating context, if you will, as to some of the other factors that affect the health and well-being of the population, i.e. tobacco use and nutrition being two of the main factors. Without having sorted out yet the exact structure and how the organization will work, the opportunity for sport and recreation, physical activity, to work in conjunction with other health-related initiatives like nutrition and tobacco, I think, has great promise for the future because while physical inactivity is a risk to our health and we want to increase the activity level of the population, done in conjunction with partnerships around tobacco reduction, around improvements to nutrition, I think there is definitely some potential there and I think that was the recognition that was given to why the Office of Health Promotion was created. The exact nature and structure of the organization or the office has yet to be fully developed and will take some time to sort out.
MR. ESTABROOKS: But that's my point, exactly, based upon staff, organization and recent turnover in staff of people who have unfortunately left, in my opinion. I mention Tony Martin specifically, a man that I have worked with for many years. I see that Scott Logan has moved. Do you have concerns in terms of this department having been announced, the Ministry of Health Promotion, yet you're saying to us today that these things are - to use the country music term of late - a work in progress? That wouldn't reassure me in your current position.
MR. ARTHUR: I think with any change in an organization comes a period of transition. There are some uncertainties involved with that at this point in time. On the other hand, I have been with the minister and with the deputy minister on numerous occasions where the recognition that is being given to what the Sport and Recreation Commission does and its role in promoting active, healthy lifestyles, has been continually reinforced. The value and the past success of the Sport and Recreation Commission, there is every indication that that is going to continue in the Office of Health Promotion and, in fact, there may be enhanced opportunities to access what had traditionally been health dollars either at the federal or provincial level that can better optimize some of the things that we're trying to do.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Let's use a couple of specific examples, perhaps to assist me on whether the Sport and Recreation Commission is either going to be a player or a sideline participant, if there is such a thing as a sideline participant. Let's talk particularly about determining priority lists for major projects. Would you consider the Sport and Recreation Commission a player in any of the decisions involving the possibility of a major sport stadium for the Commonwealth Games? Were you consulted? Were you at the table? Were you part of the negotiations on that particular project because the Commonwealth Games, as you are aware, did not come into this region, it's going - well the eventual decision isn't forthcoming yet - but one of the major deterrents to attract such events to this province and to this region, is to have a proper sport stadium. Are you a player on that decision or are you a spectator?
MR. ARTHUR: I assume your question would be in the past tense because the Commonwealth Games is no longer a viable option for Nova Scotia.
MR. ESTABROOKS: I understand, past tense. Were you at the table?
MR. ARTHUR: I was not personally but the commission and several staff of the commission were very much involved in the bid committee's development of its plan. You mentioned our former deputy head was there, Dave Molloy was there as the facility consultant in terms of identifying our current facility capacity to host such games and identifying what our future facility needs would be, if we were going to be able to host the games.
[8:30 a.m.]
We were not the only player at the table, but we were definitely at the table. I would suggest that there wasn't anybody else, then or now, in government to be looking at the identification of facility needs from a variety of different perspectives. So we were glad to be there and hope we can continue to be there on things like that in the future.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Mr. Molloy, I heard you say you were in attendance at those discussions, can you add anything to what Mr. Arthur said, aside from the fact that you are the experts on the ground when it comes to an assessment of facilities, particularly facilities able to hold major events such as this? If you're permitted, what was your role and what do you see as a future for us, or is that an issue which this municipality, this region and this province should basically never go near again?
MR. MOLLOY: Just to establish what my role was, I was on the committee that worked to prepare the bid. In my capacity as a facilities specialist, much of my role really had to do with assessing the existing facilities that were going to be proposed as venue, but I certainly did work with the architects who were developing the conceptual scheme for the proposed stadium and so on. I think the committee knew this would be one of the major issues that would determine whether or not the bid got the opportunity to go forward. It is
one of the challenges that we faced, probably the most important challenge for hosting these kinds of major events.
The reality is that these are $100 million facilities, and there are great pressures that we face. We need to work through a process where solutions to determine the development of these facilities is developed. I think it was an eye-opening experience for the city, to realize the opportunities that lay there with major Canadian games. The city has set in place a process now that will look at major facility development in the future.
MR. ESTABROOKS: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move to another issue. Are you a spectator or are you a player when it comes to determining the priority list for projects across this province, when it comes to major recreational facilities? Perhaps I can ask you this, is there - we always hear this from governments of various stripes, there is a priority list for, heaven forbid I bring this up in an election year, road pavement, there is a priority list for school construction, where they're going to be built and how much it's going to cost, there is a list. Mind you, from my perspective sitting on this side, I've never had the opportunity to see the list, but I've been told that there are such lists, a priority list?
Do you have some say, from Sport and Recreation, when determining the major facility requests that come in, particularly for areas that are replacing arenas, need new facilities or because of population shift in particular - and I can refer to one in my community, the St. Margaret's Arena, where we have children in our community who have never played minor hockey in their own facility. They go to Chester, they come to the city, they play in various events. The concern I come down to is, when those decisions are made, when those announcements are made in an election year, that a new stretch of pavement is announced for a certain section of this province or a new school - and I've just had one announced in a riding that's very close to mine - we're also expecting (Interruptions)
If the member for Preston wants to have his questions later, he can ask. We're also expecting, in an election year, announcements for recreation facilities. I would like to know, is there a priority list, what are the criteria, and are you a player in determining that priority list, or are you on the sidelines?
MR. MOLLOY: Our role is to work with the communities to determine what their needs are and to propose a facility that's sustainable, that's viable, that truly reflects the needs of the community. That's where our role is. Certainly, we have worked with a number
of groups in the past several years that have identified needs along these lines. We would acknowledge the St. Margaret's Arena proposal, but we have a number of others that we have worked with. The challenges that we face, many fiscal pressures in the province, we have other infrastructure demands, things like highways, hospitals and schools, and we hope to work to solve the infrastructure problems relative to recreation facilities in the future.
MR. ESTABROOKS: If I can take from that answer, is there a priority list?
MR. MOLLOY: We have a list of projects that have applied to the government for funding. It's not prioritized.
MR. ESTABROOKS: How can the minister turn to a commission, a group of advisers such as yourself - and I would assume the minister doesn't know every nook and cranny, every issue from one end of the province to the other, I would assume the minister has someone on his staff who says, we have limited dollars as we do in each year, what do you consider the top project when it comes to a major recreation facility or an arena in particular. Are you consulted with those sorts of comments before a major announcement is made? For example, the member for Cumberland South, I'm sure, is very pleased, and rightfully so, that the Cumberland rink had to be replaced. I know the member for Yarmouth is very pleased, the Yarmouth facility, the home to the new Junior A team, the Mariners, has been exceptionally well received. Were you part of those decisions and the allocation of those funds? Do you get consulted before the minister or the Premier make such important announcements?
MR. ARTHUR: If I may, you used two examples, and perhaps I would add a third one, the arena, the new Millennium Arena in St. F.X. that was built. Those, along with Springhill, were probably the three examples of the major facilities, the multi-million dollar facilities that we have been involved with over the last several years. The answer to your question, were we involved, very much were we involved, and it's not involved at just one stage in time. The Yarmouth arena was something that had been in the works and talked about by the community for many years.
Our staff had been involved in assisting them with the development of the plans and proposals. Certainly the level of funding that is required by those kinds of facilities far outstrips the normal allotment of funds that we get for the Recreation Facility Development Program. So what you end up with is, first of all, a determination of whether there's a priority need for that facility. I can say for certain that if there was one area in the province at that time that needed an arena, Yarmouth would have been number one on the list, based on the fact that they were operating out of an old agricultural hall with their arena which was prepared to shut down based on fire marshal regulations which would have left the community without any facility.
Over the years, we worked with that community, were able to play sort of a linking role in trying to patch together a variety of funding sources, including federal infrastructure funds, including funds through economic development agreements, including funds from the Sport and Recreation Commission to eventually see a four-year commitment; in that case, I believe $0.5 million each year for four years that resulted in a facility that you see there today.
The same thing happened at the arena at St. F.X., which is a project that has developed in combination with the municipality, which was very important to us, so that we could ensure public access. At the end of the day, very much we were involved in those, but
were there other players involved? Definitely, and those players do need to be involved over the long term if we're to fund facilities like that.
MR. ESTABROOKS: I agree with you, particularly with the Yarmouth example. You used the words, Yarmouth deserved to be number one on the list, so there is a list. Is part of the criteria to get to the top of the list how long your application has been in, that you've done your homework and that you put it back in in 1997 and you tried again in 1998, I can do the criteria here? Is that one of the criteria, the number of years that you've been forced to wait? Of course I understand the situation in other facilities, although I don't consider the Millennium project particularly anything the province should be taking credit for, it's the alumni association of St. F.X. that's the active one in my view. But there is a list, and that's important to confirm.
I would like to turn to the comments that were made by Mr. Martin, and I believe, Mr. Arthur, you were at this meeting also, in which in front of the Committee on Community Services on May 23, 2002 - how time flies - when Mr. Martin said in a comment with regard to the community use of schools - and I agree with your comment - we have these facilities out there yet we can't get in them. We have people who are asking for major amounts of dollars for recreation facilities in communities, yet we can't get in our schools. Mr. Martin says and I quote from Page 8, May 23, 2002, the community use of schools, "There have been nightmares around the use of schools."
In particular he points out later on Page 20 when he says, one of his major concerns is access to P3 schools in particular and that he looks upon that - and if I could just turn to it quickly, Page 20, getting into P3 schools - ". . . I'm not at their table. I think part of it is - and I was part of the group that tried to craft this thing initially . . . the 3,500 hours, that magical number that has been put into the document."
Are you a spectator or are you a player when it comes to community use of P3 schools?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have a 30-second answer for that question?
MR. ARTHUR: Are we a player on P3? I think for quite a number of years we played a significant role, along with our colleagues in the Department of Education, to try to ensure that P3 schools were going to be accessible to the community and that's why the 3,500 hours clause was put in there. The intention of that clause was that most schools would not use 3,500 hours and so therefore that left a considerable amount of time for community use.
Recently the province, through the Department of Education, went to adjudication with the P3 partners over the interpretation of that 3,500 hours and we have yet to receive a clear answer, although the preliminary findings are that the P3 partner may have the rights
to who uses that 3,500 hours, but I have not yet received a formal, in-writing, interpretation of the results and the implications for the community groups.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I believe, Mr. MacKinnon, you are representing the Liberal caucus today for questions. We will start you at 8:43 a.m.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask some questions about the P3 program but my colleague, the member for Timberlea-Prospect, has pretty much exposed the dichotomy of logic within that NDP caucus. If he checks Hansard a little further he will find out one of his colleagues stood in the House and demanded a school, regardless whether it was P3, traditional, or whatever and when they received what they wanted they still criticized. It's not a perfect world and I understand that, but . . .
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Who was that member?
MR. MACKINNON: The former member for Halifax Fairview. My first question is with regard to the global budget. I noticed that it has been reduced from $8.647 million down to $6.317, that's a reduction of 27 per cent. Is that in part because of the relationship with the P3 process?
MR. ARTHUR: No, it's not. That had nothing whatsoever to do with it. You were commenting on the commission's budget, a reduction?
MR. MACKINNON: Yes.
MR. ARTHUR: No, that was . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Then what's the reason for the reduction in your budget?
MR. ARTHUR: Well, I think like many other departments we have had to take a reduction in budget to accommodate financial pressures on government.
MR. MACKINNON: And I can appreciate that. Has the demand for your services been reduced or has it increased?
MR. ARTHUR: In particular on the Facility Development Program, well in general let me say that the demand has not gone away.
MR. MACKINNON: Has it increased or decreased?
MR. ARTHUR: I'm not sure. I can't say for sure that it has increased, it is somewhat different now than it has been.
[8:45 a.m.]
MR. MACKINNON: Are there more applications than you've had, let's say two or three or four years ago?
MR. ARTHUR: In terms of the applications, I would ask Dave to specifically address that. He's more familiar with that end of it than I am.
MR. MOLLOY: Essentially they remained basically the same or increased slightly and certainly there has been no startling increases but it certainly hasn't gone down.
MR. MACKINNON: The dollar value of them, if you were to total them up, whether they're approved or not, has that increased?
MR. MOLLOY: The total requests have essentially remained the same or increased by several per cent.
MR. MACKINNON: Both the number of requests and the dollar value? That's a yes?
MR. MOLLOY: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you. I noticed within the Sport and Recreation grants division it has been reduced just slightly but with the Recreation Facility Development grants, it has been reduced by 60 per cent, from $3.976 million down to $1.595 million. What do you attribute that reduction to?
MR. MOLLOY: You are referring to last year's budget and at the end of that fiscal year we had two major projects that were completed sometime previously and it was the Yarmouth and Antigonish one. Additional funds were placed into the account to pay those grants as they were completed. In the subsequent year, of course, that money that was going to be paid to those two recipients wasn't required so the total went down.
MR. MACKINNON: Could we have a little more clarity on that?
MR. MOLLOY: We had two large projects, multi-year commitments to Yarmouth and to Antigonish, to St. F.X.
MR. MACKINNON: So they gobbled up the bulk of the money?
MR. MOLLOY: The projects were complete and they increased our budget to pay those grants off. We were going to make a final payment to them this fiscal year, so instead of paying it out, this fiscal year the work was completed, we had the invoices and so on, so we paid them early.
MR. MACKINNON: But all you did was move dollars around within your global budget from one division to the other because your total budget was reduced, right? So what other division suffered because of that?
MR. ARTHUR: There wasn't a robbing Peter to pay Paul concept that happened within the commission to do that. The government was in a position whereas Dave has said, the commitments the government made to those facilities, the facilities got built ahead of schedule, we were in a position therefore to be able to dispense the remaining funds, government added money to our budget in order to help us do that, so we weren't required to . . .
MR. MACKINNON: I can't see how you can argue or present that you have had more money to your budget when the total budget has been reduced by 27 per cent. It has been increased 60 per cent in this division of the commission but you would had to have taken the money from some other programs within the commission in order to make this happen.
MR. ARTHUR: Sorry, maybe I misspoke. The money was added in by the government. The additional money was put into the commission's Capital Grants Program in order to enable it to meet its commitments.
MR. MACKINNON: So without that you would have had an even greater than 27 per cent reduction in your total budget?
MR. ARTHUR: Yes, but the money was not put back in for the next year, that's why it was reduced. If we added $1 million to pay, say Yarmouth and St. F.X., $500,000 apiece, in the last fiscal year the government didn't put that money back in because those projects were now completed, so that's why you see the decrease.
MR. MACKINNON: Okay, let's go back three years ago, we had this year's budget, last year, let's say two years ago, what was it, in 2000-01, what was your global budget?
MR. MOLLOY: It was around $2 million, I think.
MR. MACKINNON: So how were your issues being addressed accordingly? I mean you just don't jump from $2 million to $8 million when the government announces it's going to balance the budget and reduced expenditures in every department. I mean, there's something wrong with the math here. You are going to increase your budget fourfold, 400 per cent, that wasn't even a consideration in current budgets. There is something wrong with the math here somewhere.
MR. MOLLOY: I can't really comment on the total commission budget . . .
MR. MACKINNON: That's what I need to know, what was the total commission budget in 2000-01?
MR. MOLLOY: I know what the RFD one was, it was about $2 million.
MR. ARTHUR: I don't have those numbers in front of me in terms of the budget in that particular fiscal year.
MR. MACKINNON: It's pretty much the same as the $8.6 million, so in other words, we're not talking about a bubble here, we're talking about a bubble in one division because you took money out of other sections, right? Am I correct?
MR. ARTHUR: The money was brought in.
MR. MACKINNON: In the final analysis are you saying that you spent more than the $6.3 million, you went back up to $8.6 million? There's something wrong with your math here. If you have new money in the budget, then you should have more than the $6.3 million, globally.
MR. ARTHUR: If we had a budget last year, let's say, for the sake of argument, that it was $6 million. . .
MR. MACKINNON: Yes.
MR. ARTHUR: . . . and then towards the year when those facilities that we had commitments to were completed, the government put additional money into our budget, so our budget went from, in effect - the actual went from $6 million to, I don't know, let's say $7 million in order to meet those commitments, because St. F.X. and Yarmouth were built, they met the criteria and so we paid them out, with authorization by the government to do that, but then the budget would have gone back to its normal level in the next fiscal year.
MR. MACKINNON: Which is going to be this year?
MR. ARTHUR: The present year that we are in now, 2003.
MR. MACKINNON: You're moving dollars around here. I notice one of the issues that I have received a lot of complaints with regard to is the lifeguard program and the government's moving away from that, in terms of protecting people on the beaches and so on. I know, down in Richmond County, there are two provincial beaches there, Pondville and Point Michaud. I know Point Michaud is very popular and citizens from all over the Island and, indeed, many tourists attend there, but no lifeguards. What is the status of your lifeguard program and do you have the same number of lifeguards you did in previous years? What is the situation there?
MR. ARTHUR: The lifeguard service, we contract with the Lifesaving Society which actually carries out and administers the program. We identify the beaches around the province that will be guarded.
MR. MACKINNON: How do you assess what beaches are going to be monitored?
MR. ARTHUR: That's a determination that is made in co-operation with the Department of Natural Resources because, in many cases and almost all cases, the beaches that are guarded are in provincial parks, so we want to ensure a safe experience in provincial parks. I'm going to guess right now that we are at 15 to 18 beaches that are being guarded. We have not been able to expand the program in recent years due to budgetary restraints, although, the actual size of the lifeguard service has increased, mainly because there are a number of communities, municipalities that value the role of the lifeguard service and have been prepared to pay the incremental costs of having their beach guarded in their community.
MR. MACKINNON: In other words, the province is not picking up that additional cost.
MR. ARTHUR: That's right. We can price what it costs and tell a municipality, if they are interested, what it costs to have their beach guarded. So they pay it, it is paid into the Lifesaving Society and then all the guards are trained and monitored. So, actually, there has been a positive growth, I would say, in the overall number of beaches that have been guarded but that has been primarily through non-provincial government funds.
MR. MACKINNON: That's right. There is an increased responsibility at the municipal level and a reduction at the provincial level.
MR. ARTHUR: An increased responsibility at the municipal level that they have asked for, though. We don't go in and say, you know, this one needs to be. . .
MR. MACKINNON: Well, let's just shift the focus just slightly then because I would have to take issue with that, quite frankly, because there is one beach in my constituency, the Mira Gut Beach. I recall when I first approached the province for some lifeguard service there, I was told that it was too dangerous because it was at the mouth of the river going into the ocean, even though there is a large, federal breakwater there.
Then they took the lifeguard service away from the East Bay Beach because they say, even though they had the same amount of usage, it wasn't that dangerous. It was contradiction in logic, as far as I could make out. They are saying, you don't need a lifeguard service because it is too safe and on the other hand they say you don't need one because it would only entice more people to come and it would be too dangerous.
Despite that type of logic that came out of Sport and Recreation, we ended up getting lifeguard service. Upwards of several hundred people a day use that in the summertime. It has been a very successful recreational and marketing tool for the community, for people both local and from away.
I guess that begs the question, what type of written criteria do you have to be able to make these assessments, and will you provide them to members of the committee, regardless of whether you have your own criteria and the Department of Natural Resources have theirs, and the lifeguards? Do you have the information written for yourselves and for the other departments, and do you assess it on a point system or what?
It seems, in the Mira Gut Beach area, and I am sure up in the Richmond County area, it defied all logic. Despite that type of logic that came out of Sport and Recreation, we ended up with lifeguard service and probably some of the best lifeguard service anywhere in the province.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Arthur, do you have a response to that?
MR. ARTHUR: There are a variety of perspectives on your answers. First of all, we rely on the Lifesaving Society to determine the safety of any conditions at any given beach. They have a clear criteria which they use to assess the safety conditions and we can provide you with that. We are not the experts so we take their advice on that.
A number of communities around the province will ask to have the lifeguards and we take the Lifesaving Society responsibility seriously because we feel it is an obligation to inform a community of the conditions of the beach. Sometimes communities are convinced by use that they should have - and I can't remember - I do remember it being quite topical, the Mira Gut situation.
MR. MACKINNON: You recall that one. You've been there for 18 years. You recall it being rejected? In the end, we ended up with lifeguards. As far as we could make out, it was nothing but a political decision not to give them. That is my concern, when we are talking about the health and safety of people, that politics enters into the equation.
I don't mean to sound partisan about it but it's a fact. When you are dealing with people's lives, you don't play politics. That is my concern, sir, whether it be East Bay, Point Michaud or any other beach across Nova Scotia. How do you establish those priorities? If the others are doing it on an evaluation process, we need clarity, so that people in these respective communities can have that quality assurance. You can appreciate the importance of that.
MR. ARTHUR: Again, the details of the Mira Gut situation, I would have to go back and look at. Because a swimming area is popularly used by citizens of the community does
not necessarily make it a safe area for swimming. We rely on the Lifesaving Society, as I said, to assess the conditions. If they indicate, look, it doesn't meet the criteria because of rip tide . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Well, my understanding is that in this case they did. That is the point I am making. I was an active proponent of pushing for the lifeguard service. This was a new beach, okay? The lifeguard service, I had direct contact with them and they said, yes, it warranted lifeguard service. It was a political decision.
Okay, we will leave that for now. I guess I want to shift the focus just slightly. With regard to the February 1st deadline that you referred to, is there any flexibility on that deadline? If you don't have the application by that date, you're off for another fiscal year?
MR. MOLLOY: Well, indeed, that's true. The problem is that we have to begin the process of ranking these applications and we can't be accepting applications after the fact because the process will break down.
We do have a minor program. It is called the Community Recreation Capital Grant Program. It is designed for small, sort of emergency kinds of events that happen. Say you've got a community hall and the furnace blows on them, and it's November, December. We have a minor program that the regional people administer for small amounts of money that can help deal with these kinds of emergency cases.
By establishing a deadline, we cause the applicant to work through a planning process to basically establish what their needs are and the kind of development or facility that needs to be built. It sets a kind of schedule by which a group can work.
[9:00 a.m.]
MR. MACKINNON: I can appreciate that because you have to budget for the upcoming year and there is a lot of detail. But I would submit that there should be some flexibility because there is flexibility at the federal level and the municipal level, of which they are one-third partners.
At no point in time have I seen them so rigid that if you are halfway through the fiscal year and you have a rather - I hate to use the word, complex - but detailed proposal that has a lot of factors to it that just couldn't meet that initial deadline, but people within the various levels of government knew that it was in the works and it was coming forward within a reasonable period of time, whether it be for architectural engineering reasons, or whatever, that it was held up. Why isn't that type of flexibility there with the province?
MR. MOLLOY: Well, our clients, our prospective applicants, they work with the regional reps, they understand early on about this deadline and they work to that deadline.
Invariably, the late summer, early fall, there is this kind of process of developing applications that takes place. If a project is conceived in the spring after the deadline is over, well, really, if it is a significant application, they need that time, the summer, fall, Christmas kind of period to actually prepare the application, work through the planning process. We require a number of different attachments to be included.
MR. MACKINNON: Now, when you are approving these grants, do you collaborate with the federal and provincial agencies for the employment programs? Do you collaborate with them as well?
MR. MOLLOY: Not necessarily for the employment programs but, certainly, the federal government does have some funding through ACOA and ECBC, as in the case of Cape Breton.
MR. MACKINNON: But you don't collaborate to find out if you are able to hire extra lifeguards or an extra student for the summer at a recreational facility?
MR. MOLLOY: Well, in terms of the facility development, we are not too concerned about employment. But if an applicant indicates that, for instance, ACOA is going to put x number of dollars into it, we will actually call the ACOA person and discuss with them the realities of their funding and so on, and make sure - there is that level of discussion. Also, in the infrastructure there are some discussions that take place between us.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The time has expired for the Liberal caucus. We will now turn to the PC caucus. The time is 9:03 a.m. You have 20 minutes. Mr. Taylor.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank our guests for coming this morning. Firstly, I guess, I would like to say that I was a little surprised by the comments made by the member for the NDP caucus in his not-so-veiled criticism of this government's decision to put funding into a new stadium with two ice surfaces in Yarmouth and, of course, to support the Springhill facility. Of all the members in the Legislature, that member should know from his own participation in physical activity, i.e. ice hockey, that the communities absolutely need, rely and are very much dependent on those facilities.
I recall back in the early 1970s, playing some very - put those teeth back in now, Bill (Laughter) I remember playing some very competitive hockey in Yarmouth and the facility at that time, in the early 1970s, late 1960s, was largely over-utilized. That old, you might say, make-shift agriculture barn really served right to the maximum capacity at every game that you attended. The people in Yarmouth really do come out to support their hockey teams, even in intermediate hockey and today, with the Junior A Yarmouth Mariners. I am telling you.
So I was a little bit miffed and quite disappointed in the comments and line of questioning that the honourable member put forward to our guest, Mr. Chairman. You know, we could hypothesize and daydream for some time and wonder, what would the NDP ever do if, by some misfortune they did become government, how would they put these lists together? I mean, when you have a community that has waited and struggled for years and years to replace an aging facility - and Springhill, the case where they had the very tragic events, where the building essentially collapsed, of course, I would say on this government's watch, I have observed, very closely, the monies and funding that has gone out to these communities when, in fact, it was so needed.
As well, the recreation facility development grants, I know that some facilities in my riding have received some monies and they really appreciate it. I think of a little small community, Lemmon Hill, up in Dean, Halifax County. They have a little sports facility, Mr. Chairman, that's used nearly every day of the week. Whether they're having a hoedown, recreational time, bingo or - you know, they have a little sportsplex there - it wouldn't be known to the honourable member across the way.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Question. (Laughter)
MR. TAYLOR: I'm getting to the question. I guess I would like to know - I did want to make those comments but where I would like to go, Mr. Chairman, with the line of questioning is - I think it is an understatement to say that the province's investment in recreational facilities is of great benefit to municipalities and communities in the municipal units. But I notice that the HRM has a pretty active and involved recreation staff, themselves.
I am wondering if you find from time to time that there is a certain amount of duplication that may take place. I know, recently, I attended a meeting out in Carrolls Corner, Halifax Regional Municipality, regarding a project that the community is working on there, and there was a staff member or staff members from the HRM in attendance that were working with the community and, in turn, I trust going to work with the regional office for that application.
I am wondering, do you find with the HRM, maybe, and the province that you may not need to do as many assessments or as detailed an assessment as you normally would do for a municipal unit that, perhaps, doesn't have a strong recreation department like HRM has?
MR. MOLLOY: Well, you know, we work as a team with HRM and our regional person and myself, as well, work with the staff there on a daily basis. We have slightly different perspectives but that is a very positive kind of thing to - we contribute greatly to the clients. The reality is that we are trying to accomplish improvements in these facilities and I think that both the municipality and the province can accomplish great things by working together. There is no real duplicity, I don't believe.
MR. TAYLOR: You don't feel there is any?
MR. MOLLOY: No. We have different perspectives. We work together in many ways and there are different issues that we have to deal with.
MR. TAYLOR: The federal government, not too long ago, made some changes to the old federal sport and recreation Act, or whatever it was, to now the Physical Activity and Sport Act. I'm just wondering, is there some implication there, like for the province - I know it is, perhaps, more talk at this point than action but I just wondered if that new piece of legislation - you know, if you feel it has some teeth, if it has some clout, does it give the province stronger intervention or just, maybe, has no impact at all?
MR. ARTHUR: In the last couple of years the federal government, in collaboration with the province, has established a new federal sport policy. The new Act that went through Parliament recently and was proclaimed is one part of that. The implications for facilities, I think, are primarily going to come as a result of - one of the key areas they want to work on is a national hosting strategy, as to how various events in Canada are hosted and who gets to host them, where, and I think the federal government gets quite inundated with requests from various parts of Canada to assist with hosting major events, whether it's the Commonwealth Games, whether it's under-19 soccer, whether it's the World Canoe Championships or various kinds of national championships.
I think what the attempt is going to be, as opposed to having provinces and municipalities competing against each other, is possibly to develop a longer term strategy where that is spread across the country and then the infrastructure that goes with that can also then be spread across the country. But that's just in its beginning discussions right now.
MR. TAYLOR: Just a last question there, Mr. Chairman, for now. I will yield to my colleague, the member for Sackville-Beaver Bank. Over the years, and still we hear complaints at the constituency level that in terms of minor sport, amateur sport, unless you're an elite athlete or you have the potential to become somewhat renowned on a national or maybe even provincial stage, parents complain and students complain that there just really are not the supports out there in the programs and, like you said, there are so many requests and so much funding, but I'm just wondering if, in fact, the department recognizes that concern out there and whether or not there may be any hope down the road, if you will, for help for the true amateur minor sport athlete.
MR. ARTHUR: Are you talking in terms of facilities or in general?
MR. TAYLOR: I'm talking, I guess, in general. Sometimes many teams from this province, for example, will go to represent the province in some type of a Canadian championship. It might even subsequently be North American but unless it seems to have a fairly large profile, there doesn't seem to be the support. The community chips in and maybe
the municipality, but there doesn't seem to be and there hasn't been - it's not a knock on this government any more than past governments but I'm just asking if it is recognized at the department level.
MR. ARTHUR: If I judge it by the volume of requests that come in, I would certainly say we would recognize the demands that are out there and the pressures for sports teams to operate their organizations, to send their teams to representative championships, whether that be provincial, regional, national or sometimes international. We don't have enough money to be able to support them all. I think at one point we counted the requests from softball alone and had up to 30 different kinds of championships - men, women, co-ed, different age groups, et cetera - where they wanted to send teams. We provide core funding to many of these provincial sport organizations and then they have to determine the most effective way in which they can spend that money. We will help them if they ask for our help but there just isn't the volume of money to be able to support all of the teams that want to travel to all the places they want to travel.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We will now turn our attention to Barry Barnet, the honourable member for Sackville-Beaver Bank. You have approximately 10 minutes.
MR. BARRY BARNET: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me say that I think all members recognize and understand the great value that we get from the Sport and Recreation Commission on this program and other programs that are offered but I'm a little bit surprised the Opposition never asked the questions that I'd expect they would ask so let me. First of all, how much does it cost to administer this program on a percentage of the budget - after all, this committee is to look at value for dollar - and can you give us a figure?
MR. ARTHUR: I'm not sure we can give you an exact figure but let's put it this way. Staff-wise, we have a dedicated person in the main office and then a significant portion of our regional office workload, certainly not all of it, certainly not even half, but a significant portion, if you want to describe that as the administration involved in delivering the program, that's where it is.
MR. BARNET: In terms of actual cost, do you have a breakdown or a ratio of 10 per cent, 20 per cent, 30 per cent, or something like that? (Interruption)
MR. ARTHUR: Let's say it's $2 million a year in the grant program. To administer that, it wouldn't be more than 10 per cent.
[9:15 a.m.]
MR. BARNET: Good. Do we know approximately how much money this program annually levers from other sources, including the in-kind stuff that community groups donate
because obviously if it is one-third, and I suspect you simply couldn't do the math, our contribution times three, do we know how much it is?
MR. MOLLOY: I will say right off the bat it is very rarely actually one-third. It's usually into 20 per cent, our contribution. The applicant needs to find the additional funds. It's made up of often volunteer labour and donated materials and so on from local businesses. Frequently we get municipalities that will contribute. Councillors and so on will contribute in the case of HRM. Infrequently we have the federal government that will provide funds as well.
MR. BARNET: In terms of the programs that are approved, I believe it's not exclusive to new construction and new projects. It includes . . .
MR. MOLLOY: Really, much of our focus is on the conservation of existing facilities. In the 1960s and 1970s, we built a large number of our recreational facilities and they are suffering significantly now and really much of our focus is on that conservation. We do build new facilities, or assist in building new facilities as well, of course, but it would be a minority of the projects that we fund.
MR. BARNET: A number of members mentioned facilities like Yarmouth and Springhill. This weekend I had the opportunity to visit a facility in Port Hawkesbury, Centennial facility, and there are a number of these Centennial facilities that are now 36 years old. Without doing a detailed examination of the Port Hawkesbury Arena, it was obvious to my untrained eyes that that facility is seriously lacking in terms of its ability to provide service in a safe way. It would seem to me, in the best interest of the Town of Port Hawkesbury and the Province of Nova Scotia and everybody, that there would be some focus on life cycle management and some focus on trying to extend the useful life out of these facilities. I guess what I'm asking, as an architect, surely there must be some way that we can assist these communities and these areas, groups, to extend these facilities and do we provide some assistance in terms of technical support and funding towards this?
MR. MOLLOY: Indeed, we realize that the conservation of these facilities is really one of the best ways to try to maintain access to sport and recreation facilities. We have a program, it's called life cycle planning, and essentially we encourage the building owners to work through a process to evaluate their building and try to forecast the replacement of their various components. We provide financial assistance in the form of planning assistance to hire civil engineers, architects, to come into a building like the Port Hawkesbury facility or the many other major arenas and pools in the province and they prepare a preliminary document that looks at the various components of the buildings and then forecast their replacement. Then it's up to the owner to sit back and try to figure out the ways to deal with the issues that are identified.
The civil engineering firms prioritize these, based on public health and safety being the highest priority, and invariably, the owner attempts to deal with those public health and safety issues early on. Through our RFD program, we consider that a priority and when we receive applications based on the life cycle plans based on the request by the owner, we try to respond to that in the form of a grant. They need to, of course, apply to us and work through the procedure and so on but we do have documented information prepared by civil engineering firms and architectural firms that prioritize the conservation of these major facilities.
MR. BARNET: Two more quick areas, if I can shift a little bit of focus. It's been my experience, particularly with respect to application processes, that there's a competing interest often for these funds - municipalities versus community groups and organizations. We see in HRM, sometimes, where they come together, where the community group is actually brought together through the municipality, but not always. Often it's a community group that makes an application on their own, outside of HRM's application process and I know that HRM tries to somewhat control their own application process. How do you weigh or balance those competing interests? Often community groups seem as if they're, from their perspective, not getting their fair share. So how do you balance that off?
MR. MOLLOY: Our review criteria is intended to be an objective process. It is an objective process. The balance comes in in evaluating each application on its merits, on the factors that have been identified as the requirements. In the case of HRM, we actually do ask HRM their opinion about all of the applications. We do that for every municipality. If the Town of Kentville had several applications from other community groups in the area, we will speak to the municipal government and say, what is your view? We see the municipalities as having a very good window into the recreation needs of their communities, and we seek that information in every case. Ultimately, it does fall back to the review factors that we've established. As I said, each application is reviewed on its merit, based on these factors.
MR. BARNET: My final question before I pass it off to one of my colleagues is, earlier on you said that you develop the process and how much money goes to which area based on a percentage of applications received, and . . .
MR. MOLLOY: Total requests.
MR. BARNET: . . . it seems to me that there is somewhat of a flaw in that process, that in fact those areas that happen to be on the ball and keyed up to making applications inherently will get more. What could happen is one region over another, based on the fact that they apply for more, get more. How do you guard against one particular region simply making application for everything so that they're able to get a greater percentage. By using this percentage of application process, in essence what you could have, if 50 per cent of the applications came from HRM, for example, 50 per cent of the money could go to HRM. I see a bit of a risk there. Many of these applications may not have warrant. Maybe they don't meet the total criteria, but by using a percentage of applications, in essence, what you're doing is
you're weighting that area just based on the fact that they asked for it. So, it's first come, first served, in essence.
MR. MOLLOY: Our regional reps are our filter. They work with each of these groups and through that process of preparing the application they determine whether or not it's truly a legitimate, eligible request. I trust their professionalism. They work as a team between themselves for the ultimate goals of the province overall. The reps basically filter these applications to make sure that that inequity doesn't occur.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I did omit from the introduction portion of this meeting Mora Stevens, clerk for the committee. I apologize for that, Mora, and thank you for your assistance to the committee. We have an opportunity to go with 10 minute rounds, and that will allow a few minutes for a wrap-up from you gentlemen. We will go directly to the NDP. It is 9:24 a.m.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Mr. Chairman, no reflection on that term, round, but I have a few more questions. I would like to begin with a comment by Tony Martin. I refer to Tony Martin again, my goodness I wish he was here. Page 25 of the May 23, 2002 comment about funding, "Saskatchewan and Manitoba are two provinces that probably led the way in terms of how much of a commitment they have made." He's referring to funding. "Their budgets for somewhat comparable-sized provinces far exceed what we have available."
If my colleague, the member for Cape Breton Nova, was here, he would be making reference, of course, to Saskatchewan, the government they have, et cetera. What do we have to learn from the Saskatchewan or the Manitoba experience when it comes to funding for sport and recreation? (Interruptions)
MR. ARTHUR: That's an interesting observation, and it's been made a number of times. My conclusion, I think our conclusion, on that is that money alone does not get you results. Yes, a province like Saskatchewan - and Manitoba to some extent - has used lottery dollars and continues to use lottery dollars and dedicates that to sport and recreation. They have done that for 20, 25 years. The Atlantic Provinces, contrary to many people's opinions, do not use lottery dollars for sport and recreation. It goes into general revenue. That decision was made in 1976, after the Olympics, when the federal government passed over responsibility to the provinces. It was provincial discretion as to what to do with those funds. The provinces west of Ontario, Ontario and west, chose to dedicate it to sport and recreation.
To use a province like Saskatchewan, which is very comparable in size to our own population, and I can tell you that by tracking rates of participation in physical activity, by tracking performance results at national events like the Canada Games that, for whatever the reason, the enhanced funding does not enable them to do any better at events like the Canada Games and, in fact, their rates of inactivity are comparable or even higher than that of Nova Scotia, depending on the particular year that you look at. While it's tempting to say, gee, let's try to duplicate the Saskatchewan model and level of investment, I think we have to look at return for dollar on that.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Mike, I can't believe you're saying that. I've travelled to Yorkton, I've been there on volleyball exchanges, I see the good bang they're getting for their buck. I'm not talking about medals at Canada Games. That's not the issue here at all. I recall that first lottery ticket I bought, and I knew why I was buying it, because those profits were going to be designated for a particular cause. Now, we have a situation here in this province where we're underfunded. You're in the position of being able to say, and you've said it a couple of times here today, along with Mr. Molloy, that we're in need of dollars. To designate the monies that would be coming out of this particular lottery would be appropriate, because the Saskatchewan example is a very valuable one and it's a good one, in my view, having been there and seen the reciprocal action. We're talking about a province that geographically, not just population, has a much more challenged situation than we do.
However, I would like to change gears if I could, please. I would like to quote directly, again, from this transcript but not Tony on this occasion. I want to talk about the participation rate of young people. You're quoted, Mr. Arthur, in this transcript, Page 15, that ". . . they're just doing the crunching now to come up to what percentage of kids meet that standard of 60 to 90 minutes a day." You're talking about a data set involving kids in Grades 3, 7 and 11. I attended the press conference the minister had in the north end of Halifax, and I saw the glitz and the goals.
Here's the issue, should we not have, in this province, as one of the credited courses in high school a physical education course? Please don't bring up PAL, Physically Active Lifestyles. Unless you have the facilities in your schools, it's a joke. Phys. ed. teachers will tell you that, school principals will tell you that. What's your view on having a compulsory, as one of the credits that kids have to get out of high school, physical education course?
MR. ARTHUR: We've looked at that quite closely in combination with our colleagues in the Department of Education, and I would agree that physical education on a daily basis that's mandatory would enhance the physical activity levels of our children and youth now and into adulthood. The evidence and the research that has been done into that particular form of intervention, mandatory phys. ed., shows that it has those kinds of results. It's not enough just to do phys. ed., phys. ed. alone cannot solve the inactivity crisis among our children and youth.
MR. ESTABROOKS: But would you admit that it would be a start?
[9:30 a.m.]
MR. ARTHUR: You can't do it without it but you also can't just do that. It has to be complemented by after-school activities, it has to be complemented by public education campaigns, it has to be complemented by access to facilities in school and outside of school. It is not a one-shot solution but, yes, it would be a good investment. Having said that, there are considerable costs, staff and facility-wise, to implementing that and at this point in time there is no province in Canada, with the possible exception of Quebec, which has mandatory daily physical education.
The point that needs to be made about physical education is that it cannot be the traditional physical education that perhaps all of us participated in as we went through school, which was largely based on a sport model. It needs to change its focus to become more of a lifetime activity model which includes sport but also includes a variety of other things. Many of the youth that we consulted with around the province during our Active Kids, Healthy Kids strategy are looking for other options, outdoor activities, dance activities, those kinds of things.
So the phys. ed. curriculum needs to change and I think there is a recognition that that's true and, yet, there should be some policies in place to get it up from, you know, your twice a week in elementary and junior high, and only 15 per cent of high school students taking physical education.
MR. ESTABROOKS: How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have two minutes.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Two minutes. Having spoken to some of the coaches that returned from the Canada Games, I think there were wonderful opportunities, tremendous participation, our kids have much to be proud of. But I can tell you that there are some of these volunteer coaches who are very frustrated with the amount of assistance that they don't receive.
Now I know it's up to each and every particular sport or venue to decide how those dollars are going to be applied for, but would it not be a common-sense policy initiated by the Sport and Recreation Commission to assist every volunteer coach with his or her travel? Just based upon the fact of so many klicks per, particularly when they are preparing for such an important national event.
As one particular coach said to me, when it comes to getting funding from Sport and Recreation, the whole process - his words - is not user-friendly. Is it possible to have a policy across the board when it comes to preparing for such national events that volunteer coaches would receive so much per klick for their various travels around the province, coaching, recruiting, and so on?
MR. CHAIRMAN: A one-minute answer, please.
MR. ARTHUR: Well, anything is possible, given the resources that can be allocated. Whether that would be the best use of resources, we have never looked at that particular situation. There are a lot of volunteers volunteering in a wide range of activities, Girl Guides, Scouts, sports, outdoor activities, and there are a lot of out-of-pocket expenses. There is no question that people are taking out of their own pocket to subsidize these activities. The cost to the taxpayer to subsidize that could be considerable. Would it be a good investment? We would have to look into that more.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacKinnon, are you representing the Liberal caucus? You have the lead.
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm looking at Page 141 of the Supplement to the Public Accounts. I notice the Sport and Recreation Commission issued under Grants and Contributions, total sum of $37,334.18 to the Department of Justice. Could you explain what that is for?
MR. ARTHUR: Yes. One of the initiatives that the commission became involved with in the last several years is the whole issue of fair play. That, if members will remember, was touched off by an incident involving a Native youth playing hockey, I think, in the northern part of our province a number of years ago. As a result of that, an examination of our sports system, we felt that more education and policy development was needed among minor sports organizations and some public education around fair play.
The link to the Department of Justice is that we were able to identify an individual, Mark Smith, who was an employee of the Department of Justice, but a coach and an athlete at the world championship level in softball and a dedicated advocate of fair play, became kind of the fair play ambassador for the province, if you will. So a secondment arrangement was developed between Justice and the Sport and Recreation Commission and that's what the $37,000 was for.
MR. MACKINNON: Okay, very good. I may have missed it, but we have several Native communities across Nova Scotia and I notice that there isn't one grant from Sport and Recreation to any of these Native communities. Is there any particular reason why?
MR. ARTHUR: It may not appear in that particular supplement. I know over the years that I have been involved in the commission, there have been grants to Native reserves for facilities but I think in addition to the facilities area that through our regional offices, some Native communities have been assisted. If they want to hire a recreation director, we have sometimes assisted them with start-up funds to do that. Lately we have been more involved in supporting a provincial organization called the Aboriginal Sport and Recreation Circle which is trying to improve recreation, sport, physical activity opportunities on reserves, particularly with the rising incidence of Type II diabetes. Among Native populations, there is an increased need for physical activity levels to try to combat that problem.
Within our active kids/healthy kids strategy currently, one of the active school community sites we are looking at is a pilot site on a Native reserve and right now they are in discussions among themselves as to which reserve would have an active school community site which would see the recreation people, the education folks and the health people collaborating to get more physical activity. So all of those will result in some dollars, not huge dollars, going into those sites.
MR. MACKINNON: Yes, and that's very important, particularly since you mentioned the issue of diabetes. I couldn't help but notice, it was a glaring omission of well over 100-some contributions. There wasn't one to any Native community here. So what you are saying is something is contemplated.
MR. ARTHUR: And there has been prior to that. I'm sure if we went back through the former, we would find facilities, Dave, I'm not sure.
MR. MOLLOY: Yes, there definitely has been money, just specific halls, I think Eskasoni Arena, for instance, was funded in part by the commission. There hasn't been any in the last couple of years.
MR. MACKINNON: Nothing in recent years, right. Also, next year is going to be the 400th Anniversary, I believe, of the Acadian community, Acadian congress. What active role is the Sport and Recreation Commission playing in terms of making a substantive contribution to that program or that very eventful initiative?
MR. ARTHUR: I think there are two responses. One is that ever since I've been around, the Acadian Games, which is an annual event hosted either in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and possibly P.E.I., has been supported, a Nova Scotia team has been supported by the Sport and Recreation Commission on an annual basis.
MR. MACKINNON: Do you know under what title that would be?
MR. ARTHUR: Les Jeux de l'Acadie. My French is not very . . .
MR. MACKINNON: My colleague, the member for Preston, has been very helpful. There is suspicion that he may apply as a researcher for the Liberal caucus office.
MR. HENDSBEE: You need the help. (Laughter)
MR. MACKINNON: Fortunately, we don't have an application out.
MR. ARTHUR: The 400th Anniversary you are referring to, I have heard of this before but I'm not aware of any initiative that we are involved with although we have a sport consultant who works with Les Jeux de' l'Acadie on that.
MR. MOLLOY: I just would add that I think Mike Trinacty has been working with the people in Clare on some aspects of that activity. I don't know the details of it. He's our regional person in the Valley.
MR. MACKINNON: I think that's very important because I know ever since, like on the arts and culture side, the Acadian community was always represented on that council and now with the advisory council to the minister, there is no representation for the Acadian community and I was a little disappointed given the fact that we have a Minister of the Crown who speaks specifically to the issue on Acadians. So I'm quite concerned that we make sure that we capitalize on not just the importance of this event for the Acadian community and the French community in general but for all Nova Scotia because it's such a very important matter; I know within the Town of Louisbourg, the Fortress of Louisbourg and the history there. I think all members of the House would readily agree that we should play as active a role as possible in making sure that that is before us.
I want to go back a little more to the issue on the federal-provincial employment programs. Could you expand on how many applications would generally come in that you would collaborate with the provincial program. More point specific, in the last year, how many applications did you receive, let's say for example, the Little Red Schoolhouse Program, and how many were approved? Can you tell us that?
MR. MOLLOY: The Little Red Schoolhouse, actually, has been changed to the Community Recreation Capital Grant Program. We were finding that the Little Red Schoolhouse Program was designed solely for community halls, for minor renovations to community halls and we were finding that there were other minor projects that were coming up that really had no ability for us to respond to unless we put them off until the RFD season came around, and we discussed that earlier. So we changed the Little Red Schoolhouse Program. It's essentially using the same money but broadened it to include other non-hall kinds of projects.
MR. MACKINNON: For example?
MR. MOLLOY: Well, there might be a backstop that's blown over in a community and they would approach the regional person and apply, using an application, and essentially a similar sort of criteria that's used and would receive a minor grant. I think the maximum is $3,000. So it was kind of a new version of the Little Red Schoolhouse Program.
MR. MACKINNON: I was looking at the Little Red Schoolhouse Program, which obviously you changed the title of. Not very much money was put into that program province-wide. Is there any particular reason? Maybe we will take an undertaking from yourselves, if you could indicate how many applications we had last year and how many were approved and the dollar value. We have the one in the supplements here. It doesn't amount to very much, probably about $20,000 or $30,000, which is not much.
MR. MOLLOY: What we do is, it all comes out of the same account that the main RFD program is funded under, and what we do is we set aside $120,000 each year and then we have six regions so we provide $20,000 to each region for this program. As I say, the regional reps administer the program, I oversee it essentially, and when they use up their $20,000 per region, then essentially they are spent out for that fiscal year and they have to wait until the following year.
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you very kindly.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The time has now expired for the Liberal caucus and we will turn to the PC caucus. I believe Jon Carey, you are the lead for the first part of questioning.
MR. JON CAREY: Mr. Chairman, I have some concern and questions regarding major projects. It looks to me like you have approximately $7 million in projects that are already before you, maybe more than that, but major projects where they are looking for funding. Somebody who is working on projects now, and if they are mega projects, does this put them at a disadvantage, for example, if you were looking for, you say you go to about one-third sometimes on grants, if you are looking at say a $2 million or $3 million project, not the project but from your resources, so if you are looking at a $9 million project, how would you be getting into the circle, I guess, and how far are you going to be put off?
MR. MOLLOY: Do you want to try that one, Mike, or do you want me?
[9:45 a.m.]
MR. ARTHUR: I'll start. We can't deal with those major facility requests within the context of the approximately $2 million budget that we have for RFD. One of those projects alone would swamp the budget and leave nothing for the rest of the province. So when an application like that comes in, we take the application and try to make it as good an application as possible, the best planning that goes into it, and then it's brought to the government and we try to find alternative funding, or supplemental funding sources, whether
that be through federal infrastructure programs, whether they are through economic development agreements. There are a variety of ways, and there is no single pat formula for any particular one of those. But that's kind of the approach that we have to take with any of those major facility applications. But we do try to ensure that we are the ones who receive the applications so that they are coordinated with the other applications and the minister can try to deal with them systematically.
MR. CAREY: So right now, at least the information I have, it looks like you have at least five major projects for arenas and aquatic centres and so on. So if a project is working and the community is significantly behind it and has raised their one-third or whatever, or in excess of that, then are they going to be put in - I guess what I'm looking at here, who is going to make the decision or are these other five projects going to get done before these even get looked at?
MR. ARTHUR: I think in general we would use the same criteria that we used for the other facilities to evaluate each project. Then, based on any number of circumstances, community need, condition of the existing facility, population growth in a particular area, deficiencies in a facility in that particular area, at the end of the day, if there were five or six, then there might be one or two that might emerge as Yarmouth did in its day because of all of those factors.
MR. CAREY: Before I pass it to my colleague, when you look at programs that you are giving out there, as Mr. Estabrooks discussed about elite athletes and so on, is the emphasis on providing facilities and programs for all Nova Scotians? How is it weighted? Is our goal to provide exercise and good health and all of those good things and programs to all levels of abilities or how do we weight that?
MR. MOLLOY: We certainly want to try to ensure that the projects are equitable and fair. In fact, that's one of our main areas, that we try to ensure that everyone has access to these, in the case of facility development. We have these review factors which we base our decisions on and each applicant is weighed using these criteria. You know certainly we are concerned about young women at home with children, people who are disabled, or the many various groups that have the right to access facilities, we try to attend to that and ensure that their needs are also responded to.
MR. CAREY: Do you have any breakdown of percentage of how it goes, say for last year? Would you have any idea?
MR. MOLLOY: Many of our facilities are multi-use and multi-purpose. A person in a wheelchair or a mother at home with children, they get to use these facilities. It's kind of hard to break it down.
MR. CAREY: Thank you. I will pass to my colleague.
MR. HENDSBEE: I will ask a series of questions, allowing time for him to answer. Could you clarify your participation in the Sport and Recreation Commission when it comes to the Canada-Nova Scotia Infrastructure Program? With the multiple departments participating with this program, is there a separate budget allocated for that, or is there participation from the various departments that accumulates the budget for the infrastructure program? Sometimes you're going to have highways, you're going to have sports facilities, community facilities, water and sewer projects. How does your department participate in the allocation of funds from the infrastructure program?
My second question was about priorities and establishing priorities, and waiting for municipalities to come forward or community groups for their facilities. I've been eagerly watching and awaiting the arena facility capacity study HRM has been doing in regard to a second ice surface for the eastern region, between Cole Harbour and Musquodoboit. Should it be another ice pad in Musquodoboit or a new arena, a stand-alone facility, somewhere
in the Porters Lake or Mineville or Lake Echo area, or should it be part of the Musquodoboit arena?
The question with that, though, is now there are discussions or an offer in HRM of a private consortium to build a triplex for metro, how does that come into the mix in regard to the arena facilities and priorities? Also for Bedford-Fall River, the feasibility of the Rocky Lake Recreation Association saying put one in there, plus the St. Margaret's Arena, all for a second ice pad there.
My third and final question, to quote from Field of Dreams, "If you build it, they will come." Talking about a stadium for attracting Commonwealth Games or PanAm Games, or a Metro Centre II, what kinds of discussions have we had with those? (Interruptions)
MR. MOLLOY: With respect to infrastructure, the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations administers that jointly with the federal government. They do have their own funds, provincial dollars, that go towards their portion of the projects that take place. They're essentially 50/50 splits between the federal government and the province through Municipal Services. I will say that occasionally RFD money has been put with that. In the case of Springhill, for instance, it is an infrastructure project, and I think there's $500,000 from our program going to deal with the construction, but it is considered separately from the infrastructure money.
I would say also that we work fairly closely with the staff, especially with Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations and also the federal people. They ask our opinion about the projects that they receive. We frequently work with these groups. Certainly in the case of Springhill, we worked with them directly in terms of the planning and so on. They seek our advice in their considerations for their infrastructure projects.
The question of the triplex, that certainly is something that has arisen in recent months. I will say that we've always believed that there maybe is a role to be played, especially in the urban centres, for private sector major facility development. It was somewhat of a surprise when we heard about it. We've actually contacted HRM through their Real Properties Division and sought additional information. Certainly when you look within the metropolitan area, it is clear that there is a demand for additional ice time. As you say, there certainly have been several applications concerning dealing with that question of additional ice time. We've gone to HRM and asked to have some discussions about where that project is and their view on the impact on these other applications.
I think the project is still under development by HRM, and they have been a bit reticent to discuss it with us. I think that in the near future they're going to be talking to us further about it. Especially in the urban centres, I think there is a role for third party facility development. In the case of rural Nova Scotia, that's just not going to happen, though. Obviously.
The third question was . . .
MR. HENDSBEE: "If you build it, they will come." Stadiums and the Metro Centre II.
MR. ARTHUR: We both may have some opinions on that, "If you build it, they will come." There are a lot of white elephants in North America that were built on that premise. I think you have to be very careful and do your planning well before one takes a leap and says, let's build it and they will come, so that we can avoid having those. At the end of the day, the province can help with the capital construction, with the feds. In some ways, that may be the easy part, but it's usually the local and municipal level that has to operate it. That's the costly part at the end of the day. The last thing we want to do is build it, hoping they will come, and then the municipality says, you downloaded something else on us. I wouldn't agree with just build it and they will come. It needs to be more carefully planned than that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We're nearing the end of the session for today. I could allow you perhaps four minutes for a wrap-up, if you wish, gentlemen. Would either one of you like to say a few words in closing?
MR. MOLLOY: I just really have one last comment from my perspective, that our role is to try to help our communities plan for facilities that are scaled properly to their needs and to try to develop these facilities at a pace that's possible through the present fiscal realities that we face here in the province. Our job is to help our communities figure out what's needed and a process for that development.
MR. ARTHUR: Just to summarize, I would say that we have to keep in mind that facilities are not an end in themselves, facilities are a means to an end. If we want to get more people active, if we want to get more athletes participating, there are a variety of ways to do that, one of which is facilities. We are seeing a change though. If we want to get more people active, traditionally it was arenas, pools, playgrounds, tennis courts, but we're starting to see that getting more people active may also mean that we have to consider things like trails, trails that are convenient and close to home, looking at active transportation systems so people can walk and bike to school or to work. Those need to be considered in the future as a means to get a more active population.
I think our Facility Grant Program and also the work we do in a policy way with other government departments, like Education on community use of schools, Transportation and Public Works, Natural Resources on parks, are equally as important in trying to build the facility or the physical infrastructure to get a more active population.
MR. CHAIRMAN: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank both of you gentlemen for coming here today. We certainly recognize the importance of your work, as you well know. We wish you all the success in the future.
Next week we will be sitting here with the Emergency Measures Organization representatives on the subject of 911. I will now entertain a motion to adjourn.
MR. MACKINNON: So moved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We stand adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 9:57 a.m.]
