Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

AGENCY REVIEW

SCIENCE NORTH

CONTENTS

Wednesday 20 January 1993

Agency review

Science North

Dr Lloyd Douglas Reed, chair

James Marchbank, chief executive officer

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

*Chair / Président: Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)

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

*Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)

Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)

*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)

Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)

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

*Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)

*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)

Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC)

*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay ND)

Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Abel, Donald (Wentworth North/-Nord ND) for Mr Ferguson

Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND) for Mr Wiseman

Sterling, Norman W. (Carleton PC) for Mr Stockwell

Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Mr Waters

Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn

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

The committee met at 1007 in committee room 2.

AGENCY REVIEW

Consideration of the operations of certain agencies, boards and commissions.

SCIENCE NORTH

The Chair (Mr Robert W. Runciman): I will call the meeting to order. The only agenda item this morning, as members are aware, is the appearance of witnesses from Science North: Lloyd Douglas Reed, the chair of the board of trustees, and Jim Marchbank, whom most of us met yesterday as the CEO of Science North. I welcome you both to Toronto.

Just once again, for the record, I'd say to Mr Marchbank how much we appreciated the hospitality of the Science North staff yesterday. We very much appreciated the time you and others gave up to show us around the facility. It was very enjoyable indeed.

I don't know if you'd like to say something at the outset. Mr Reed, would you like to say something before we get into questioning?

Dr Lloyd Douglas Reed: Yes, I would, Mr Chairman. Thank you very much.

First of all, I'm delighted to be here with Jim Marchbank, chief executive officer of Science North, to talk about a subject very close to our hearts: Science North. We thank you for your interest.

You have a lot of factual information available to you already: the Science North Act, the strategic plan, the operating plan, the financial statements, the mission statement and documents on our standards. You also have the benefit of having participated in yesterday's visit, complete with a look at a shooting star, a briefing and a tour. I hope that, during that tour, members of the committee were able to have enough freedom to really experience something of the Science North experience, the Science North style and the flexibility with which Science North's exhibits are met by visitors.

I know that you're going to be concentrating today on board operations, and therefore in the opening remarks I'd like to make I'm just going to give some of my subjective comments as a preamble.

I came back to Sudbury in 1986 after being away for a few years, and this was a time two years after its 1984 opening. Science North was already then very impressive compared to the other science centres I had seen as an aficionado of science centres. Its type of display was very different. The hands-on style which you saw yesterday was already very much in place and already, in 1986, it was a place to which I was determined to return. In fact, I did return and was a volunteer in minor ways with exhibits and then on working groups, then with the science program committee and now on the board.

I've been increasingly impressed with the concept and the actualization of that concept at Science North in terms of its exhibits and I've concluded, as so many others have, that Science North is not a science centre; it is unique. There are many others in the world who talk in terms of Science North as being the first of a new generation of science centres. I particularly admired many things about Science North: the creativity and the chutzpah of the startup of Science North initially, the talent of the employees and the volunteers, the managers and the chief executive officer. I've also admired the fact that Science North really is committed to providing that learning experience which, by its mission statement, should be stimulating, should be throughout northern Ontario, should be bilingual, should affect tourists and residents, should emphasize northern Ontario material and should link to everyday life.

It's hard to do a performance appraisal of Science North. You've got factors that could include the fact that we attracted 202,000 last year in a population around Sudbury of 160,000; that we have 9,000 members; we've got tremendous loyalty of staff, of Sudbury, of northern Ontario, of volunteers, including board members; that Science North has enjoyed tremendous grantsmanship success, that dollars given to Science North are often levered into many more dollars; that it has world respect among the science centres of the world; that it is consulted by science centres and others extensively; that there are exchanges in place with other science centres; that we export exhibits; and that various surveys done have given Science North top marks.

It's hard to measure some aspects of success, though, and some of the factual material which one can read won't give a glimpse of how many girls became women scientists as a result of a visit one year to Science North and a career decision several years further on, or whether the population is much more able and active in smart environmental actions etc. I would also point out that Science North is more than just a centre at which its mission is produced. For northern Ontario, and Sudbury in particular, it's a very popular venue for a number of events.

We have some very general challenges for the board in its operations, the prime of which I think is maintaining the concept and the momentum; contributing to the management of change; the management of the rapidity of the change and the growth; addressing the vastness of northern Ontario; and not least of all, coping with the financial situation in Canada. In particular, we've got to maintain morale and drive, especially in the light of delayed plans, delayed for reasons of finances. We're delighted, as I say with Jim Marchbank, to answer questions related to Science North, which is so close to our heart, and particularly with reference to board operations.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Reed. We'll move on to questions from members. Mr McLean, would you like to lead off?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Yes. How are you going to work it, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: We're just going to leave it open. I'm not going to try and assign time to each caucus.

Mr McLean: Okay, thank you. Good morning, gentlemen. I have some questions with regard to your budget. In item 14 it says, "The funding is not adequate to achieve the desired objectives." In 1988-89, salaries and benefits were $2.535 million and in 1991-92, $3.5 million, almost a $1-million increase in salaries. It indicates here that your staffing was 69 in 1989-90 and in 1991-92 it was 73 and in 1992-93 it's supposed to be 67 -- very little change in staff. Where's the $1-million difference in salaries?

Mr James Marchbank: If you could help me in the pages you're reading off --

Mr McLean: This is the letter sent to Lynn Mellor, the clerk, with regard to --

Mr Marchbank: Which question number are you reading?

Mr McLean: I'm on number 10.

Mr Marchbank: The answer, I believe, to your question, is that the categorizations that were requested in this question format combine operating and capital expenses. Those go up and down, depending on the amount of capital that is undertaken and depending on the special projects. That would account for the variation.

Mr McLean: But your capital is separate from your salaries and your benefits. I see supplies and equipment on that same section is $4.9 million, a substantial increase: "the above includes both capital and operating expenses." So that's part of the salaries, that $4.9 million?

Mr Marchbank: I guess our finance staff separated it to the best of our abilities. I think little of it would be salaries. I think the largest component of it -- and you see why the supplies and equipment jumps by about $2.5 million -- is probably the purchase of the Bell Grove Arena, which I mentioned to you yesterday. Those are the kinds of jumps that occurred because of capital expenditure.

Mr McLean: Okay, then. Can you give me the difference, salary increases, from 1988-89 to 1991 and 1992?

Mr Marchbank: For the full-time staff?

Mr McLean: For the full-time staff. That's what I would look at you're referring to in 15, number of employees.

Mr Marchbank: The increase in the full-time -- I can't give it to you for four years because I don't have it at my fingertips and I can't remember it all, but I can recall 1992-93, the budget we set last spring for this fiscal year. The number of employees declined so our full-time payroll cost for full-time employees would have declined. However, for those who remained, there was an increase in salaries, I believe across the organization -- these varied with individuals -- that totalled 2%.

Mr McLean: Who sets the salaries?

Mr Marchbank: The executive committee of the board does, on my recommendation.

Mr McLean: I guess there's no way that we're going to find out what any individual scientist or anybody's making then, are we? I mean, you could recommend them for an $18,000 or $20,000 increase and nobody knows whether that's happening or not.

Mr Marchbank: We have a salary plan, sir, that has a salary schedule, a pay plan for the organization, and that kind of increase couldn't happen within that plan. Scientists, depending on their qualifications and their skill and their responsibility levels, have positions within that plan.

Mr McLean: Who looks at your overall plan? Who approves it? You do?

Mr Marchbank: It's approved by the board.

Mr McLean: And no accountability to the government?

Mr Marchbank: I believe it was approved when it was first instituted by the ministry back in 1986 or 1987.

Mr McLean: Okay, the arena.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Could I just ask a supplementary question in there? I guess what I'd like to know is, what increases in salaries have there been over the last year, the last two years, the last three years, in percentages, for your employees?

Mr Marchbank: The overall average for the staff for last year -- that's the spring of 1992 -- would have been 2%. In the year prior to that it would have been in the 5% to 6% range and in the year prior to that probably in the same range. Those are the increases to full-time --

Mr Sterling: They're above inflation then.

Mr Marchbank: They're slightly above inflation, yes.

Mr Sterling: Why?

Mr Marchbank: Because our staff in general are paid below relative market levels.

Mr McLean: Why was the arena purchased by Science North? Who owned the arena before?

Mr Marchbank: The city of Sudbury.

Mr McLean: And why did Science North buy it?

Mr Marchbank: Because Science North wishes to expand its operations and to develop new space. Science North, in its original building, had a chronic lack of support space and the arena was seen as a potential acquisition, given the site constrictions which we have, to deal with that support space, both for the operations in Sudbury and for the expanding outreach operations which we're undertaking and hope to continue to take.

The other key element of acquiring the arena was the opportunity to create within it a special events hall as a public program space to allow us to increase the frequency of exhibit change and program change within the centre, which we see as the key to continuing to involve people in science and to attract people to the centre.

1020

Mr McLean: Was it initiated from the board or from the city? Who initiated the involvement to have it transferred to Science North?

Mr Marchbank: It was initiated by Science North.

Mr McLean: I have a final question for this round, Mr Chair. I noticed on the board yesterday the different companies that donate, such as Pepsi. Did Fednor put any money in there for capital funding or does it donate as an advertisement?

Mr Marchbank: Fednor provided a grant of $600,000 towards the cost of Shooting Star, the 3-D show you saw yesterday. That's the only funding we've had from Fednor. The original creation of Science North had federal capital grants in it, but that was pre-Fednor. Fednor has also most recently funded 90% of the cost of the feasibility study on an IMAX theatre, which I mentioned yesterday.

Mr McLean: Of that group of donators that was on the board yesterday, what amount of money would you raise in a year from those in grants or donations?

Mr Marchbank: Last year in the campaign for Shooting Star we raised $350,000 from the private sector. Our raising of funds is not done on an annual basis for operating purposes; it's done on a project basis for capital purposes. What support we get from the private sector for operating tends to be of a sponsorship nature, of sponsoring an event, such as the Mazes and Mysteries event, which I think you saw yesterday, or for ongoing kinds of marketing support.

Mr McLean: Thank you, Mr Chair. Are there questions from others?

The Chair: Mr Marchese and then Mr Grandmaître.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Good morning, Lloyd and Jim. I have just two comments and then some questions later on. The comments have to do with questions that have been raised already with respect to the arena. It was useful for the members to have been there, to have seen the limited space that one has, particularly where we were in the boardroom, which gives you an indication of the kind of cramped space in which the staff is operating. The offices are very tiny. I don't know if people had a chance to see the office spaces or the other space behind those separations that people couldn't see. From that perspective, it was important to see why one would want to expand into the arena for the purposes of office space and also for programming. So that was key for us in terms of having an experiential feel for the building.

I wanted to ask a question about catchment. We saw some interesting statistics yesterday. I have to tell you I was very impressed with the numbers of visitors we had from southern Ontario, excluding Metro, which also was quite impressive. I know Jim Bradley was asking that question in a previous meeting we had here, so I wanted to say how impressed I was with the numbers of people come from beyond your immediate catchment area.

One of the questions that was asked yesterday that I think is useful to ask you here and that you might want to speak to publicly has to do with the evaluation of your programs. How do you evaluate the effectiveness of your programs? It seems to me you would want to do that in some way so that you can get a fair assessment of what is accomplished, what is good, what is effective and what you might want to get rid of in order to bring in new programs to Science North.

Dr Reed: I'll start an answer to that and ask Jim to complete it. In June 1990, we had commissioned from Coopers and Lybrand a valuation of Science North by residents of Sudbury and the surrounding area. The executive summary points out that a large number of Sudburians had visited compared with an earlier survey; that visitors rated Science North as excellent or very good; the strong perception that the centre is educational fun and good value for money; that there's a fairly large proportion of visitors who believe the centre is not yet complete, although this concept or feeling was somewhat less widespread than previously.

Eight in 10 visitors rated the exhibits as excellent or very good. There continue to be some service areas where there were some less positive opinions, restaurant etc. As in the last survey, most visitors go to the centre in family groups. Awareness of the membership program is considerably lower among non-members recently interviewed etc. So you can see something of the breadth of that particular survey.

I mentioned in my opening remarks that there are some very intangible benefits of a centre, as in career choices, that are going to be very hard to measure because of the long-term implications of planting the seed, having it germinate and having some action taken on it.

In the business of surveys, I should point out that Science North itself has some questionnaires which it uses in a number of ways. Jim, do you want to describe some of those?

Mr Marchbank: We do daily surveys of our audience and compile those quarterly, which is where some of the statistics you saw yesterday are, and some of the questions are similar to the questions that our chair just referred to. They're not what I would call in-depth quality analyses, but they do give us the opportunity to ask people what it is they like and what they don't like.

In addition to that, we try to get feedback, as I think Donna Salem mentioned to you yesterday, on our outreach programs, our school programs. We do a great deal of self-analysis. Every school program, for example, is checked out by staff working in preparation for those programs before they're delivered, and then there are follow-up checks on the quality and feedback with the schools. We also have an advisory committee from the local school systems, which gives us direct feedback on those kinds of programs.

We involve the community through working groups. The chair referred to having become involved first in Science North by working on a working group, so we bring in outside scientific expertise and knowledge to work with our staff, not only to maintain currency and relevance, but also to provide external perspectives and some external input on quality.

We launched a symposium of professionals from the science centre community for one day last October to look at this question and to have them go around and spend some time looking at how they assessed Science North. We began, first of all, by having them in discussion groups on just what is quality in a science centre, because it's extremely difficult to define. We've continued from that symposium with a subcommittee of the science program committee of the board and a group of staff looking at this whole question of how we measure quality within the centre and how we measure it against our characteristics of excellence, which Jennifer Pink outlined to you yesterday as well.

We try to address the issue, I guess, on a multitude of fronts, recognizing that it's an imperfect art, but trying to be consciously aware of the issue.

Mr Reed: If I could just add to those comments something about that particular symposium, here was Science North asking its peers to please help us judge how well we were doing by the standards which Science North has laboriously put in place. This was a symposium which involved people from an association of science centres, and in that association we have received a lot of kudos for the leadership Science North has shown in formulating, as some would say, the next generation of science centres.

The results of that symposium have been summarized, including some of the closing speeches by people from outside Science North. If that material is of interest to the committee, it could be forwarded to the committee.

Mr Marchese: The Big Nickel Mine, we know from the little discussion we've had and some of the research, is not doing very well in terms of generating money. Also, I think you stated yourself yesterday, it needs to be updated, renewed somehow. The question I would have is, if it isn't working now, do you feel that the money that it takes to regenerate it will be worth that money in the end in terms of what you might recover? Should you be looking at something else, instead of trying to restore and renew something that in the end we will have no sense of how effective it will be?

1030

Mr Marchbank: That's a very interesting question. It is not doing all we would like it to do now, because the experience is not as participatory or as experiential as we would like it to be. It's very much a kind of guided tour with guides talking at you, as opposed to the involvement sense that you get at Science North.

In addition to that, the exhibits that are underground are of old-fashioned mining technology. We believe, however, that it's possible to change that to give people an experience underground within the bounds of safety -- it will perhaps not be as experiential as Science North but will be a considerable improvement on what is there now -- and combined with some enhanced surface facilities, would allow some change that would encourage people to return, would encourage local people -- and by local I mean all of northern Ontario -- to have some pride in it. There's a very strong mining culture heritage in northern Ontario and we believe it's possible to do that.

The Big Nickel Mine, I should hasten to add, is not a draw on the operation at the moment. Without calculating overhead, it basically does slightly better than break even.

Our development plan for the mine, while expensive in the $13- or $14-million range, also projects that it would continue to break even or do slightly better, that the attendance would rise from about 60,000 to over 100,000. Given the relative numbers we do at Science North, we think those are reasonable and that it would break even.

I guess the question is, is it worth the capital investment? We think it is. However, I guess in answer to part of the balance of your question, it has not been at the top of our priority list, although it's moving closer. Our first priority, I guess, in the last three or four years has been the arena and the expansion involved in that and the expansion of program that makes possible, and the completion of Shooting Star, which was a very major project for us and a very major part of our renewal. As I've indicated, we're now looking at an IMAX theatre and I think it's fair to say that as a major project, the Big Nickel Mine would come after that.

Mr Sterling: Could I just --

Dr Reed: Last year, 202,000.

Mr Marchbank: Could I just clarify that? There were 202,000 at the Science Centre and 60,000 at the Big Nickel Mine, so the total is 262,000.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): How many of the people are doing that, if I'm allowed a free question, if I can, Norm? How many of the people are going to the same attraction on the same day, go to one and then walk -- no, they can't walk over -- drive over and go to the other?

Mr Marchbank: Not enough.

Dr Reed: Cross-selling is one of our big --

Mr Marchbank: It's like cross-border shopping. You try and double-sell the attractions. I believe the number is about 12,000, so those would be double-counted if that's the question you're asking.

The Chair: You're also double-charged.

Mr Marchbank: Yes.

Mr Marchese: On the question I had asked in terms of the Big Nickel Mine in terms of the priorities in what you want to do, was this whole question of putting in the capital costs for the Big Nickel Mine dealt with in terms of projections of possible recovery of costs or possibly even making money? Has that been dealt with by the board and staff or are you likely to look at this again?

Mr Marchbank: It hasn't been dealt with in detail recently. The plan we have was adopted, if I'm not mistaken, in the fall of 1990, so it's about two years since it was adopted. We were very clear, I guess, at that time that our first priority was the expansion and the change involved in assuming the arena, and that the second priority in terms of capital was Shooting Star. So to that extent, the Big Nickel Mine was put on the back burner.

But the development plan -- we had an economic analysis done as part of it and it was very clear that at the attendance levels projected it would do better than break even, assuming that the capital were paid off.

I think the question you raise is a good one, because I think before we proceed again, we need to go back and revisit those assumptions in the light of more recent experience and renew it. But I think it's fair to say that the commitment to proceed with that is there.

Mr Marchese: Okay. You talked briefly about IMAX. Perhaps you could give us a bit of background to that, and in the background you might want to talk about what capital costs we're talking about, if you have those figures, and included in that, do you have a sense of what the private sector contribution might be at this time?

Mr Marchbank: We decided to look at IMAX probably a couple of years ago but didn't move quickly on it, again, until we had completed Shooting Star. We're very careful about taking on projects and successfully completing them and successfully funding them. But the attraction that IMAX holds for us is that it is a unique experience. It is an experience that you can't get in other film theatres, and the library of films that is available is now very extensive in the fields of science and natural history.

The combination of an IMAX theatre with a science centre, while it doesn't occur in Ontario, is very common around the world. There are over 80 IMAX theatres around the world. Over 30 of them are associated with science centres or natural history museums. It holds the possibility of a unique experience for us, an ability to change programming to encourage this repeat attendance which is essential in our market. The experience of most science centres with IMAXs is that the IMAXs are profitable, usually when the capital is paid off, and they boost the attendance of the science centre itself because of this repeat attendance, and that is crucial to us.

Once we had completed Shooting Star, we commissioned a feasibility study. The capital cost estimate is about $5.55 million for the whole capital and startup costs. The rough projection of the operating situation is that in the first year the revenues would be a shade over $900,000 and the expenses would be about $800,000, with a net of $113,000. The pro forma for seven years has the profit projected at slightly above or slightly below $100,000 per year over the seven years. Again, we're fairly confident that those numbers are accurate.

I should add that one of the things that also prompted us to take a very close look at IMAX, because we had an initial concern about market size, was the experience in Regina, where the Saskatchewan Science Centre has constructed an IMAX, opened it in April 1991, and it has been successful, and Regina is a market that's marginally larger than Sudbury.

How much of the $5.5 million would be paid for by the private sector? My guess is in the 10% to 20% range. I should point out to you, if you think that's low, as I suspect you do, that Sudbury is quite different from other cities in the province in terms of our ability to raise funds. You normally raise funds in a community from your large employers, and Sudbury's large employers, the two largest, are Inco and Falconbridge and they're both not in good financial shape at the moment. About the next seven or eight large employers in Sudbury are in the public sector and therefore not in the giving business in terms of donations. We live in a unique community in that sense, so I hope that answers some of your question.

Mr Bradley: Less unique than you think these days.

Mr Marchbank: Yes.

Mr Marchese: Jim, I wanted to ask another question having to do with your operating funds and what you generate. The operating funds are approximately $3-million-something and you generate $2-million-something. Personally, I believe that what you're able to generate is quite impressive. Do you know how that compares with other agencies connected to the government in terms of operating expenses and what they are able to generate?

Mr Marchbank: Some of those figures, Mr Marchese, were in our 1992 strategic plan. They are therefore probably about a year out of date but I think in relative terms still fairly valid. Our admission charge was and still is the highest of any of the cultural agencies in the province. Our admission charge today is $7.50. No other agency charges that much. The Royal Ontario Museum and the Ontario Science Centre are less than that. I understand the Art Gallery of Ontario, when it opens on Sunday, will have a $7.50 admission price, so they're matching us.

We collect the highest amount of revenue in admission charges from each visitor. We also did a comparison of what is called gross non-admission revenue per visitor. I don't mean to confuse you, but that's basically other revenue like parking, membership, gross sales on food, gross sales on gift shops.

We were able to get some figures for other cultural agencies that were prepared by Ernst and Young in a report for MCC in spring 1991. This was a report dealing with the Icon project in Brantford. That showed that Science North, of those agencies picked -- and the other three that we were able to get numbers for were the AGO, the ROM and the Ontario Science Centre -- our gross non-admission revenue per visitor was the highest.

1040

In terms of operating costs, we haven't done specific comparisons, but we have of the government subsidy, if that's what your question was alluding to. I guess what I'd say is that we are the highest in terms of per visitor revenue-raising. We also believe that we're the lowest in terms of per visitor subsidy and also subsidy per square foot of exhibit space.

It's difficult to compare an art gallery or even the Ontario Science Centre with Science North. We're all different and we all have differing responsibilities and differing mandates, but it seems to us that one reasonable comparison is the public subsidy per visitor, and the other is that we're all in the business of programming public exhibit space. Science North's subsidy from MCC per visitor and per square foot of exhibit space is the lowest of the attraction agencies of MCC.

Mr Sterling: What is that subsidy?

Mr Marchbank: Which one?

Mr Sterling: Per visitor.

Mr Marchbank: In 1991, it was $13.49 at Science North. I could give you the others.

The Chair: I have a supplementary point here. The argument could be made that although these figures are impressive, you're comparing them with other agencies that fall under the Ministry of Culture and Communications, and then argument could be made that perhaps that is not an appropriate placement for your operation.

You're comparing it with places, like the McMichael gallery, which are certainly not big drawers of the public, but I know you try to make an argument as well in here in respect to your placement under the ministry of culture, but it's one I don't necessarily share. I just wanted to make that point.

Mr Marchbank: If I may, I agree with you and that's why I included the caveat that we are all different and that these are not perfect comparisons. I think that's why we picked two, and none of us have ever argued we should have perfect parity with X, Y or Z of the others. We simply use them as a general guide. I think if there is one of the other four that we pick that is most relevant, it's probably the Ontario Science Centre, but even there, there are differences and we acknowledge that. We're simply trying to get some sense of relativity. Relativity vis-à-vis MCC agencies, I acknowledge is that we're --

The Chair: Mr Marchese, we're over 20 minutes with you but you've had a few interruptions, so I'll give you another question at this point, if you want.

Mr Marchese: That's fine. I just want to take the opportunity, because I should have said this in my introductory remarks, to congratulate Science North for a number of things. First of all, I think we had a very palpable experience at Science North and that's what it's intended to do, and we certainly had that in our visit.

I think the outreach programs that you're involved in are extraordinary. I think it's what the northern community needs and Science North is providing that. Overall, in terms of my knowledge and experience of agencies, Science North runs a very lean organization.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Let's talk about your base operating grant. In 1992-93, it was increased by $200,000, if I'm not mistaken. This appears in your operating plan of 1992-94 on page 3. That's the little blue book, something like your blue coats. I don't know why you don't change them to red coats and red books.

The Chair: They're looking to the future.

Interjections.

Mr Grandmaître: I knew this province was going backwards.

Mr Marchbank: I thought about that yesterday, you know. I can explain the colour.

Interjection: Please do.

Mr Marchbank: The colour of blue is very deliberate and it comes from the snowflake and the ice crystal from blue ice --

Mr Marchese: That's too practical.

Mr Marchbank: -- and that's consistent with the building, the logo and everything else.

Mr Grandmaître: Very good. Let's go back to today. In 1992-93, your base operating grant was increased by $200,000. When I look at page 19 of the operating plan, under "Revenue: MCC base operating grant," $3.4 million, and then 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, there's a steady base operating grant increase of about $90,000, I think. How did you work this out? You must be the only agency in the province of Ontario that's guaranteed an increase in your base operating grant. How did you swing this?

Mr Marchbank: I wish we were, Mr Grandmaître, but we're not guaranteed that. This was part of our request and submission to the ministry. We're asked to submit multi-year plans, and if you look at our strategic plan, we ask for much more, basically on our argument that we were underfunded. I think it's fair to say that we've backpedalled that argument considerably since the recession hit.

The increases that you see here are in fact the inflation increases projected by the treasury department, but we have no guarantee of that, and I can tell you that from our knowledge of where next year's grant is going to be, we do not expect that. So we, like others, are adjusting to the reality of today.

Mr Grandmaître: So these are only projections.

Mr Marchbank: Yes.

Mr Grandmaître: There hasn't been a firm commitment from the ministry to increase your base grant.

Mr Marchbank: Absolutely not; no.

Mr Grandmaître: When I look at your financial statement of March 31, 1991 -- that's the grey book: Science North, Financial Statements, March 31. Do you have this?

Mr Marchbank: I don't have a copy of that. I have the 1991-92 annual --

Mr Grandmaître: I'm looking at your revenues for the end of March 31, 1991. It says here, under operating, $3 million. Even with an increase of $200,000 in 1992-93, when I look at your operating plans for 1992-93, your base operating grant is $3.4 million. Do you follow me?

Mr Marchbank: Yes.

Mr Grandmaître: That's on page 19 of the blue book again. It says here $3.4 million, and in your financial report for 1991, it's listed as $3.2 million, so there's a discrepancy of $200,000. Do you follow me?

Mr Marchbank: I follow you. I think what we're missing is a year. The financial statement is for the year 1990-91, ending March 31, 1991, and the base operating grant for that year was $3,008,900. For 1991-92, the base operating grant was $3,186,800.

Mr Grandmaître: So for the last two years, your base operating grant has been increased.

Mr Marchbank: Yes. I'd have to do the numbers, but if I can just walk you through that, from $3.009 million to $3.186 million is, I believe, about 6% in 1991-92. After that was awarded to us, if you will, $3.186 million, we had another adjustment at the very end of 1991-92 of some $28,000 that had to do with pay equity, which would bring the actual final number for 1991-92 to $3.215 million. Then at the beginning or slightly into 1992-93, which is this fiscal, we received the $200,000 boost to our base, which is what brings it to $3.415 million.

1050

May I clarify something on that so it doesn't appear the large increase came in isolation? It doesn't show in our financial statements, but it does in our budgets. In 1991-92, we had a revenue called "Other government grants" which are government grants other than the MCC base. They totalled $395,000, almost $400,000.

The largest component of that was a two-year special grant we received in March 1990 from the former minister, Christine Hart, to be spent over two years, ie, 1991 and 1991-92, to expand our outreach program. The $400,000 we were given we invested in a special fund and interest rates at that point were high and it became, in effect, about $475,000 over the two-year life of the grant that was devoted to outreach. Its having been a two-year grant, of course, one of the conditions was that we spend it within the two years, so it was fully spent by March 31, 1992.

We then were in a position of having to reduce services if we were to not continue with that funding, and we made the case to MCC and to the current minister and that's, I think, how we resulted in the $200,000 increase to the base. It was to maintain outreach service which had been initiated going back to 1990, so that "Other government grants" revenue line in our budget in 1991-92, which was $395,000, in 1992-93 dropped to $150,000. It dropped by almost a quarter of a million dollars. The net effect of the amount being received from governments was in fact a slight decline, and our overall budget from 1991-92 to 1992-93 declined by about 1%. I hope that gives some perspective.

Mr Grandmaître: Yes, but what I'm getting at, Jim, is that, looking at your base operating grants, they seem to be increasing, and you agreed with me that back in 1989-90 -- did you say 1989-90 or 1991?

Mr Marchbank: 1990-91.

Mr Grandmaître: So it's only in the last two years that your base operating grant has increased, right? How about the previous years?

Mr Marchbank: It has, I think, increased each year since we became an agency in 1986, by varying percentages.

Mr Grandmaître: Every year?

Mr Marchbank: The base operating grant, yes, every year.

Mr Grandmaître: You're very fortunate, because municipalities, schools and everybody else -- their base has not increased, so you must be the chosen one.

Mr Marchbank: I don't have the figures at my fingertips, but other than these two years we've dealt with, I can tell you that our increases through the late 1980s into 1990 were below the rate of inflation, and I think it's fair to say that in the same time period there were school boards and hospitals and others in the so-called MUSH sector which were getting increases in the order of 6%, 7%, 8%.

Mr Grandmaître: The last time they received 6%, Jim, was back in 1984-85. Anyway, I'm not going to argue with that.

Mr McLean was asking you about salary increases and who decides the salary increases and so on and so forth. There's a note on page 3 of, again, your blue book, your 1992-94 operating plan. Full-time staffing is 10% less than a year ago. Through attrition, part-time staffing has been cut by over 20%. I think Mr McLean was asking you how come there was such an increase in salaries. How come you cut back on staff and yet salaries were increasing? That's on page 3, Jim, of your 1992-94 operating plan.

Mr Marchbank: The 10% is in fact an error through the draft of this. It's less than that. The number of full-time staff this fiscal versus last fiscal has been reduced from about 72 to 67, so that's probably in the 7% to 8% range. There was cutting of part-time staff levels, and I use the word "levels" because there were some changes in hours and those kinds of things.

The reason for that, and we're talking here of 1991-92 into 1992-93, was that we undertook internally extensive reviews of our operation from late 1991 through the first quarter of 1992 because we expected this drop in government funding in 1992-93, which didn't materialize to the extent that we expected it but nevertheless overall was a slight drop.

We also had been experiencing, I should add, some failure to achieve our targets for self-generated revenue because, while we've talked here about our 1992 attendance being up, our 1990 and 1991 attendance was down and we were experiencing some of the effects of the recession. So we were adopting and did adopt this year a budget which is lower in absolute terms than last year.

At the same time as we adopted a budget lower, as a result of the internal reviews we redirected increased funding into three areas. One is our van outreach program in northern Ontario; the other is the community programs, the children's workshops in northern Ontario; and the third area is the special events programming at the science centre in Sudbury, for the reasons that I've mentioned.

We increased spending in those three areas within the budget. We also increased spending on the part-time staff who are there or who remained. Our part-time staff pay plan, the bottom end of it is on the minimum wage, so that when the minimum wage increases, our part-time costs increase and we've had to budget in the last two years for increases in the range of 6% to 8% for part-time staff because of those increases. In addition, as I indicated, the increase in full-time salaries at the beginning of this year was about 2%.

So there were five areas of increased expenditure, at the same time as we're operating within an overall operating budget that declined by 1%. It is these contractions, which I emphasize were done through attrition, and increases, I guess, in operating efficiency, that make those kinds of increases possible within a decreased overall budget.

Mr Grandmaître: Okay, Jim, again, on your 1992-94 operating plan, on page 4, capital funding, you've done well with Jobs Ontario.

Mr Marchbank: Very well.

Mr Grandmaître: Can you tell me about this? You'll be getting what --

Mr Marchese: What connections do you have, Jim?

Mr Grandmaître: Yes, I want to know. You must be well planted.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): You must have done very well in Vanier, didn't you?

Mr Grandmaître: Oh, yes. I count, what, four different Jobs Ontario projects in 1992-94. Can you tell me about these Jobs Ontario programs?

Mr Marchbank: Yes, I can.

Mr Grandmaître: What I'm getting at is, how did you come across these programs? I know that it's a popular program as far as the government is concerned, but I want to know. Northern Ontario is a big, big area and the rest of the province -- well, let's talk about northern Ontario for instance, Sault Ste Marie. You know, they're complaining that they're not getting their fair share. When you look at page 4 of your plan for the next couple of years, I'm looking at, what, over $2 million, and the rest of northern Ontario is quite upset that you're getting those dollars, so I want you to tell me how come they picked you.

1100

Mr Marchbank: Let me try to answer that in several ways. As I explained I think to you yesterday and I hope is evident in the material that has been provided to you, Science North has a strong commitment to its mandate, a strong commitment to its mission and has a very clear set of priorities of what it wants to do, including what its major capital projects are.

It also, in my view, does a pretty good job of planning those projects and, as a result, when programs like Jobs Ontario which are designed to stimulate the economy rapidly come along, Science North is well positioned to take advantage of those programs and to use those funds for investments that fit with the centre's long-term goals and we hope fit with our responsibility to fulfil our mandate.

We also have a record I think of managing those capital projects well, and as a result there's perhaps some confidence that they will be invested well when they're given. I think that perhaps is a reasonable summary. Sorry, Mr Chair, I'm jumping ahead of you.

Dr Reed: I'd just like to add that this is part and parcel of what I said about good grantsmanship skills at Science North and good management skills in the CEO and the managers at Science North. We've got many plans on hold because of there not being sufficient funds for those plans to be put in place, and at such time as the funds do become available through legitimate means, we certainly compete for them. We appreciate that there are others who are also desiring resources from various programs, but I would implore that they apply and apply assiduously and with as much advance preparation as Science North has been able to do.

Mr Marchbank: I would just add perhaps the more specific answer to your question is that we access the funds, of course, through the Ministry of Culture and Communications and we are in fairly continuous contact with the ministry and the ministry is very well aware of our plans and where we want to go. Ministries I guess have access to these government-wide programs when they become available and they know the kinds of things we can do when that occurs.

Mr Grandmaître: Let's talk about one of those projects, $900,000 to redevelop the visitors' entrance at the Bell Grove Arena. Let's go back to this. This arena was owned by the city of Sudbury, right? And it was sold?

Mr Marchbank: Yes.

Mr Grandmaître: For how much?

Mr Marchbank: For $2.535 million.

Mr Grandmaître: Where did you get the money to buy this arena?

Mr Marchbank: From the Ministry of Culture and Communications as a capital grant.

Mr Grandmaître: As a capital grant?

Mr Marchbank: Yes.

Mr Grandmaître: Total dollars.

Mr Marchbank: Yes.

Mr Grandmaître: This arena had to be replaced by the city of Sudbury, right?

Mr Marchbank: Yes.

Mr Grandmaître: Was it replaced?

Mr Marchbank: It is being constructed now and the construction will be finished this summer so that the city will have a replacement arena when hockey begins in September.

Mr Grandmaître: Maybe you don't know the answer to this one. What's the commitment of the city as far as cost is concerned and so on and so forth? Are they paying 25% and the province paying 75% of the replacement of this arena or what? Do you know?

Mr Marchbank: Yes, I know. Their total cost is somewhere over $4 million for their replacement, not including land, I believe.

Mr Grandmaître: Not including land.

Mr Marchbank: And the sale cost involving the arena that Science North's buying did not include land. I say that because the city has purchased a very large piece of property to build its arena to be the anchor for a future recreation complex, so it's purchased something like 27 or 28 acres. The actual piece of land the arena, the Bell Grove Arena, the existing one, stands on is half an acre.

Of the difference, I guess, between the 2.5 and the four point whatever it is, I believe that the city has obtained some funding under an existing program of MTR for recreational facility subsidies on the incremental portion of their arena, and the city is paying the balance. The arena that they're building is a larger arena -- in floor space it's about 25% larger, has extra facilities in it and I think has change rooms -- to be the future anchor of this playing field's complex that will be around it. I believe they're also installing the mechanical systems to allow them in the future to build a second arena, therefore what's called twin pad; you have the mechanical systems for the two ice surfaces.

Mr Grandmaître: In other words, what you're telling me, Jim, is that it's not going to cost the taxpayers of Sudbury a whole lot, because of these subsidies.

Mr Marchese: Should Jim be answering that question?

Mr Marchbank: I think you have to recall that the taxpayers of Sudbury paid for the Bell Grove Arena that we're buying.

Mr Grandmaître: Did you ask your question, Rosario?

Mr Marchese: No, no, Bernard.

Mr Grandmaître: Thank you.

Mr Marchbank: Yes, the taxpayers of Sudbury paid for the arena that Science North is purchasing. What we're paying $2.5 million for, the taxpayers of Sudbury paid when that arena was built, which was about 1971 or 1972.

Mr McLean: Less than $1 million.

Mr Marchbank: I don't know what the specific cost was; I can tell you how we arrived at the price, if that's what you're getting at.

Mr Grandmaître: No, no; no, no, no.

Mr Marchese: He wants you to become a municipal councillor to answer those questions.

Mr Grandmaître: No, I want everybody to be responsible, Rosario, and that's impossible for your government to be. Thank you, Jim.

Mr Marchese: That was then, this is now.

Mr McLean: I'd like to direct a question to the chairman, I guess. Could you tell me how much the chief executive officer makes a year?

Dr Reed: I'd rather not. I know the ballpark figure. I have set the figure aside and I couldn't give you it accurate to more than $2,000 or so.

Mr McLean: Just a ballpark figure.

Dr Reed: Mr Chairman, is this sort of information normally put into the public record?

The Chair: I think the ranges are usually public knowledge in any event, even for crown corporations.

Dr Reed: In the $80,000 range.

Mr McLean: That's fine. The board has the authority to determine the centre's operation and its priorities, and the chief executive officer of the centre shall direct its operation and administration and shall be responsible to the board of trustees: How many work in the office of the administrator?

Dr Reed: That's a difficult question to answer because I see different people typing for different people, as it were. I have an organization chart which I'll just use to refer to, because of the open office concept which perhaps you saw yesterday. I would say there are probably two to three people committed perhaps, mainly the one, Joyce Elliott.

Mr McLean: Would they be part of the expenditures of the board and chief executive officer's office or would they be part of the operating salaries? In your expenditures, you have the board and chief executive officer as $211,400. Does that just include the board of directors and the CEO?

Mr Marchbank: That includes two full-time salaries and benefits, myself and an administrative assistant, my travel and board travel and the cost of board meetings.

Dr Reed: In that connection, I might point out that we've got a marked increase in the level of costs for the board this year because of out-of-city appointments.

Mr McLean: I've seen somewhere there is a policy established with regard to expenditures for staff. I guess it's for travel and accommodation. What would that detail? Your board of directors?

Dr Reed: We haven't traditionally spent much on the board until this particular year. Yes, we are spending money on travel to board meetings now.

Mr McLean: If my memory serves me right, I read where somebody from Midland is appointed on the board of directors. Is that right?

Dr Reed: No.

Mr McLean: Or he was from Midland? There's a list --

Dr Reed: We do have out-of-town board members. They include one from Sault Ste Marie, one from the Cochrane area and one from Kapuskasing.

Mr McLean: All right.

Dr Reed: Sorry, Kapuskasing and Cobalt.

Mr McLean: How many are there in total? I did read that here somewhere.

Dr Reed: Eighteen are on the list.

Mr McLean: Eighteen. Thank you.

Dr Reed: You're welcome.

1110

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): One of the things that I'm curious about, because Sudbury was an industrial town for a number of years with virtually no tourism -- it was jokingly called the lunar landscape. All that is gone, and obviously you're the biggest act in town, probably in the entire northeastern region of the province if not the entire north.

I was wondering if you could indicate to us if you have any idea of the spinoff numbers into tourism in the area, how you've assisted those numbers, if indeed you're building an industry that wasn't there before, and how that is going.

Dr Reed: That's an excellent side benefit of Science North. Science North was created, as I said earlier, by Sudbury imagination, thinking not only of a science centre that has turned out to be remarkable but as a tourist centre. We do attract a number of tourists. It's very large. In fact the enormous number of tourists impresses even me. There are 1.7 million a year, travellers on roads going through town, which is a striking number.

We are able to attract quite a large number of our annual 202,000 from the tourist travel. Jim Marchbank, who is very closely attuned to tourism organizations, can give you the exact figures on the out-of-town versus in-town from some of our surveys, exact or approximate.

Mr Marchbank: I think the numbers you saw yesterday indicated that about a third of the audience comes from the regional municipality of Sudbury and the balance would come from outside. If you accept one definition that tourists are people who travel more than 40 miles, then the balance essentially are tourists. That's not to say that a number of them aren't day visitors from places like North Bay and Espanola and places that are close by.

In terms of our impact on tourism in the Sudbury area, one of the things I'd love to do is to actually do a study of just what it is. I don't know the answer; I can give you some anecdotal evidence. The expansion of the number of hotel rooms in the last eight years since Science North opened is significant. It's in the order of over 400 new hotel rooms in the city. I don't claim Science North is the sole reason for that, but it clearly has been a contributor.

Those kinds of impacts are clearly measurable, I think. Sudbury in Science North now has the most visited or the most popular tourist attraction in northern Ontario, where before Science North it was a pretty small play around the tourism scene.

Mr Bradley: So the lido is full every weekend.

Mr Waters: Unfortunately, I wasn't able to travel with the committee yesterday. But I was up doing a thing with the disabled games when they were in Sudbury last summer and we took the opportunity to sneak away from the games, my wife and I, and had a quick look at Science North. Unfortunately, I only had a couple of hours so it was a very quick look and I was impressed.

But one of the things that I noticed was -- indeed I stayed in a new hotel next door -- that the recreational facilities around Science North were indeed improved over what I had seen, the boating etc out on the lake, so I was wondering. I think it probably is one of the biggest boosts to tourism in the area.

Your educational program, the outreach part of it, I see you're expanding. Ms Martel announced something in the northwest on December 17 or is that Education?

Mr Marchbank: No, it's the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

Mr McLean: A million dollars.

Mr Waters: But it's a grant to you to go into the northwest?

Mr Marchbank: Yes.

Mr Waters: I guess overall you have something unique. In fact not too long ago we were talking to someone else from another museum-type thing with agriculture and talked about education. I'd like some comments, I guess, on how you feel the program is going, if you feel that there are things that should be done better for the education of young people in the north, or whatever you as a group of people can do.

Dr Reed: Perhaps I can start, and again Jim Marchbank can fill in with specifics on what I forget. There are tremendous challenges available to Science North in delivering programs to far-flung areas in northern Ontario. In your travels yesterday, the committee members travelled 250 miles to Sudbury, and you can easily treble that distance going from Sudbury to some of the further-flung areas that we serve. We have people flying in to communities with animals the people have never seen before, with concepts they've never seen before and with science they've never touched before. We hope we're making a very great difference, not just the day of the visit but leaving something in the minds of those students, their parents and their teachers for some time to come.

With the details of the outreach program that affects the schools, we're into a variety of things, including even teacher preparation. There was a program for some of the northern teachers, now cancelled, which Science North's activities will help respond to in the absence of that and respond to in a Science North way, which we think is particularly successful. For details, I'll ask Jim Marchbank to mention some of the specifics of the particular programs which are involved in the grant recently from MNDM.

Mr Marchbank: There are two primary areas. First of all, I guess what's important is that the first part of our mandate talks about our responsibility to serve all of northern Ontario. We take that seriously and we want to expand service throughout northern Ontario. We've been able to do that to a large extent with special purpose kinds of funding like this. I mentioned some of that in my answer to Mr Grandmaître.

What this grant will enable us to do is to undertake a pretty significant expansion of our outreach programming. We will employ two staff who will live in Thunder Bay and will have a small base in Thunder Bay and deliver van-based outreach programs throughout northwestern Ontario. We currently serve that area from Sudbury but not as well as we would like, and obviously with people resident in Thunder Bay, we hope we will be able to do more of it and do it better.

In addition to the van programs, which largely go to schools but can go to libraries and community centres as well, we also will be running the children's science workshop programs in many of the communities of the northwest where we have not previously done so. That's one area where the grant will be used.

The other area is to provide support to science teachers at the elementary level. We run a fairly extensive program now, and we believe we need to enhance it, of daylong workshops for elementary school science teachers to make them more comfortable with teaching science in the elementary school classrooms, and therefore we hope to enhance science teaching in the province.

Those are the two principal areas in which the grant will be used. With a commitment, as it is, over three years, it gives us some stability in terms of trying to achieve that.

Mr Waters: I really commend you on the fact that you're promoting science, because if there's one thing I hear from industry out there it's that we have to get our young people out of the arts sort of thing and into the sciences if we're going to be competitive. Obviously, you're moving towards that, trying to create that in young persons so that they can take appropriate training.

There were a couple of other things. I'm looking at where it says in here, "Does the agency's mandate overlap with that of some other government agency, including the federal government?" You mention that it "appears to give the Ontario Science Centre a mandate to serve all of Ontario." But in actual fact the Ontario Science Centre does not travel or anything like that, doesn't seem to do the program in the north, at least anything I've seen or heard as I travelled.

Dr Reed: I'm not aware of any recent visits from the Ontario Science Centre vans, and they've been a fairly interesting program in some cities in years gone by. In the vast area that we're covering -- again I would emphasize the magnitude of this province which is so important to us all -- if you drove from here to Sudbury yesterday -- and I know you went by air, but if you drove -- that was a day's drive, and it's two-and-a-half days' drive from Sudbury to where our satellite location is going to be in Thunder Bay. If you want to go to some of those other points in the far-flung northwest, you aren't going to drive there because there are no roads and so on.

With respect to the Ontario Science Centre in our area, Jim, do you have recollections in the recent past?

1120

Mr Marchbank: The Ontario Science Centre has done some things in northern Ontario. I'm not aware of anything they've done recently and I don't know all the details of their outreach program. I do know that it's a very different kind of style than ours. The two science centres are quite different.

Mr Waters: Your outreach, from what I've seen and things I've read, because some of your local members keep me updated seeing as how I'm with the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation -- they have something about that. Your outreach is very much oriented to the history and indeed the whole community of the north. A lot of Science North seems to be very much hands-on northern things.

Mr Reed: I can respond a bit to that. Yes, in spades, because the northern emphasis is right in the mission statement. Like so many things Science North tries to do, it delivers. The business of Swap Shops is an excellent example of that, the concept that you don't just bring in a leaf, but you tell where the leaf came from and get extra points, and with that you're able to get parts of a starfish or whatever. It is a fascinating concept for collectors of all ages, and that concept has been exported to various centres in northern Ontario and it gets people, where they live, with science. It's a fabulously exportable thing and in fact it's in existence, not only in northern Ontario but in cities far from Sudbury.

The idea of the hands-on and the exhibitory having many levels of involvement, having a flexible exhibit, is very different in Science North's operations from those in many other centres.

Mr Waters: One last thing that I'd like to ask about, unless you have some comment on that --

Mr Marchbank: I was going to say that the other difference in the styles is that our outreach and our approach to science is relatively low-tech. It's a matter of bringing vans, for example, to school gymnasiums and bringing out, literally, tool-boxes, as some of your colleagues saw yesterday, and dealing with the tools of science.

I want to caution that I don't know all the information but my recollection, for example, of having seen the Ontario Science Centre's presence in northern Ontario would be a particularly good exhibit called the Seeing Brain, but it's a very large exhibit that requires considerable setup time. It requires a couple of thousand square feet to set it up and then time to take it down. That restricts where you can go with it, where in our case, with vans we can roll into a community of 50 or 100 people and do things that involve people in science right there, and stay for a day and not a week or two weeks, if that's not necessary, and carry on. So there's a big difference in style and approach.

Mr Waters: Another thing I have great interest in is the disabled. I notice on the last page of whatever this is here, it says, "To date, efforts to find a foundation to fund it" -- and I believe it's the disabled program -- "have been unsuccessful." I would ask, is there a major problem with accessibility and the disabled? Does the board have any ideas on how to provide programming for the disabled community, and that throughout the north?

Mr Marchbank: I believe the foundation you're referring to that we were unable to find funding for was a specific effort to develop a summer children's workshop or children's science camp specifically for children who are speech- and hearing-impaired. We would still like to do that, because we have an area in Humanosphere which deals with the senses and with speech and hearing. We have scientists with some knowledge in those areas and believe we could provide quality programming to those children. We'll continue to try and get the funding to provide that kind of program.

In terms of general access to our facilities in our building, 99% of the building is accessible. There's probably 1% where a mistake has been made and people can't get in. We try to correct those.

There is also a somewhat general problem that we're trying to address as we gradually renovate and change the place, and that is the countertop style, which I think you saw when you were there, and your colleagues would have seen yesterday. Some of those counters, because of their height, are not awfully convenient for people in wheelchairs. While people can get to them, they're in some cases too high, and we've been trying to introduce more flexibility into how we set things up to try and accommodate that, and that's an ongoing process.

Mr Waters: If my colleagues have anything -- I can keep going?

The Chair: We have others who are interested in asking questions. We can come back to you. I'd like to ask a couple of quick questions myself before we move on to Mr Bradley. I was interested in the movie we saw yesterday, Shooting Star. I'm sure you won't mind, Mr Sterling, despite your frown. Have you got much feedback from the public in respect to that production?

Dr Reed: Yes, we have, Mr Chair, and we've had that from a number of areas. I was particularly struck by one piece of publicity that appeared in the Anishnawbe newspaper on how Shooting Star treated the topics. The public I have met personally have been very enthusiastic about that film in terms of its quality and its imagination. Jim Marchbank may have a variety of kudos rolling in from other areas that he can mention.

Mr Marchbank: The best reaction, in my view, was the number of people who showed up in July and August. Our summer attendance was up by about 16% or 17%, largely, we think, because of Shooting Star and the very positive word of mouth surrounding its launch in mid to late June, and of course we built much of our summer marketing campaign around it. Other evidence I could give you would simply be anecdotal, but in general the vast majority has been positive.

The Chair: You're pleased with the response.

Dr Reed: As members will be aware, it's been a very lean year for other venues, other tourist attractions, in the province, so this increase is quite remarkable.

The Chair: How does that feedback you're getting jibe with your lack of success so far in terms of marketing the product elsewhere? We talked about this briefly yesterday. You seem to feel that it's a good product in terms of local and regional response but you're having a tough time selling it elsewhere.

Dr Reed: I've got some views which I'd like to express, and that is to say that it's a very small number of potential customers able to show this kind of film. We've gone to several of them already with some marketing. I don't think it's time to say it won't be sold. It is only true to say at the moment that it hasn't been sold to other locations too.

Mr Marchbank: I agree, obviously, with the Chair. The number of locations in which you can show what are called twin projector 3-D laser 70-millimetre films is limited and that is one of the limitations on selling it. Another limitation appears to be that it is perhaps a little too site-specific, and that means you have to get into some translation, if you will, of the context for other audiences. I think that's had some inhibition.

The other inhibition, which I hope will fade with time but it's one that is there now, is that anyone who was to buy or lease Shooting Star would not only have to have the 70-millimetre projectors, and some do, but they would have to acquire the 3-D laser projection system, and that adds an upfront capital cost, which is another impediment to our selling it. Those three reasons are part of the difficulty, and as I said to yesterday, I think future ones that we do will have to be in collaboration with other facilities that have the same kind of equipment.

The Chair: I wanted to tie that in briefly with your strategic plan in selling services of Science North. In your five-year revenue plan I don't see, unless it's buried in there somewhere, any reference to revenues derived from selling of services, certainly not specifically mentioned. I think you indicated to us yesterday, Jim, that it certainly hasn't been a big factor for you in terms of revenues.

You're required by the act to put any revenues you derive back into exhibits. I'm just wondering if that's been a deterrent in terms of efforts to market services and if you've really looked at this area perhaps as intently as you should have with respect to the falling revenues from the government, and certainly the constraints on government in the future.

1130

Mr Marchbank: That's an interesting question. We have looked at this issue, and as I indicated yesterday, we have been treading carefully. We're conscious of the difficulties other public sector organizations have had from time to time in sales and particularly in international sales. We are, I guess, to be fair, being a bit wary of what might have to be invested up front to try and make a major effort to achieve sales. You may have to make a significant investment without the guarantee of return. We're just cautious about treading into that.

The other dilemma for us is that when you get into it, there is an internal difficulty of managing the priorities between serving our prime area and meeting the other four parts of our mandate versus meeting that part vis-à-vis sales. As we've gone through some adjustment and turmoil over the last year, I think it's fair to say that area has not been at the top of our priority list. I think it's one that as we mature as an organization and as our management matures, we will look at, but we want to be careful that we don't get in there and make mistakes.

The Chair: Is the act a deterrent?

Mr Marchbank: No.

The Chair: I guess in the sense that all of these revenues have to go back into exhibits, maybe it would be more of an incentive if those revenues went into your general revenue fund. You have an opportunity with this committee. We're going to be making recommendations. I'd like to have your frank opinion in respect to that.

Dr Reed: I've reflected on it, having read the act's aspect of, yes, one puts money from consulting into exhibit development and a trust. But I see this as a definite incentive to scientists who might have to withstand the travel to get there, enjoy interaction as they're there and know that at the end of the tunnel, the end of the consulting, they've got exhibit development benefiting rather than being badly affected by available funds. I see it as a potential enhancement of the centre with this activity.

Like Jim, I see that we've got to be very careful, in getting into this activity, that we're still sticking to the knitting, so to speak, rather than just chasing money. It's got to be right for Science North and for the persons or agencies with whom we consult before we should be doing it. But I personally feel this is an excellent activity if well managed, and I expect it would be well managed.

The Chair: Based on your five-year forecast, though, it's still a pretty modest activity in terms of what you're looking at for the next few years.

Dr Reed: One observation is that just as we in Ontario and Canada are in tight times, some of our would-be clients are going to be experiencing tight times simultaneously.

The Chair: I just want to make the observation -- and I'm not being critical at all; I don't want this to be misunderstood. I know, looking at your plan, that there are a lot of worthwhile goals here, but our researcher mentioned that you've been adjusting to the new realities and you do seem to be still in something of a growth mode. I can only relate to, say, something like the St Lawrence Parks Commission, an agency we looked at a few years ago, where they are pulling in. There's talk abut laying off at Old Fort Henry, which draws close to 400,000 people annually, and at Upper Canada Village. You seem to be still in a growth mode rather than a consolidation mode.

Dr Reed: If one looks at the earlier strategic plans and realizes one more time, of course, that we're relatively new on the scene, it's not too surprising that some of the earlier strategic plans involving various things that we would like to have seen in place by now are very much delayed.

With respect to being realistic, given the times which we've talked about earlier this morning, yes, Science North is going to have to live within its means; yes, Science North will be competing for funds that are available from a variety of sources; and yes, Science North will be looking for resources, such as the IMAX potential, in the near future, provided, of course, that it all fits within the knitting, to use that expression again.

Mr Marchbank: If I may, just on that transition, I think we are adjusting and have been adjusting to the new realities in our core operation. There are not increases, as I indicated, in this year's operating budget; it's down. So we've changed from this growth to one of trying to manage with existing resources.

There is still growth going on in one area, and that is the outreach area, and there is some growth coming in the capital area. But one of the things that's becoming increasingly clear to us, and we're having to adjust our capital plans, is that we can't be spending capital if it increases net operating costs, and that is causing us to undertake some change to our capital plan. So there is a very clear adjustment going on there from what a couple of years ago, I agree with you, was entirely an expansionist kind of viewpoint.

The Chair: Are you unionized?

Mr Marchbank: No.

Mr Bradley: And you're getting all those grants from the Ontario government? Wow.

The Chair: I just wanted to make one quick reference that it seems to be sort of a public sector mindset, in that you talk about being underpaid in comparison to the public sector in Sudbury. I just wonder, do you take a look at the private sector? How do you stand in respect of the private sector?

Mr Marchbank: It will vary from job category to job category. I guess I look at this not just from my own --

The Chair: Very few people in this society compare favourably with the public sector; let's face it.

Mr Marchbank: I think you have to look at the employment picture in Sudbury. We have employees who work for Science North. They are physically surrounded by the general hospital, Laurentian Hospital and Laurentian University. They deal with teachers in their day-to-day jobs every day. They also see the two largest private sector employers in Sudbury, which employ thousands of people, and therefore you come in contact with people who are employed by those two private sector organizations frequently. All of those are relatively highly paid.

We haven't done much recent documentation of this, because it's not the environment to be complaining loudly about it, but we did it about 18 months ago. I can tell you that the secretaries who at that point were working outside my office earning about $22,000 to $23,000 a year could pick up the newspaper a couple of evenings a month and see advertisements for jobs with the Ontario government, where secretaries were being paid $27,000, $28,000 and $29,000. It's not just my reality; it's the reality of those people working at that level and seeing that. I could give you similar examples for our scientists in contact with teachers who have relatively the same kinds of educational background and they're in the same kind of business.

The Chair: Fine. We'll move on to Mr Bradley and then Mr Sterling.

Mr McLean: Mr Chair, could I ask what we're going to do with regard to adjournment? As I understand it, they'll be back this afternoon.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr McLean: Are we going to adjourn early and come back at 1:30? The reason for the early adjournment is that there's an important occasion on, with a Rhodes scholar who's being sworn in, and I was kind of interested in seeing part of that.

The Chair: I don't know about being back at 1:30, because our witnesses have an appointment. I think we're still looking at 2 o'clock, are we not?

Mr Marchbank: Even a little beyond 2.

The Chair: I think 2:15 would be even more comfortable. We'll still hope to adjourn around 12 or 12:15 at the latest. I know you'd like to catch the Clinton speech, so we'll try to break by the noonhour.

1140

Mr Bradley: My question relates to trying again to determine how you can interest more people from outside of the region in visiting your exhibits. As the Chair has pointed out, essentially this appears to be attracting regional people, which isn't all that bad, but they're not coming in from Saskatchewan in great numbers or Quebec or Port Colborne to visit, it seems, although there may well be some people who, if they happen to be in Sudbury, might do it.

You're looking to a certain extent to be a magnet. Have you given any consideration or done any study as to how you think your attendance would increase if the promise of the Premier to four-lane Highway 69 were to be fulfilled? I won't be alive when they're finished. I've travelled Highway 69, and I know it's a deterrent, if anything: It's a very dangerous highway. There are some sections where you can go off on the side and then race the truck back to the middle and see if you can make it. It's a little bit of a risky proposition.

I say this with a smile on my face, but let's take the Premier's promise out of it and ask, how do you think that would affect your visitorship, if you were to have a four-lane highway from Toronto to Sudbury?

Mr Marchbank: I think it's fair to say that anything that improves the accessibility and increases the safety of getting to Sudbury or any other part of northern Ontario might encourage more people to come.

Mr Bradley: It's more that highway; I know Highway 17 is also important to people in the area, but in terms of strictly this particular operation, one would anticipate that you may have more visitors if they could get there (a) more quickly and (b) more safely. I guess that's a fairly logical conclusion one would come to, but you haven't done any particular studies on that?

Mr Marchbank: We have done no studies on that, no.

Mr Bradley: We're not sitting here with the place packed with news media people, so perhaps this is an easier question for you to answer: How much serious consideration are you giving to discontinuing the operation of the Big Nickel?

Mr Marchbank: We are not. I think it's fair to say that it hasn't been discussed in a board or strategic planning sense, to my recollection, since prior to our 1990 strategic plan, so that would have been the summer of 1989.

I want to be careful that I don't leave you with the wrong impression when I say negative things about the Big Nickel Mine. I mean the negative things and there are weaknesses to it, but at the same time, there are strengths there. One of the strengths is that we have an existing investment in an underground experience that is not available anywhere else, cannot be recreated in the way it exists at our science centre site and does now have a base audience of 60,000 people. If you look at mining-type attractions within Ontario or even elsewhere, 60,000 people is, in relative terms, very high. While I can be critical of its weaknesses, there are strengths, and I guess it's our desire to build on the strengths and to improve the mine, so we have not had any recent discussion of closing it.

It's fair to say that if there isn't funding invested in it -- and we are in fact investing some Jobs Ontario funding in it this winter to do some improvements to it -- I think we have the view, and we came to the conclusion in our 1989 discussions, that if there wasn't significant investment in it and significant improvement to it, we were likely looking at a picture of continuing declines in attendance.

Until this year, that has been our experience for five years. We were able to arrest that decline this year and have a marginal increase, but I still hold the view that if we don't significantly improve the visitor experience at the mine, what we can look forward to is a continual decline in attendance. However, as I indicated to Mr Marchese, it is not a financial drag on the operation, so that can probably be maintained for some time.

Dr Reed: In recollection of committee and board discussions, it's been consistently bruited that we've been concerned not so much with closing the operation as bringing it up to the standard that Science North has elsewhere and expects in each of its exhibits. It's not a case of closing it down that has been uppermost in our minds but how to improve it and how to afford the improvement of it.

Mr Bradley: I drew the conclusion on Monday, though, that if we lived in a world where -- for instance, the Sudbury Memorial Hospital is not going to get an increase next year; it's going to get a zero increase, according to the formula for increases in the regional municipality of Sudbury and so on. If that formula were to be applied and you had to make a choice between the new IMAX theatre, which might be a magnet for people, or putting money into the mine, my understanding was that, given that choice -- you haven't made a decision yet, but certainly a lot of factors point to the IMAX.

Dr Reed: Yes, and I would add that this wouldn't kill our desire to improve the Big Nickel when we're able to.

Mr Bradley: Are there tours of mines that take place in the private sector, the Frood Mine or something like that, where people can go on a tour outside of your operation, that Inco or Falconbridge will take them down a mine, or is that just for visiting politicians?

Dr Reed: I'd be delighted to respond to that question. You're very favoured if you've been down in the mines. Take, for example, the spectacular Sudbury neutrino observatory, which is a very deep, very big hole in the ground, and everybody wants to see this very deep, big hole in the ground.

Mr Bradley: For which they paid millions of dollars, yes.

Dr Reed: At the same time, Inco is understandably interested in pulling rock out and bringing miners down and up in the same shafts the would-be visitors want to use, so it's a very constrained approach to any operating mine, as a result. Therefore, the access that Jim Marchbank has mentioned as being a relatively rare experience of going into this mine, albeit a shallow one, is quite to be valued.

I would also point out that there's another dimension to the Big Nickel Mine; that is, some companies on our doorstep very friendly to the idea of the mining heritage in Sudbury but, as Jim Marchbank pointed out earlier, fairly constrained by their own budgets given the price of nickel at the moment; that, we all hope, will change.

Mr Bradley: Is it the Creighton Mine where they have the neutrinos?

Dr Reed: That's right.

Mr Bradley: So a person can't go down and see these neutrinos.

Dr Reed: You may, but it's going to be very difficult for the general public, very difficult.

Mr Bradley: It was a very interesting project when it came before the previous cabinet to be approved. I found it a very interesting project indeed.

Dr Reed: Could I just mention in connection with the Sudbury neutrino observatory that because of the limitations of access, it's a lovely opportunity for Science North, on the doorstep of that, to try to explain aspects of what the experiment is for and try to have some exchange of data on a real-time basis so that visitors from far and wide can learn more about the very interesting science done on their doorstep.

Jim, you wanted to mention something on this question.

Mr Marchbank: I was just going to be coming back to your previous question about access to private sector facilities. There's no public access underground to the mines. However, part of our operation at the Big Nickel Mine is a summer bus tour called the Path of Discovery, which is supported by Inco Ltd and which is a surface tour of geology and industrial plants that complements the underground experience. That bus gains access to Inco property, where they can see things like the Frood open pit, which is not visible from any public highway, and also go through the base of the superstack, which people are interested in doing, and get into one or two of the plants. It changes, depending on production schedules. We have an association, if you will, with Inco, in cooperation with the mine, that gives people access to some of those facilities.

Mr Bradley: Are you heading to your meeting soon? I'll just ask you another question. Are we safe to say that you have supplanted the slag dump as the number one attraction in Sudbury now in terms of scientific phenomena? That used to be the number one attraction, the slag dump. Anybody who came to Sudbury when I lived there, if they said, "What can we do?" I said, "Well, let's go and watch the slag dump." It was quite a thing to see, this molten stuff going down, if they hadn't seen a thing like that before.

Dr Reed: If I could respond to that, the answer is yes, in spades. On occasion, you can still see the slag dumped in town. You can see it also disguised as a volcano erupting in Shooting Star. I would point out, though, that Sudburians and northern Ontarians are saying to people, "You're in town, you're not interested in doing touristy things, but by God, you've got to see Science North." I think it really is a phenomenon in town, of public recognition, support and pride.

1150

Mr Bradley: It certainly would be good to see more people attracted there from other places. I don't know whether the Ministry of Industry and -- sorry, I'm ahead of myself; I'm waiting for the Premier's shuffle; it's not in with Industry yet -- that the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation will be able to assist more in that regard. I think once people saw Sudbury and what's there -- a lot of people have the old impression of years ago when there was nothing growing around there, before we had the Countdown Acid Rain program. Now that it's green and there are lots of things in Sudbury, Mr Chair, it's a good attraction; I mean, a lot of people could be attracted. To me, this can be the magnet that would pull people who aren't just going to fish and hunt -- that's important -- but people who aren't just going to fish and hunt and enjoy a cottage but want to see other things of a touristy nature in Sudbury. If we could really market that in other parts of Ontario, it seems to me an excellent opportunity for revenue and for people to enjoy something in the province.

Dr Reed: I agree with you that marketing is a very important aspect of Science North's budget each year, with respect to impact on budget. We certainly enjoy cooperation with a number of sources: federal government, provincial government, local tourism operators. We look at cross-selling our own events in combination with others etc. If there are new ways that we haven't tried yet, we'd be delighted to learn of them, and most certainly exercise all the ways we know and can afford and can cajole people into producing for us.

Mr Bradley: Thanks. If other members have -- or do these people have to go to a meeting or something?

The Chair: I think we can still go until noonhour, in any event. Mr Abel.

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Thanks. I had a whole page of questions here, but between Mr Waters and Mr Marchese, they've all been asked, so this is more of a comment than anything else.

The Chair: Mr Abel, let's give you five minutes, how's that? Then we'll break so everyone can catch the Clinton who wants to catch it.

Mr Abel: This was my fourth visit to Sudbury over the years. On Monday, Jim Bradley made the comment that once I got to Sudbury, I'd never want to return to Flamborough. Well, I've enjoyed my visits to Sudbury, but there is no place like home.

I was very impressed with what I saw at Science North. It was my first time there. In fact, the only regret I have is not having my family with me to share the experience. Mr Waters had commented on the accessibility aspect, and that's one thing I'm very aware of. My son was in an accident that left him paralysed from the chest down, so when I go to facilities like this, that's usually the first thing I'm looking for. I couldn't think of anything he wouldn't be able to get at, so with that, I was very impressed.

We have your figures here from the past, the future and projected figures. It would appear that you're doing quite well. Some of the things I saw at the facility, one in particular, trying to balance those 10 spikes on the head of one, I found very fascinating. I'm going to keep working on that and try to perfect that now that I know the secret to doing it; I think I'm going to have to work on that a little bit.

Anyway, I don't want to take up any time for questions, but I'd just like to comment that I'm very impressed with what I saw, and in my opinion, and I know a lot of my colleagues share the opinion, you're doing an excellent job.

Dr Reed: Thank you.

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): I just have one quick question.

The Chair: Okay, go ahead.

Mr Ward: You mentioned your plans to hopefully sell Shooting Star to other countries or interested facilities. You also have another 3-D film, Wilderness. Is that in any way dated? Because I know we talked about bringing that back and showing it and putting Shooting Star on the shelf for a couple of years and then rotating them until financing can be made for possibly a third feature. Have you considered offering the two of them as a package when you're approaching other institutions in different areas to possibly purchase the films?

Dr Reed: Let me just say that I think Wilderness is timeless but has been seen many times by Sudburians, so that component of our market dearly needed a new film. With respect to its reintroduction in Sudbury, after the excitement of Shooting Star and the numbers die down, it will be shown again in Sudbury. Jim, on the other package.

Mr Marchbank: We are indeed packaging them for sale. In the last six months, we've tried to do a couple of direct sales ourselves, which have been unsuccessful, and we've just issued a proposal call to distribute it. We've had some interest from distributors in the big-screen film business in distributing it, and we're waiting for responses to that. But they're very clearly in that proposal call package as the two.

The Chair: As a supplementary on Wilderness, that ties in with my questions earlier about selling services. I was somewhat mystified by your commitment to selling services, but you've had Wilderness around for some time, I gather, a few years, and now you're talking about trying to market it after this period of time.

Mr Marchbank: Again, the selling hasn't been high in our priorities. We know that there's a limited market for 3-D films. We have in fact licensed it to one place, and that was done about four years ago, to a theme park called Parc Astérix, which is built around the French cartoon character Astérix; the theme park is on the outskirts of Paris. The arrangement there didn't bring us any revenue, but we do have rights to any film they produce and, in 3-D purposes, this gets into this co-production idea I was mentioning. So far, they have not produced one. They're one of the potential sites where we were trying to sell Shooting Star. The difficulty, however, is that they feel the storyline can't be made sufficiently comprehensible to a French audience in terms of it being site-specific. The Chair: What's the federal film crown corporation that produces films?

Mr Marchbank: The National Film Board.

The Chair: You talk about doing joint productions or productions with other organizations that are going to have marketing potential. Have you spoken to the National Film Board at all about that sort of thing? Is that feasible?

Mr Marchbank: I have not, but I suspect that a couple of our senior people have. I know they've had conversations about Shooting Star with both the NFB and the Ontario Film Development Corp, but I'm sorry, I'm not up to date on those conversations.

The Chair: I was just wondering how members feel about additional questions this afternoon. Do we feel it's necessary to call our witnesses back? Are we going to have enough questions to occupy their time or should we let them have less pressure this afternoon and not have to return? How do we feel about that?

Mr Marchese: I think we've asked plenty of questions this morning and, through our visit, we got a great deal of the information we needed. I don't think we should have them come back this afternoon.

The Chair: All right. If there's anything further that does arise as a result of our deliberations, we can contact you through our researcher and hopefully get the answers that are required. Thank you very much. Mr Reed, before we close.

Dr Reed: Thank you very much, too. Science North is obviously close to our hearts. It's a centre, we believe, that Ontarians can be proud of, and we hope you're among them. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Reed and Mr Marchbank, for appearing here this morning and coming down from Sudbury. We appreciate it. Before we break, the clerk has something to say.

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lynn Mellor): Tomorrow you'll have to attach your airline stubs to your expense report. So if you left them in your suit from yesterday, bring them with you tomorrow, please.

The Chair: Otherwise you have to pay for it yourself. Adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1159.