Debates of Nov. 2nd, 1999

Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to make a few comments if that is possible.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I have already recognized the hon. member for Surrey Central. I will be very happy to recognize the member afterward.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very interested in participating in this very interesting debate that has been going on here on Bill C-4, a bill committing Canada to implement its obligations for an international space station.

All of us in the House are very proud of the contribution of the Canadian Space Agency. We are very proud of the research and of the Canadian robotic arm. All of us are very proud of the contribution of Julie Payette and other scientists. It is a very interesting bill from one angle. All of us in the official opposition support the broad thrust of the bill. However we do have some reservations and concerns.

We want to ensure that intellectual property rights are protected. If a company is working in space or on the space station, we are concerned about how that intellectual property will be protected. Those issues are not properly addressed in the bill.

All companies that are doing research and development need a long time to do their research. According to the World Trade Organization agreement that was signed by member countries, Canada being one of them, there is a limit of 25 years. I think that is a major concern.

There are some other issues such as whether the scientists and researchers will be getting a fair reward for the innovations they will be making. I am interested in publishing some of my research as well as some of the discoveries and inventions which I have made. I know how important intellectual properties are.

Another concern is whether all the benefits from the space station will be dispersed equally in Canada. We know that $430 million per year will be spent for the Canadian Space Agency that is based in St. Hubert, Quebec. I do not know what contributions or benefits that space agency will create for people in British Columbia or Nova Scotia, whether we will be seeing any benefits or jobs created in other parts of the country, or whether those will be focused only on the main station.

Another area we are concerned about is transparency. When the bill was brought to the House there was absolutely no consultation with parliament and absolutely no input from parliament before the treaty was signed. When the treaty was signed it was brought here to be ratified. We are here to debate and ratify it without making any amendments. That is another major concern.

The other day we all debated the Nisga'a bill in the House. We were not allowed to participate in making any amendments or making any contributions from parliament. That is the kind of transparency we see from the government in the House.

One important point about the space contribution bill we are debating today is regarding the mission of the international space station. It is to enable long term exploration of space and to provide benefits to people on Earth. What we are doing is for the benefit of the people living on Earth. That means that the international space station is all about life on Earth.

Let us talk about life on Earth. Life on Earth is so important that all of us are talking about it. The other day when we debated the Nisga'a bill in the House we saw how the government invoked closure and did not let us raise a voice on it. That is the life we are talking about. That is the lack of understanding we are talking about.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with what we want to debate. We are saying that all Canadians are equal and that all Canadians should be treated equally. Is there anything wrong with that? Absolutely not.

We want to say that there should be a new start for aboriginal people in Canada. We want aboriginal people to be full and equal participants in Canadian society. There is nothing wrong in that. We want aboriginal women to be full and equal partners both on reserve and off reserve. There is nothing wrong in that. We want aboriginal families to be protected by the same law that governs non-aboriginal families. Is there anything wrong in that? There is nothing wrong in that. That is the life in Canada we are talking about.

We want aboriginal people to have the same rights and protections that every Canadian enjoys. We want to eliminate the discriminatory barriers that have widened the gulf between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people for a long long time. We want to ensure that the native governments are fully accountable to grassroots natives. We want to ensure that a bright future is there for all Canadians regardless of the colour of their skin or their origin. Is there anything wrong in that? That is the life in Canada we are talking about. That is the life on this planet we are talking about.

The government members invoked closure on the bill. They did not let us raise our voice. If I look at the record of how debate was shut down in parliament by the Tory government, it took eight years for it to reach the level of 50 closures on debate. It took only five years for the Liberal government to reach the level of 50 closures on debate, up until March 1999.

I do not understand how the government can shut down debate on an important issue. The Nisga'a treaty is the most important treaty the government has signed in this century and it invoked closure on it. It did not let us debate it.

I will quote some important statements made by members on the other side concerning closure when they were the official opposition. When in opposition the current government House leader spoke differently about time allocation. He said: “I am shocked. Perhaps I should not be shocked. This government has used closure on dozens of occasions. This is just terrible. This time we are talking about a major piece of legislation”. He was talking about a particular debate in the House on November 16, 1992. This is recorded in Hansard on page 13,451. He said: “Shame on those Tories across the way”.

That is what the present government House leader said when he was in the official opposition. If I repeat his comments back to him, what would he say now? Is he not ashamed of himself when he invokes time allocation on the debate of these important issues?

Let us talk about another prominent member who is now the foreign affairs minister. He said this in reference to closure in a Toronto Star article on April 1, 1993: “It displays the utter disdain with which the government treats the Canadian people”.

When the present Deputy Speaker was in opposition he said: “The government is using time allocation once again on this bill. Just to remind the House and the Canadian public of the draconian approach this government takes to dealing with legislation in the House, closure has been used 15 times in parliament since—”

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With the greatest of respect for the Chair, I came in here with great interest to hear about the most revolutionary technically advanced project human beings have ever seen. I understand the member tries to draw certain parallels but for the last 10 minutes he has been drawing upon closure as opposed to telling us about this project or some of the concerns he might have.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must remind the hon. member, and I believe the Speaker who was here earlier today used the word ingenuity, to link whatever the member wants to say to the bill now before the House.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am debating the bill before the House, Bill C-4. It is an important bill because we are signing a treaty dealing with the international space station. We want to make sure that we put forward our commitments and meet them.

We had absolutely no input on the treaty. The people of Canada, through their elected representatives, were shut down by the government. That is why I have to talk about it. The Liberals shut down the debate on the Nisga'a treaty which was another important bill. We are dealing with the most important issues of the century and we are not allowed to talk about them. When the treaty was to be debated in the British Columbia legislature, the government did not let the members talk. The NDP rammed the treaty through. That is why we are debating this.

The hon. member who sits on the other side of the House, when his party was in opposition, knew about closure. Why is his party doing it again?

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not want to take the 10 minutes. I will only take two or three minutes.

As a member of parliament who studied and practised in the field of engineering, it is absolutely fantastic that Canada is participating in such a venture. It speaks volumes for the kind of leadership the Department of Industry and its minister have provided in the House, across Canada and on the international scene.

This is a historic moment for all Canadians to see the co-operation between two previous arch enemies, the United States and Russia, as well as Japan and other countries, in order to advance the best interests of mankind and womankind. We should be celebrating. We should be talking about all of the positive things that will come out of such a terrific co-operative approach.

After hearing my colleagues from the opposition speak one after the other, they are in support of the bill because none of them spoke against the bill per se. That is very positive.

My colleague has some concerns about consultation. My understanding is this bill, like every other bill, will go to a committee. At that time anybody can make positive or negative suggestions about the bill. In the same kind of spirit, when the government introduces a bill it receives those recommendations and comments at the committee level, where the proper consultation and discussion will take place.

Frankly, to trash a bill that is an implementation of an agreement between different partners who are going to outer space for the benefit of this planet is highly unfair. It is not serving the purpose of the House.

It is my hope that we will let this bill pass as quickly as possible so we can show our partners how serious we are about ensuring that the best interests of not only our planet, but of outer space are protected.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[An hon. member]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Canadian Tourism Commission Act

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

moved that Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak at second reading on Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission.

The bill before the House builds on success and will ensure the continued high performance of one of the government's most successful initiatives. Bill C-5, an act to make the Canadian Tourism Commission a crown corporation, is a natural and a necessary evolution of the tourism commission.

In 1995 when the commission was first established, the government had very high hopes for it. Those hopes have not only been met, they have been exceeded. On every measure the commission has performed exceptionally well. It is a superb example of the benefits that can result when there is a genuine partnership between government and the private sector.

The commission has developed and sustained effective co-operation among federal, provincial, territorial and business partners. It shows how well national and regional policy objectives can be harmonized with business goals to the benefit of all participants.

Bill C-5 confirms the government's willingness and desire to work in partnership with different sectors of Canadian society and the economy as well. Our government sees the creation of a harmonious co-operative relationship among these partners as an excellent way for us to work together as a nation to address social, cultural and economic issues.

Every member of the House can attest to the fact that every region of our country benefits from tourism. Let me say it has a pan-Canadian flavour and has immediate impact on most of the economies in terms of financial gain from coast to coast to coast, to the northern part of our country and among Canada's first nations people as well.

As well as producing direct local and regional economic benefits, tourism is important to the national economy as a whole. In 1998 it generated more than $19 billion to Canada's GDP. It contributes significantly to employment in parts of the country where other jobs are often scarce. It has come to generate both employment and spin-off economic benefits for first nations people.

Since the industry consists mainly of small and medium size businesses, the legislation will further the government's commitment to encourage the small business sector, entrepreneurial development and of course, job creation. Tourism by and large is an environmentally friendly industry and operates in a manner that is consistent with the government's commitment to a clean and safe environment. An industry that provides so much on so many fronts deserves the attention and support of this parliament.

Today we are at another juncture in the evolution of the course that was set by the Prime Minister and the cabinet in 1995 when the tourism commission was first established. Its current status as a special operating agency of the Department of Industry imposes legal and administrative restrictions which now prevent it from achieving its maximum potential and effectiveness. Establishing the commission as a special operating agency was a necessary first step.

As the country's tourism industry has matured, so has the commission. The time has come for parliament to create a corporation with the authority and the tools at its disposal to be fully responsive to the needs of this diverse growing and dynamic sector of our economy.

Over the past few years it has become apparent that the commission should function as a fully integrated business entity with the capacity to make its own decisions, set its own business priorities and move more quickly to implement them. Making the commission a crown corporation will give it the legal, financial, managerial, administrative and policy-making flexibility it needs to work with its partners more adequately and more efficiently.

Until the creation of the Canadian Tourism Commission, Canadian efforts to market Canada as a tourist destination were fragmented among many players: the federal government, provincial and territorial governments, and the tourism industry itself.

Federal activities were divided among the tourism branch of the Department of Industry, the three regional agencies of Western Economic Diversification, Canada Economic Development for the Regions of Quebec and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

At the request of the Prime Minister in 1994, the Hon. Judd Buchanan studied the industry and its administrative structure. Mr. Buchanan recommended the creation of the commission on which tourism industry leaders as well as senior officials from the federal, provincial and territorial governments would be represented.

Established by order in council, the CTC board was given broad authority to plan, direct, manage and implement programs to generate and promote tourism.

The commission's first business plan recognized the absolute necessity of bringing together the very wide range of the organizations, groups and individuals involved in tourism. The key to success, which has been achieved, was to facilitate partnering and co-ordination among the various stakeholders.

The co-ordination of the various interests was brought about by ensuring that all stakeholders were represented on the board. The CTC then set up a structure of partnering committees. These committees are led by the private sector and are responsible for individual program areas.

There are committees for the Canadian market, the U.S. leisure and travel market, business travel, European, Asia-Pacific and Latin American markets. There is also a committee on products and on research.

The commission's marketing programs include the development and maintenance of data on markets of opportunity, advertising, public relations, promotional projects, media relations, travel trade development and co-operative buy-in initiatives.

In addition, the CTC has a number of industry competitiveness programs. These include industry assessment on the structure and performance of the tourism industry and its subsectors.

As well, the CTC offers program development services such as how-to manuals, seminars, consultations and advice, study and interpretation of developments in the domestic and international markets. Analysis of this information is provided to members of the industry who also receive information on industry activity, revenues, capacity and tourism consumption on specific products and services.

Canadians across the country and members in the House may be asking themselves the question as to why the CTC should be turned into a crown corporation.

I point out to the member, and rightly so because he asked the question, that the commission's work is so closely tied into the private sector that it is necessary for it to be able to operate in a more businesslike way, I emphasize, and that it have the administrative flexibility to function more effectively as a partner.

Its unique public-private collaboration has delivered valuable tourism marketing and information sharing initiatives that have helped rejuvenate the tourism sector and indeed Canada's appeal as a tourism destination.

To respond more adequately to the needs of its private sector partners, the commission now needs the independence of an organization that can operate at arm's length from the government.

Its new structure as a crown corporation will improve the Canadian Tourism Commission's ability to work with the provinces and the tourism ministry and allow it to attract professional staff from the industry.

While an arm's length relationship would be created, members of the House should understand that oversight and the ultimate accountability will rest with the government, as it does with any crown corporation.

Under the bill, the Minister of Industry would have the power of direction and would retain policy responsibility for tourism. Also, the minister would be able to exercise an appropriate degree of influence over the corporation through the annual appropriations process.

In this context, the bill attempts to balance two factors. On the one hand, the agency needs to be, and seen to be, at arm's length from the government. On the other hand, the government's right to insist on meaningful reporting and accountability for the current expenditure of more than $65 million in federal appropriation.

Members should be aware that the proposed legislation ensures, and I emphasize ensures, that the mandate of the new corporation continues to be explicitly focused on research and marketing. The bill also makes it very clear that the corporation would have no power to engage in any tourism development activities.

The prohibition on getting involved in tourism development activities ensures that the corporation does not overstep the jurisdiction of its provincial and territorial government partners.

This prohibition also keeps in the public sector, where it properly belongs, the use of government authority for such things as investment incentives and the managing of infrastructure projects.

The commission's overall operations will continue to be funded through a mix of federal appropriations and spending by other partners. The commission will explore revenue generating opportunities and will receive increased funds year after year from its partners.

As I mentioned earlier, the government currently provides $65 million in appropriations. Contributions from its partners in dollars and services were valued at $85 million in 1998-99. This is another illustration of the success of the commission because the government's original goal over the medium term was to have the commission partners contribute $50 million per year to sustain a joint marketing budget of approximately $100 million.

I want the House to know that the bill is a result of extensive consultation with all the participants, and that includes the staff and unions. With the changeover to crown corporation status, the employees would come under the Canada Labour Code and the corporation would administer its own pension plan.

All of the appropriate measures will be taken to to ensure the transfer the cumulative public service pension contributions by employees who will not be affected negatively in their transfer to the crown corporation.

I also want to assure hon. members that the corporation will be subject to the usual federal statutes such as the Official Languages Act, the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

I should point out that although we are proposing the creation of a new crown corporation, we are not creating a new and large bureaucracy. In fact, the current staff complement of approximately 140 would not change.

Let me take this opportunity to point out the professional and highly dedicated staff that have contributed so significantly to the success of the work of the commission over the last five years.

Since the commission was established, Canada has steadily moved up in the global rankings as a tourism destination, and now ranks eight. The benefits of this increased number of visitors have affected every region of our country, each of which has experienced significant revenue growth over the last five years. In Canada, tourism is definitely considered big business nowadays. It injected more than $47 billion into the economy last year. That is up 7% from 1997.

The industry is also a great job generator. From 1994 to 1998, direct employment in this industry has grown faster than the national average. Some 44,000 direct jobs have been created and the employment of more than 500,000 persons is linked to this specific sector. Forecasts for job growth in this sector are very impressive. Between 120,000 and 130,000 new jobs are expected as a result of tourism between now and the year 2005.

The Canadian Tourism Commission is a success story in every respect. Its current evolution to a crown corporation will strengthen it. If the international tourism industry continues to grow at current rates, Canada's goal to grow with it is very realistic.

Tourism is an industry on the move, both in Canada and around the world. More people than ever before are travelling both domestically and abroad, from affluent baby boomers in North America and Europe to the growing middle classes in developing regions like southeast Asia and Latin America, are spending more money on leisure activities.

In fact, tourism is one of the world's fastest growing industries, accounting for $444 billion U.S. internationally in annual revenues. This figure is expected to grow at an annual rate of 7% over the next five years.

If Canada achieves just a 1% increase in the share of international arrivals, it would mean: 6 million more visitors to Canada; $5 billion more in revenues; and 158,000 new jobs.

Our experience with the commission provides proof that by striking the right public and private balance, government and industry can work together to improve the performance of a sector of our economy. The legislation will allow the commission to really take the reins and move forward with its leadership in Canada's tourism sector.

As members can see, we have a winner on our hands. The bill before us is designed to capitalize on this success and ensure an even greater degree of success of the Canadian Tourism Commission over the long term.

I therefore urge all members of the House to give their enthusiastic support to the legislation and help make Canada a destination of first choice for all travellers. Let us make Canada not only the place to be but the place to visit.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy today to debate Bill C-5, a bill that was first introduced in the last session. It is entitled an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission. If the bill passes it will take the existing Canadian Tourism Commission, which is part of Industry Canada at the moment, and give it crown corporation status.

The question that arises immediately, and I think the parliamentary secretary raised it as well, is whether a crown corporation is necessary for the Canadian Tourism Commission. I will attempt to make the case in my speech that it is not necessary and is more probably a case of empire building than real need.

The first question we have to ask is where is this real need coming from. Who is expressing it? The Canadian Tourism Commission was created in 1995 to promote Canadian tourism. It establishes partnerships with the private sector, the provinces and the federal tourism partners. It uses the money it receives from the various sectors to do research and to market Canada as a travel destination.

The CTC receives an appropriation of approximately $65 million annually. Of that amount, $12 million goes to salaries and overhead and approximately $52 million goes to provide promotion and product development. The industry matches the amount, so that a total of $140 million is spent annually. The CTC has 62 employees in Ottawa.

The CTC has a 26 member decision making board of directors which functions as a special operating agency in delivering the tourism mandate of the federal government. The board of directors is comprised mainly of private sector companies with direct interest in establishing Canada as a preferred tourism destination. My understanding is that the two big proponents of this are the airline industry and the Hotel Association of Canada.

When I received a briefing on the bill from the CTC, I was told the commission wants to become a crown corporation because it feels constrained and cannot operate effectively within the government. It says that it cannot move quickly enough. The parliamentary secretary referred to the fact that because it is operating in a private sector environment maybe it needs to become a crown corporation. I would suggest, if that is the case, that maybe it should just be in the private sector.

My experience with crown corporations since coming here in 1993 is that they can get away with a lot, but I did not realize, and still do not realize, that they can actually move more quickly. I do not think that is the case. I think they are more bureaucratic.

The Reform Party has a problem with crown corporations in general. We believe that the ownership and control of corporations should be placed in the sector that can perform the task most cost effectively, with the greatest accountability to the owners and the least likelihood of incurring public debt. We believe there is overwhelming evidence that this would be the private sector in the vast majority of cases. Therefore, we believe that many of them should be either privatized or go back to the departments which spawned them originally. This particular one wants to spawn out of the Department of Industry and become a crown corporation.

We have seen the privatization of a number of crown corporations in the past, including CN Rail, Air Canada, Petro-Canada and many others. Quite frankly, I do not think that the public has noticed that there is any huge problem with those privatizations. CN Rail used to lose about $2 billion or $3 billion a year on average and was a drain on the public treasury. A crown corporation that contributed to the national debt of some $575 billion that we still have is now doing very well in the private sector. We hear about the merging of two airlines, and they are also making money. PetroCan, no longer constrained by being an agency of government, is also doing a lot of work and doing well at the oil field in Hibernia.

There is no good reason to have crown corporations. They should be converted to private sector institutions or left with the department they are currently in so we would have better accountability to parliament.

We will be opposing this bill. We feel there is no good reason to give the Canadian Tourism Commission crown corporation status.

Recently the Department of Industry issued a paper which supports the rapid divestiture of crown assets. This makes me wonder why the department is sponsoring this bill in the first place. It seems to be in direct contradiction to the way the Department of Industry is going.

I refer listeners to a paper entitled “Canada in the 21st Century—Institutions and Growth—Framework Policy as a Tool of Competitive Advantage for Canada” by Ronald Daniels of the University of Toronto. The author argues that a key component of competitive policy and institutional environment is the minimization of state ownership in a productive sector of the economy. Is that not a direct contradiction to what the government wants to do with this tourism agency by turning it into a crown corporation?

In comparison to other OECD countries, Canada has had historically high levels of state ownership. I know this goes back a few years, but I think it is still very relevant. In 1986 the Economic Council of Canada reported that government-owned and controlled companies accounted for 26% of the net fixed assets of all Canadian corporations in 1983. Yet, these firms accounted for less than 5% of the total employment of the country. That does not say very much for the employment creation capabilities of government-owned companies.

Crown corporations are often unaccountable. My experience since 1993, being the critic for our party for international trade and having to deal with the Export Development Corporation, for example, has not been good. I would suggest they have been basically bad experiences. I feel that accountability is simply not there.

Whenever we try to get information about how taxpayers' money is being spent we get the runaround. It is a vicious circle. If we ask the minister, he says that the entity is at arm's length from him. He is not responsible. If we try to go to the crown corporation, it will plead that the confidentiality of its private or commercial stakeholders will be compromised if specific monetary information is released. Getting information from crown corporations ends up being an exercise in futility. I suggest this would be no different. There is no reason to believe it would be different.

As a division within Industry Canada, the CTC is accountable directly to the minister and the minister is accountable to parliament. That is the way it should be. Either that or the commission should be privatized. It should not become a crown corporation.

I also suspect that the cost of running the CTC as a crown corporation is going to be higher than it is now. The briefing I received suggested that moving the operation to Toronto is a possibility. I can just picture it. Instead of taking up a floor in the C.D. Howe Building at Industry Canada, which is across the street, the commission will need some prominent downtown real estate in Toronto at top dollar.

Salaries will have to go up. To buy a house in Toronto costs twice as much as anywhere else, and then there is the matter of moving and relocating costs for 62 people. It is empire building and it certainly will not be cheap. I am sure the emotional cost to all families involved will also be a problem.

I suggest that empire building is what tends to happen within crown corporations. In my view and in the view of our party we should be getting rid of the few crown corporations that are left rather than adding more.

Tourism is a very important industry. Canada is a spectacular tourist destination and the Reform Party believes that we should promote Canada as a travel destination. Tourism is a big industry for Canada.

A trip through Jasper or Banff national parks in my home province of Alberta in the summertime, or anytime for that matter, is an experience in itself.

They are very busy areas. It is hard to get hotel rooms. People from all over the country want to come to visit the majesty that is ours.

In fact Canada is the 12th largest tourist destination. Last year tourism generated jobs at twice the pace of most Canadian businesses. It also generated $44 billion in revenue for the Canadian economy.

A press release issued by the CTC states that international travel numbers for the first three months of 1999 indicate that this year may well be another record-breaking year for the Canadian tourism industry. Compared with the same period in 1998, international tourists have made 11% more trips to Canada of more than one night's stay.

I suggest that the low Canadian dollar is probably responsible for a big part of that, but we need all the help we can get to balance the service sector because a lot of Canadians also travel outside Canada, especially in the winter months when the snowbirds head to Florida and Arizona. However, I am happy to report that there are a lot of tourists coming to Canada, for whatever reason.

It is clear that Canada needs tourism and that we should market our wonderful country abroad, but it is not clear that we need a crown corporation to carry out that activity. Therefore, my colleagues and I in the Reform Party will be voting against this bill. We will be voting for Canada as a tourist destination. We see no compelling need for a crown corporation.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to confirm that tomorrow will be the fifth appointed day for the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canadian Tourism Commission Act

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is now my turn to speak to Bill C-5. I do not think I will have time to finish before members are called in for the vote, but I would like to say that the Bloc Quebecois, for different reasons from those of the Reform Party—and I think the Reform Party will probably vote against this bill unless things change during consideration in committee—will vote against this bill. I will try to explain our reasons for opposing it.

Before explaining our position, I would like to draw a comparison with other bills now before the House—the first one that comes to mind is the one on the airline industry.

Often the government decides to indicate a direction without even legislating. In other cases, as we saw this morning, the House is not consulted until many years later, sometimes after an international treaty had been signed.

So that people are very clear, in this case, the Canadian Tourism Commission—because there is one—was established in 1995, and the purpose of this bill is to consolidate, as it were, something that already exists, something that was established by ministerial order a few years back.

It is an odd way of going about things to ask us to pass legislation after a number of things have already been done with respect to tourism. The question that comes to mind is this: why on earth use a bill now to create this crown corporation in order to make official what already exists?

If we look at the bill and examine the difference between the mandate the government wants to give the future Canadian Tourism Commission and the mandate of the former Canadian Tourism Commission, it becomes clear that this is a visibility operation. It is an opportunity for the government to promote Canadian unity by talking about Canadian unity and the integrity of Canada.

The mission of the previous commission was clear. It was short, but it was clear. The mission statement read “Canada's tourism industry will deliver world-class cultural and leisure experiences year-round, while preserving and sharing Canada's clean, safe and natural environments. The industry will be guided by the values of respect, integrity and empathy”.

There was also mention of promoting the growth and profitability of the Canadian tourist industry. That makes sense, since we are talking about promoting tourism.

What is the mission of the new commission? The bill says it all. It reads:

Whereas the Canadian tourism industry is vital to the social and cultural identify and integrity of Canada;

Terrific. There is a huge difference. There is no more talk of promoting tourism or organizing activities. There is nothing of the sort. There is no talk of profitability either.

A little further along, it reads:

Whereas it is desirable to strengthen Canada's commitment to Canadian tourism by establishing a Tourism Commission that would work with the governments of the provinces and the territories and the Canadian tourism industry to promote the interests of that industry and to market Canada as a desirable tourist destination—

We will recall the first paragraph, which provides:

Whereas the Canadian tourism industry is vital to the social and cultural identity and integrity of Canada;

The government is going to use tourism for political ends, to make political propaganda. That is the intent of this bill. It is consistent with a certain view. We can see the reactions of the Liberal members opposite. They are beginning to get it.

My Reform colleague spoke a bit about this government's approach. It creates government agencies to control the information it intends to give us elected representatives. We have a mandate here in the House to question the Minister of Industry, who will be responsible for this commission.

We can guess in advance what the answer will be. The minister will say “This commission must report to me. Unfortunately, before we can answer your question, you must wait for the end of the fiscal year, in a few months, after the commission has tabled its annual report. I encourage you to contact the commission directly. Perhaps it will supply you with some answers”.

We are familiar with this kind of commission. As soon as economic activity is involved, the answer is “Given the commercial aspect, it may be our duty not to disclose all the findings of marketing and feasibility studies and so on”.

Quite naturally, this commission will hide behind the secrecy relating to commercial practices. We are familiar with that. It has been going on as long as we have had this government, and the Department of Industry specializes in it.

There are grounds for concern. We are not always in agreement with the Reformers, even if we share the same side of the House. We are in agreement with them on this, however. We are concerned about this, and rightly so.

The are other examples. The millennium scholarship foundation is not over with yet. When the government cannot do what it wants directly, when it wants to interfere in provincial jurisdictions, then it sets up an agency, a foundation, to try and give scholarships directly to students. For what purpose? To hand out nice cheques with a maple leaf on them, to mark the millennium. We must never forget that maple leaf. People need to know that the money came from the federal government. That is one of the goals: visibility, seeking a high profile.

The government also created the society for health research and innovation. Same thing again. Health is a provincial jurisdiction. Because it cannot interfere too directly, the federal government does so through a foundation.

The universities, which normally come under provincial jurisdiction, are invited to apply for subsidies. Once again, the government is doing indirectly what it cannot do directly. More and more, it is interfering in provincial jurisdictions. Why? Because the government is looking for visibility.

The Minister of Finance has confirmed that he has even more money than he thought he would. Money is flowing in from everywhere and has to be distributed. If only this money could be returned to the provinces through transfer payments. This is how it could be done. No; the government continues to cut, or maintain cuts—it is all in the wording and is developing new programs. This bill is more of the same.

While the government is trying to replace the old commission with a new one, with a stronger mandate for purposes of visibility and political propaganda, what is it doing? It is taking back money earmarked—I am not inventing this, it is to be found in the budget—for a subsidiary tourism agreement with the Government of Quebec. The amount involved is $700,000. This year, not a red cent is earmarked for that agreement; everything has been cut. Why? Beacause the Minister of Industry, through the minister responsible for economic development for the Quebec regions, told the House that the federal government had its own strategy.

Now we can understand better why it does not want to reach an agreement with the Government of Quebec on tourism. It wants to keep the money and spend it itself. Why? To improve its visibility. The same old story.

And are we sure that the money the new Canadian Tourism Commission might distribute will be consistent with the strategic plans approved by regional stakeholders in Quebec, for example by regional development councils, by local development councils, by regional tourism associations? No.

The member for Jonquière was talking about this very issue; it is the same in her riding. The member for Louis-Hébert has run into the same problem. The dreadful to-do over the aquarium at the Charlesbourg zoo is common knowledge. We are told that they cannot get involved in that. Yet this is a priority clearly expressed by the people in that region. So the question is “Is the aquarium in Quebec City really international?”. Well, I have seen international projects, and I will give an example of one.

I have nothing against the people in Gatineau, who have a fine hot air balloon festival, but an argument for the federal government's giving more in the area of tourism is an opportunity to fly the federal balloon. And it is not far, just in Gatineau. They cross the Ottawa river and reach Ottawa. So it goes beyond Quebec's jurisdictions and therefore money can go to it because the Canadian maple leaf can be seen floating in the air, and suddenly the thing becomes an international event.

You think I am joking? This is very serious. In the activity report of the former Canadian tourism commission, in an effort to get more federal government money, there was a place where they reported having stylized the fine federal maple leaf and that it had been flown as many times as possible and that, with a little more money, it could be flown even more.

Visibility is what this is about. The government is seeking visibility. But there are other aspects of this bill that concern us. It talks of 26 directors. That is quite a lot of people. When we look at the representation decided upon for the provinces, out of the seven board members, there is only one representing Quebec. For the private sector, the same distribution: seven people, just one for Quebec.

Finally, in the sector not associated with the government or designated by the minister, still only one person. Out of 26, three will be officially designated by Quebec stakeholders or by the Government of Quebec.

This is pretty far away from the concept of two founding peoples. Granted, in 1867, Quebec accounted for about 50% of the Canadian population, and now only about 24%. Normally, we ought to expect to have about a 25% representation still. And twenty-six divided by four is at least six, if we drop the decimals. But we are down to three, and even these three are not a certainty, because at least one of the three is to be appointed directly by the minister. It is highly unlikely that person would be a friend of the Quebec sovereignist regime.

We cannot be opposed to the idea of a Canadian Tourism Commission. What is tourism? I have looked in various dictionaries, and it boils down to an activity with an economic, a commercial, tinge. In the Constitution—which I look at far more often than the little catechism book my mother left to me—it is stated that all commercial activity is a provincial jurisdiction.

I can understand that sometimes a commercial activity can be interprovincial. I can understand outside promotion. But there are organizations that already do that very well. There is a commission that spends a great deal of money on that.

Once again—and I will conclude on this because time is passing and I know people want to vote, because Tuesday is voting day—the fundamental goal of this government in this bill is, yet again, to seek out visibility.

On the subject of identity, what government is in a better position to promote Quebec's cultural tourist events, such as the festivals in Montreal, the Festival de Jazz, the Festival de l'humour, the Festival d'été de Québec—

[An hon. member]

The Festival mondial de la culture.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

The Festival mondial de la culture and so forth. Which government is in a better position to support these activities?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

My colleagues are giving me a number of examples, clearly the festivals are expanding. In Quebec, we want to promote our cultural identity through tourism. Education and culture are important for Quebec. Why not let Quebec try its luck in this regard? Instead, as I said earlier, the federal government cuts funds to the Government of Quebec in subsidiary agreements, and creates a new agency.

The minister looks very relaxed. He is reading documents, perhaps his paper. He will wash his hands of it when a member from Quebec puts questions to him, saying “You know, it is the commission we created”.

We will watch this closely, obviously, on the Standing Committee on Industry, which I sit on. We have many questions: How will it operate? Who will really make appointments? Will there be consultation with the provinces, and what form will it take, because this is a very important sector, representing $44 billion in economic activity?

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

We are not talking peanuts.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

We are not talking peanuts, as the member for Louis-Hébert has pointed out. She is right.

The Progressive Conservative member for Chicoutimi surely agrees with me that tourism is very important for Quebec, including in his region.

It is so important that we want to run it our way. But it is not too clear whether Quebec will really have a say, because its participation will be reduced to a minimum. Obviously, we are going to try to negotiate improvements.

That is all I had to say today. I will hold a longer speech for when we return after committee study, unless there is a miracle and the government occasionally dares to accept amendments moved by the opposition parties, whether the Bloc Quebecois, the Progressive Conservative Party or the Reform Party, to improve this bill. But this government has a lot of trouble with this members need only remember the case of shipbuilding, when it did not let even one comma be changed. The minister said he could not do it.

It is very difficult to get the government to change its mind, even with 160,000 postcards asking it to do something to help the shipbuilding sector. This government is convinced that it must always be right about everything, on every occasion and in every setting, and especially in this parliament. Nevertheless, we will continue to remain optimistic and try to get the government to change its mind, at least on the issue of tourism, for the good of this important economic sector.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, as tourism spokesperson for the the New Democratic Party I am very pleased to rise in the House this evening to speak to Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission. I note that we may have only four or five minutes before I can resume my debate tomorrow.

I will start off by talking to members present and to the folks watching at home about how important tourism is to our country and how necessary it is for Canadians to understand that this is an industry which employees literally tens of thousands of individuals and families.

The Canadian Tourism Commission was actually founded in 1992 after an extensive consultation with the tourism industry. However, because it was desirable at the time to get it up and running quickly, both government and industry agreed that the Canadian Tourism Commission should be created as a special operational agency rather than a crown corporation. A special operational agency is bureaucratise for all the responsibility but none of the authority.

The Canadian Tourism Commission, the CTC, was responsible for running the programs, but the deputy minister of tourism was responsible for the administration. Basically marketing operations had to sit around for months and go through the federal bureaucratic sign-off process of 13 signatures, or thereabouts, by which time circumstances had almost always changed.

We could just see the potential for problems because government contract issuance processes are painfully slow for a fast moving industry like tourism, like waiting a year to improve an advertising contract for an Asian-Pacific campaign and meanwhile the Asian economies go into the tank. Then we have to look for new sources of visitors, but it takes another year to approve the marketing plan for that.

It is a very bureaucratic system. I not suggesting it was a failure, but it was a very slow process. When someone is in business as I have been in business, decisions have to be made on a moment's notice after looking at all the inputs that are very necessary.

I notice that it is almost 6.30 p.m. and almost time to call the vote. With your permission I will resume the debate at a later time.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member will have approximately 18 minutes when we resume debate.